Note the bottom of the image. Yep. She lent herself 6.4 million last month to stay afloat on the heels of the disclosures that her campaign was deep in debt. This on top of a 5 million loan before that.
She's done. I seriously doubt her performance last night is inspiring anyone, save MEM to donate more money to her. And the big donors who her campaign relied on are all tapped out already. It's just going to peter out from here on in, financially for her.
All Obama needs to generate money is to basically ask for another round of 10-20 dollar small donations from his supporters and it's as if it's falling from the sky. Yet we're still treated to incessant spin about how he's the weaker candidate, how he can't close the deal, as if Hilary closed anything last night, and how he's damaged goods, never mind that it's Hillary doing all the damaging. And despite the damaging,arguably the worst of his campaign, he still manages to score an impressive win and outdo Hillary Clinton. So who's unable to close the deal?
Obama should just be gracious now and give her Florida and split Michigan. It's not as if it's going to help Hillary anyway. But maybe with that, she'll finally go away and stop being an incessant nuisance.
"Absent some sort of miracle on May 31st, it's going to be tough for us," said a senior Clinton official who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to be frank. "We lost this thing in February. We're doing everything we can now . . . but it's just an uphill battle."
As voters went to the polls yesterday, Clinton tried to recast the terms of the race, telling reporters that the number of delegates needed to win is "2,209," rather than the 2,025 needed without Michigan and Florida.
I'm curious as to whether the Clinton camp is going to continue with their new math considering that now Florida and Michigan don't make a lick of difference. She can't fall back on the popular vote argument. Never mind that the nominee isn't picked that way., The suerdelegates will now start to swing decisively to Obama. So what other rule can she rewrite? Short of pushing Obama into her sniper fire, she's over.
Wesley Clark, a Clinton supporter has also reportedly called Hillary telling her it's over.
Russert on MSNBC: “We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be, and no one is going to dispute it.”
NY Times’ Nagourney: “If anything, Mrs. Clinton’s options for overtaking Senator Barack Obama may have dwindled further.”
TIME’s Michael Scherer: “Clinton ended the night no closer to winning the nomination than when she began the day - in fact, she emerged an even bigger mathematical long-shot…”
LA Times’ Wallsten: “Clinton is preparing to push the contest beyond the voting phase of the process and into the realm of committee meetings and credentialing rules…”
Plus: WashPost quoting “senior Clinton official”: “Absent some sort of miracle on May 31st, it’s going to be tough for us. We lost this thing in February. We’re doing everything we can now . . . but it’s just an uphill battle.”
..but Bill and Chelsea's faces last night told the tale more forcefully than any of that. I half expected Chelsea to cry.
I didn't know that Tim Russert was anything other than a talking head. Somebody should inform him that it takes a certain amount of delegates to win the nomination. Obama wasn't strong enough to do that & so like Hillary, now has to depend on the supers to pick. Lets see what the rest of the states have to say.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama has won the endorsement of four new superdelegates helping push him toward the Democratic presidential nomination, including a backer of rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The support comes the day after Obama's victory in North Carolina and closer than expected finish behind Clinton in Indiana.
Among the supporters is Virginia's Jennifer McClellan, who used to support Clinton.
The Obama campaign announced three other supporters — North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek, North Carolina Democratic National Committee member Jeanette Council, and California DNC member Inola Henry.
Clinton picked up another delegate in Rep. Heath Shule, who said he would support whoever won his district in North Carolina.
I want to see her hunched over one more time clapping to her audience so they can half heartedly follow along and hear her shriek about momentum and electability. It'll probably be to a half empty room now.
Well I think it's pretty safe to say Hillary won't be dropping out right after she won Indiana, nor should she. We have a process in place meant to pick the strongest candidate. When it's a case that Hillary needs to drop out to help prop up Obama- there's a problem. Hopefully the supers will let the remaining contests play out & then make their decisions.
Watch this video of Hillary today. It's petulant, arrogant, whiny, and just overall makes her look like a spoiled and entitled brat. She is looking and acting and sounding like one of her pushy surrogates, not like a presidential candidate. Whining about how you should have won it already is something your staff says - if at all - not you. Seriously, look at her face, listen to the tone of her voice, and look at her body language. I think this is going to turn a lot of people off. The sooner this arrogant bitch is shown the door, the happier all Democrats will ultimately be.
