I found this on the Huffington Post, a liberal blog that has been mostly unfriendly to Hillary Clinton...
Perhaps, but that particular author, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, has been generally supportive of Hillary all along. Therefore, the mere fact he blogs at the HuffPo doesn't give his defense of her indefensible remarks any particular credibility.
I found this on the Huffington Post, a liberal blog that has been mostly unfriendly to Hillary Clinton...
Perhaps, but that particular author, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, has been generally supportive of Hillary all along. Therefore, the mere fact he blogs at the HuffPo doesn't give his defense of her indefensible remarks any particular credibility.
They let him post it. Generally the site is anti-Hillary & all pro-Obama. Either way his arguement is to the point IMHO. You have to read more into what she actually said to make the remark indefensible.
I found this on the Huffington Post, a liberal blog that has been mostly unfriendly to Hillary Clinton...
Quote:
Hillary Clinton made one point, and one point only, in referencing Robert F. Kennedy's assassination. And that's that the Democratic presidential nomination fight has in times passed stretched up to and through June. She used RFK as an example He was assassinated in June and at the time he was still in the thick of the fight for the nomination. The point again is there's nothing unusual about Democrats fighting for the nomination through June even in the face of a national shock such as the Kennedy assassination.
There is the small chance that the Obama supporters who have been so angry & rightous at Hillary for most of this nomination process will overplay this so much that it bounces back.
HuffingtonPost is right. It is a legitimate point of Hillary's, despite how maligned it is by Obama supporters, including those in the liberal media.
I think it's unlikely at this point,though, that the Democrats will choose Hillary over Obama.
The Dems don't want to risk alienating their most loyal voter-base, black voters, who have voted 90% Democrat in every election since the 1960s.
Nothing short of a total political evisceration could leverage Obama aside. And I don't see that happening.
Which is good news for McCain, and for the millions who would choose McCain over Obama.
I think it's unlikely at this point,though, that the Democrats will choose Hillary over Obama.
The Dems don't want to risk alienating their most loyal voter-base, black voters, who have voted 90% Democrat in every election since the 1960s.
Nothing short of a total political evisceration could leverage Obama aside. And I don't see that happening.
Which is good news for McCain, and for the millions who would choose McCain over Obama.
So The Democrats will nominate Obama
Not because has the most pledged delegates.
Not because he has the most superdelegates
Not because he won the most states.
Not because he has a better campaign apparatus.
Not because he had the better strategy to win all of the above.
Not because he is flush with more cash from the grass roots that is seemingly endless rather than relying on big donors and lobbyists.
No, according to Wonder Boy, they will nominate him because they don't want to piss off black people.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I notice you left off that he doesn't have the most votes cast for him Whomod.
But hey whatever, if the party nominates Obama I'll vote for McCain.
I've seen many pundits point out that if each state primary for Democrats was "winner take all" like it is for the Republicans, that Hillary would have decisively been the nominee months ago, regardless of what you say.
What you fail to grasp, Whomod, is that Obama, while struggling to beat Hillary as the Democrat nominee, is less favored in the general election.
What I'm saying is that Hillary is just as strong a contender as Obama, barely 150 or so delegate points apart, and the way Democrats have viciously trashed her and disowned her, for not dropping out prematurely, is stupid. They may need her later.
I notice you left off that he doesn't have the most votes cast for him Whomod.
But hey whatever, if the party nominates Obama I'll vote for McCain.
To do that would only encourage you to use Hillary Math and omit the caucus states, include Michigan where Obama wasn't even on the ballot and include Puerto Rico which is irrelevant in a general election.
But the main reason I left out popular vote is because it's not the way the nominee is decided. Despite the Hillary tantrum promised at the convention.
You don't rewrite the rules week after week in a fashion that will benefit only you. Hillary, in her belief that only she is entitled to be President, does this and threatens this over and over and over. Imagine this being done in a sports contest. The losing team starts crafting new rules in order to upset the clear winner that played by the rules.
I notice you left off that he doesn't have the most votes cast for him Whomod.
But hey whatever, if the party nominates Obama I'll vote for McCain.
To do that would only encourage you to use Hillary Math and omit the caucus states, include Michigan where Obama wasn't even on the ballot and include Puerto Rico which is irrelevant in a general election.