Oh, and one more thing. It's been clear from the beginning that someone forget to tell Hillary, "we're not Republicans."
Oh, and MEM, your fellow gays just unendorsed Hillary. They just called on Hillary to give it up, after previously endorsing her. Even a diva can grate on people when she's a petulant loser.
CLINTON STRATEGIST TO CLINTON: IT'S OVER!!!!!!!!!!
One key factor in a race being over is the candidate stops winning. That hasn't happened yet. In fact after Obama's winning streak was broken Hillary has racked up some of her biggest wins. And if you start looking at the electoral college for an upcoming general election Obama doesn't look so hot.
Hillary Clinton, 60, Illinois native and Arkansas lawyer, became, retroactively, a life-long Yankee fan at age 52 when, shopping for a Senate seat, she adopted New York as home sweet home. She may think, or at least argue, that when she was 12 her Yankees really won the 1960 World Series, by standards of "fairness," because they trounced the Pirates in runs scored, 55-27, over seven games, so there.
Unfortunately, baseball's rules - pesky nuisances, rules - say it matters how runs are distributed during a World Series. The Pirates won four games, which is the point of the exercise, by a total margin of seven runs, while the Yankees were winning three by a total of 35 runs. You can look it up.
After Tuesday's split decisions in Indiana and North Caro- lina, Clinton, the Yankee Clipperette, can, and hence eventually will, creatively argue that she is really ahead of Barack Obama - or at any rate she is sort of tied, mathematically or morally or something, in popular votes, or delegates, or some combination of the two, as determined by Fermat's Last Theorem, or something, in states whose names begin with vowels, or maybe consonants, or perhaps some mixture of the two as determined by listening to "Help Me, Rhonda" played backward or whatever other formula is most helpful to her, and counting the votes she received in Michigan, where hers was the only name on the ballot (her rivals, quaintly obeying their party's rules, boycotted the state, which had violated party rules for scheduling primaries), and counting the votes she received in Florida, which, like Michigan, was a scofflaw and where no one campaigned, and dividing Obama's delegate advantage in caucus states by pi multiplied by the square root of Yankee Stadium's ZIP code.
"We," says Geoff Garin, a Clinton strategist who possesses the audacity of hopelessness required in that role, "don't think this is just going to be about some numerical metric."
I wonder what happens if Hillary beats Obama in the next state & the state after that? Perception plays a big part & she has some upcoming contests that look good for her. She has a tough road ahead but considering all the loud proclamations that she's done, well it comes off as "protesting to much".
Pelosi said Wednesday the Democratic race should continue.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Wednesday the Democratic presidential race is not over yet and that it is still possible for Senator Hillary Clinton to win.
“I think the race is alive and well and will continue,” Pelosi said during a news conference to promote Democratic energy proposals.
Pelosi, who has repeatedly said she remains neutral in the Democrats’ nomination battle, was asked whether Clinton's slim margin of victory in Indiana meant her campaign was finished.
"A win is a win. A win is a win. Let's just call it what it is," Pelosi said.
"I believe the races must continue. The people should all have the opportunity to speak as long as two candidates wish to compete in those primaries and caucuses. In a few weeks we will be on our way to nominating the next President of the United States," she said. ...
For all her talk about "full speed on to the White House," there was an unmistakably elegiac tone to Hillary Clinton's primary-night speech in Indianapolis. And if one needed further confirmation that the undaunted, never-say-die Clintons realize their bid might be at an end, all it took was a look at the wistful faces of the husband and the daughter who stood behind the candidate as she talked of all the people she has met in a journey "that has been a blessing for me."
It was also a journey she had begun with what appeared to be insurmountable advantages, which evaporated one by one as the campaign dragged on far longer than anyone could have anticipated. She made at least five big mistakes, each of which compounded the others:
1. She misjudged the mood
That was probably her biggest blunder. In a cycle that has been all about change, Clinton chose an incumbent's strategy, running on experience, preparedness, inevitability - and the power of the strongest brand name in Democratic politics. It made sense, given who she is and the additional doubts that some voters might have about making a woman Commander in Chief. But in putting her focus on positioning herself to win the general election in November, Clinton completely misread the mood of Democratic-primary voters, who were desperate to turn the page. "Being the consummate Washington insider is not where you want to be in a year when people want change," says Barack Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. Clinton's "initial strategic positioning was wrong and kind of played into our hands." But other miscalculations made it worse:
2. She didn't master the rules
Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified - and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign now acknowledges privately:
3. She underestimated the caucus states
While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing." Her core supporters - women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs - were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires. But it was a little like unilateral disarmament in states worth 12% of the pledged delegates. Indeed, it was in the caucus states that Obama piled up his lead among pledged delegates. "For all the talent and the money they had over there," says Axelrod, "they - bewilderingly - seemed to have little understanding for the caucuses and how important they would become."
By the time Clinton's lieutenants realized the grave nature of their error, they lacked the resources to do anything about it - in part because:
4. She relied on old money
For a decade or more, the Clintons set the standard for political fund-raising in the Democratic Party, and nearly all Bill's old donors had re-upped for Hillary's bid. Her 2006 Senate campaign had raised an astonishing $51.6 million against token opposition, in what everyone assumed was merely a dry run for a far bigger contest. But something had happened to fund-raising that Team Clinton didn't fully grasp: the Internet. Though Clinton's totals from working the shrimp-cocktail circuit remained impressive by every historic measure, her donors were typically big-check writers. And once they had ponied up the $2,300 allowed by law, they were forbidden to give more. The once bottomless Clinton well was drying up.
Obama relied instead on a different model: the 800,000-plus people who had signed up on his website and could continue sending money his way $5, $10 and $50 at a time. (The campaign has raised more than $100 million online, better than half its total.) Meanwhile, the Clintons were forced to tap the $100 million - plus fortune they had acquired since he left the White House - first for $5 million in January to make it to Super Tuesday and then $6.4 million to get her through Indiana and North Carolina. And that reflects one final mistake:
5. She never counted on a long haul
Clinton's strategy had been premised on delivering a knockout blow early. If she could win Iowa, she believed, the race would be over. Clinton spent lavishly there yet finished a disappointing third. What surprised the Obama forces was how long it took her campaign to retool. She fought him to a tie in the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests but didn't have any troops in place for the states that followed. Obama, on the other hand, was a train running hard on two or three tracks. Whatever the Chicago headquarters was unveiling to win immediate contests, it always had a separate operation setting up organizations in the states that were next. As far back as Feb. 21, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was spotted in Raleigh, N.C. He told the News & Observer that the state's primary, then more than 10 weeks away, "could end up being very important in the nomination fight." At the time, the idea seemed laughable.
Now, of course, the question seems not whether Clinton will exit the race but when. She continues to load her schedule with campaign stops, even as calls for her to concede grow louder. But the voice she is listening to now is the one inside her head, explains a longtime aide. Clinton's calculation is as much about history as it is about politics. As the first woman to have come this far, Clinton has told those close to her, she wants people who invested their hopes in her to see that she has given it her best. And then? As she said in Indianapolis, "No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." When the task at hand is healing divisions in the Democratic Party, the loser can have as much influence as the winner.
Rex, this is the second time you asked me about jerking off to something. If anyone is fixated on anything, it's you, fixated on masturbation.
Some of us do quite well with members of the opposite sex. thank you very much.
Now if we're done with Rex's kinks and MisterJLA's return to the Politics board to do the whole cheerleader thing again, The LA Times editors called it for Hillary. I'm sure there will be a LOT more of these around the country this week. And I suspect now that it's beyond impossible for Hillary to win, the fact that she's such a poor loser will start turning off more and more of her supporters and independents.
Oh, and Obama picked up another superdelegate a few minutes ago.
Clinton has campaigned admirably, but simple math and political realities dictate she can't win.