But the main reason I left out popular vote is because it's not the way the nominee is decided. Despite the Hillary tantrum promised at the convention.
You don't rewrite the rules week after week in a fashion that will benefit only you. Hillary, in her belief that only she is entitled to be President, does this and threatens this over and over and over. Imagine this being done in a sports contest. The losing team starts crafting new rules in order to upset the clear winner that played by the rules.
She hasn't rewrote a single rule. The rules are the rules. BTW the nominee is also not decided by who has the most pledged delegates. That only gets you the nomination if you get a certain number of them. It's highly unlikely that Obama will be able to do that. If he does he wins but if he doesn't then it goes to whoever has the most delegates at the convention I believe. There the supers can use a variety of factors to pick. It may be something silly like more people having actually voted for Hillary or something much more important like Obama's lopsided Idaho win that netted him more delegates with a few thousand votes than a couple of big swing states that Hillary won by over a hundred thousand. Just keep hoping that those supers don't think to much about the upcoming general & things like electoral votes & winner take all rules.
I think it's unlikely at this point,though, that the Democrats will choose Hillary over Obama.
The Dems don't want to risk alienating their most loyal voter-base, black voters, who have voted 90% Democrat in every election since the 1960s.
Nothing short of a total political evisceration could leverage Obama aside. And I don't see that happening.
Which is good news for McCain, and for the millions who would choose McCain over Obama.
So The Democrats will nominate Obama
Not because has the most pledged delegates.
Not because he has the most superdelegates
Not because he won the most states.
Not because he has a better campaign apparatus.
Not because he had the better strategy to win all of the above.
Not because he is flush with more cash from the grass roots that is seemingly endless rather than relying on big donors and lobbyists.
No, according to Wonder Boy, they will nominate him because they don't want to piss off black people.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I notice you left off that he doesn't have the most votes cast for him Whomod.
But hey whatever, if the party nominates Obama I'll vote for McCain.
I've seen many pundits point out that if each state primary for Democrats was "winner take all" like it is for the Republicans, that Hillary would have decisively been the nominee months ago, regardless of what you say.
What you fail to grasp, Whomod, is that Obama, while struggling to beat Hillary as the Democrat nominee, is less favored in the general election.
What I'm saying is that Hillary is just as strong a contender as Obama, barely 150 or so delegate points apart, and the way Democrats have viciously trashed her and disowned her, for not dropping out prematurely, is stupid. They may need her later.
If I had to guess, that ship has already sailed. I could be wrong but I don't think Obama is going to get all those Hillary voters he thought. If it was somebody other than McCain it probably wouldn't be as much of an issue but as it is I see the term McCain Democrats being thrown around alot. He's not Bush.
Gallup Analysis: Clinton Has Swing State Advantage May 28, 2008 11:51 AM An analysis by Lydia Saad at Gallup of Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks seems to re-affirm Sen. Hillary Clinton's argument that she is likelier to beat Sen. John McCain than is Sen. Barack Obama. "Clinton is currently running ahead of McCain in the 20 states where she has prevailed in the popular vote," Saad writes, "while Obama is tied with McCain in those same states. Thus, at this stage in the race (before the general-election campaigns have fully engaged), there is some support for her argument that her primary states indicate she would be stronger than Obama in the general election. "The same cannot be said for Obama in the 28 states and D.C. where he prevailed in the popular vote. As of now, in those states, he is performing no better than Clinton is in general-election trial heats versus McCain. Thus, the principle of greater primary strength translating into greater general-election strength -- while apparently operative for the states Clinton has won -- does not seem to apply at the moment to states Obama has won." Are the Democrats about to nominate their weaker candidate? What say you?
Considering that the pundrity in general pronounced Hillary dead after she won Indiana & have found ways to keep writing new obits for her campaign this is actually surprising that she's still polling stronger than Obama. It's sad that my party is probably just going to waste this election.
It is rather interestingly... I don't know... biased?... the way she keeps winning primaries, and the Obama spokespersons disguised as reporters keep trying to program everyone to believe that it doesn't matter.
"Ignore that man standing behind the curtain! I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ !!"
A Washington