May 8, 2008
Hillary Rodham Clinton has run a long and admirable campaign for president of the United States. The prospect of her presidency has energized voters, particularly but not exclusively women, and offered working people a champion for their cause in this time of economic malaise. She has demonstrated resolve and character. And yet, she has lost.
We do not venture that observation because we're dismayed by the wrangling on the Democratic side of this contest. Elections are made to be won, not forfeited, and Barack Obama should not become the Democratic nominee because no one tried to stop him, but because he persuaded voters that he was the best candidate. Besides, we like wrangling. Rather, we note that Clinton's campaign is over because, as of this week, the voters have made their preference clear. It is, for the majority of Democrats in the majority of states -- as well as for the majority of delegates in those states -- Obama. Even if Clinton were to win every remaining state by a comfortable margin, she could not amass enough delegates before the convention to pass Obama.
Still, it's fair to ask whether there's any harm in continuing. The answer is yes, and not just for Democrats. In part because Obama and Clinton are so close on the major issues and because the campaign has gone on so long, the Democratic debate has exhausted large topics and slid from the essential to the picayune, with skirmishing over lapel pins and pandering over gas taxes. This, while our housing markets are in collapse, while one war rages in Iraq and another in Afghanistan, while the future of the Supreme Court and civil liberties hang in the balance. The end of the Democratic primaries and the commencement of the general election may return the campaign to a higher level. There, the sharp contrast between Obama's ideas and those of John McCain will allow voters to imagine the alternative futures these two exciting leaders propose.
With the electoral math against her, Clinton is left with just two arguments for her viability, neither of them good. The first is that delegates from Florida and Michigan should be counted. They should not. Those states violated party rules by moving up their primaries, and the candidates agreed not to contest them. To seat those delegates would clearly change the rules in mid-game. Her second appeal is to the party's superdelegates, urging them to overrule the will of voters and to back her instead. On that point, we agree that superdelegates should vote their conscience, but to do so in such a way as to deny the nomination of the first serious African American candidate in history on behalf of one who has shown no greater appeal to voters would be politically dangerous folly.
Stripped of those two bad arguments, Clinton has none left to make. She has run a fine race, but she has lost.
And I have to disagree with the Times two arguments that Hilary has. First, as we've discussed already, even if you seat Florida and Michigan, It still makes no difference. So scratch that argument.
Second, the superdelegates. They're already tricking over to Obama and that will only increase now that Hillary is done and more importantly, broke. So while it's remotely possible, i don't buy it, so I'll count it as half an argument.
Today, the Associated Press explained the state of the Democratic race for President:
Quote:
Nonetheless, Tuesday's results drastically reshaped the dynamic of the campaign, positioning Obama as the all-but-certain nominee and casting Clinton as a dogged but deluded also-ran.
and she's still trying to make the argument that if she does well in a state where she's been expected to do well, it proves something...
Oh yeah, and the Puerto Rico primaries and the number of voters there, added to the popular vote count will somehow prove that she's more electable in the general election, never mind that Puerto Rican's can't vote in presidential elections.
Now, faced with a mathematical mountain climb that even Stephen Hawking could not ascend, the Clintons -- and it is indeed both of them -- are just about to paste a bumper sticker on the rear of the collapsing vehicle that carries her campaign. It reads: VOTE WHITE.
I figured as she's breathing her last campaign gasps, she'd resort to what she's really thinking.
Wasn't Obama expected to do well in North Carolina? He had almost a 20 point lead in the polls for quite some time. You may have noticed Whomod but the rest of the supers haven't all gone over to Obama. Why? Because it's not over. He lost key primary swing states & there hasn't been much to show that he can win them in a general election campaign against McCain. My guess is if Obama does eventually really win the nomination of the 48 states allowed, we'll be hearing alot about McCain democrats in the years ahead.
Today, the Associated Press explained the state of the Democratic race for President:
Quote:
Nonetheless, Tuesday's results drastically reshaped the dynamic of the campaign, positioning Obama as the all-but-certain nominee and casting Clinton as a dogged but deluded also-ran.
I can't say I disagree with the AP's editorializing but this article points out a common problem I have with the AP's "news," namely that it is editorializing.
Shouldn't one of, if not the, biggest news syndicates in the nation, supplying content to most news organizations, from Gannett to Fox to your local paper, be sticking to facts, not "analysis"?
The editorilizing really belongs in the opinion section of the paper or be labeled as such. As it is, Hillary has a good shot at some wins in the upcoming contests & with the facts being skewed to make it look like it's over might affect the outcomes.
Hillary Rodham Clinton played the race card yesterday as she dismissed Barack Obama as a candidate who will have a hard time winning support from "white Americans."
It was the most starkly racial comment Clinton has made in the campaign, and drew quick condemnation from some Democrats.
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she told USA Today in an interview published yesterday.
She referred to an Associated Press story on Indiana and North Carolina exit polls "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
She added, "There's a pattern emerging here."
Clinton's "white Americans" remark drew a swift rebuke from some superdelegates, and private dismay from several Democrats concerned about reuniting the factionalized party.
Muriel Offerman, a North Carolina superdelegate who has not disclosed her choice, said, "That should not have been said. I think it drives a wedge, a racial wedge, and that's not what the Democratic Party's about."
Asked about Clinton's comments, Massachusetts superdelegate Debra Kozikowsi said, "That's distressing. I'm not even sure how to respond to that."
There's an article in a danish newspaper today about who is going to have the guts to tell Hillary that it's over, that her campaign have basically failed and that she's not going to be "El Presidente"
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
The problem is Hillary is right & is just stating the obvious. Obama wasn't able to win key swing states & voters that he'll need to win in a general. If the party is really interested in picking the candidate who has the best shot, it's something that needs to be looked at. I suppose my party will probably end up pretending that even though Obama outspent Hillary in states like PA & had plenty of time to win those votes that it doesn't matter because he has a padded pledged delegate lead with wins in red states that won't be wins in a general election.
I'm trying to wrap my brain around what your reaction would have been if, hypothetically, Obama had said that "male Americans" wouldn't vote for Hillary. I have a feeling that it would very different even if Obama's statement was accurate.
You may have noticed Whomod but the rest of the supers haven't all gone over to Obama. Why? Because it's not over. .
*ahem*
Quote:
Rasmussen Reports has been tracking the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination daily for nineteen months...
However, while Senator Clinton has remained close and competitive in every meaningful measure, she is a close second and the race is over. It has become clear that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. [...]
With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama.
It's almost sad. it's still a bit funny and somewhat frustrating that this diva can't bow out gracefully and that MEM can't sem to remove his head from her backside, but ...it's over, dude.
I hear the loser still wants to debate the winner. Maybe we can wrangle up Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Edwards and Gravel as well.
The problem is Hillary is right & is just stating the obvious. Obama wasn't able to win key swing states & voters that he'll need to win in a general. If the party is really interested in picking the candidate who has the best shot, it's something that needs to be looked at. I suppose my party will probably end up pretending that even though Obama outspent Hillary in states like PA & had plenty of time to win those votes that it doesn't matter because he has a padded pledged delegate lead with wins in red states that won't be wins in a general election.
You almost sound bitter that Obama had more money to spend because he had more grass roots support among Democrats, independents and new voters (as well as Republicans) who he energized. You want Hillary to catch up, why don't you drop Harvey Weinstein a letter and tell him to pony up some more cash. You did read the TIME article I posted where they analyzed her big mistakes, didn't you? This would be mistake # 4.
Sen. Barack Obama moved into the lead today in the last category that Sen. Hillary Clinton had claimed to have an edge -- support among the Democratic Party's superdelegates.
The Illinois Democrat grabbed the superdelegate lead thanks to a switch by New Jersey Rep. Donald Payne and an endorsement from previously uncommitted Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon.
Those two votes gave Obama a 267-266 lead over Clinton. That is a huge shift since the days when Clinton boasted about a 60-plus vote lead among the party's pros back on Super Tuesday.
Clinton Fights On, Obama Focuses on McCain
While the New York Democrat is refusing to concede defeat and is hoping a victory in Tuesday's West Virginia primary will keep her dwindling hopes alive, Obama is starting to focus instead on his Republican opponent John McCain.
ABC News' senior political correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported on "Good Morning America" that Obama's team is considering using some of his campaign cash to fund ads against the Arizona senator.
His camp is also planning to announce a 50-state registration rally this weekend, a tactic geared to a November election rather than the remaining Democratic primaries.
The rest of the Democratic Party, however, is struggling with how to end Clinton's challenge and worries that a last-ditch effort by Clinton could be damaging to Obama.
They were particularly unnerved by Clinton's comments earlier this week that appeared to be racially insensitive or racially calculated when she said, "Sen. Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again."
"This is exactly the kind of talk that is going to make superdelegates nervous," Stephanopoulos said. "Most of the uncommitted superdelegates and party leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are willing to forgo pressuring her to get out of the race as long as the rhetoric stays in tact."
Panetta Calls for Clinton to Concede
Former top Clinton administration aide Leon Panetta told KGO TV in San Francisco, "It's pretty clear unless there's a bolt of lightning, Barack Obama is likely to win the Democratic nomination. She's put up a good fight and put up a good race, but I think there's a time now where she needs to concede and unify the party."
If Clinton decides to fight on, Panetta advised that she "should remain on issues, they shouldn't engage in personal attacks. & Whether the winner wins will depend an awful lot on how the loser loses."
There are indications that Clinton is taking a hard look at her options. She has scheduled a meeting Wednesday -- the day after the West Virginia primary -- with her campaign's major financial backers at her Washington mansion.
Stephanopoulos said there was also "lots of very quiet waltzing behind the scenes with intermediaries representing Sens. Clinton and Obama" to engineer a "dream ticket" with Clinton as Obama's vice president.
"I should say there's an expectation that Sen. Obama is reluctant to go down this road for a host of reasons, but others are making the case this is the most powerful ticket for the Democratic Party," Stephanopoulos reported.
For many Democrats, however, Conan O'Brien had it right.
In discussing the states where the two candidates were favored, the comedian quipped, "Hillary is favored in the state of denial."
ABC News' Karen Travers contributed to this report.
Hilary has been more of a centrist than Obama in the Senate.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Being "more of a centrist than Obama in the Senate" hardly makes one a moderate. And, it's not necessarily the case that she is more centrist at all.....
Writing in the Nation, Tom Hayden (former husband of Jane Fonda and one of the most famous liberal radicals of that generation) reminds us of Hillary's own radical past (and bemoans her recent attempts to hide it):
Hillary is blind to her own roots in the sixties. In one college speech she spoke of ecstatic transcendence; in another, she said, "Our social indictment has broadened. Where once we exposed the quality of life in the world of the South and the ghettos, now we condemn the quality of work in factories and corporations. Where once we assaulted the exploitation of man, now we decry the destruction of nature as well. How much long can we let corporations run us?"
She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. She chaired the 1970 Yale law school meeting where students voted to join a national student strike again an "unconscionable expansion of a war that should never have been waged." She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970, as the lead scheduler of student monitors. She surely agreed with Yale president Kingman Brewster that a black revolutionary couldn't get a fair trial in America.
after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others "tolerated communists".
I honestly think the best moment of this campaign was in how the voters last Tuesday soundly rejected Hillary's pandering to them, and frankly, insulting their intelligence by proposing the gas tax free summer.
It seemed like such an easy political move that was sure to pay dividends. Never mind that it would certainly not pass in Congress nor would there be enough time, even if there was support for it to pass it by summer nor would th President sign it. But there she was, promising free gas! And Obama was there making a dry policy argument and people actually stopped to listen and agreed with HIM!
That's pretty much unheard of in todays sound byte media (Hillary promises free gas! Obama says No!) and only goes to show what a different type of election season we're in now. It's a whole new type of electorate and it's a whole new ball game and the pandering and strategies of yesteryear aren't working today.
And this was the straw that broke Hillary's back. And as I said, it's insulting to people. Jut as lying to them about sniper fire was. I's playing on lowered expectations of the American public and expecting them to swallow a carefully managed campaign image and talking points.
Who knows, maybe she should have thrown in a free X-Box 360 along with the promise of a gas tax holiday.
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]
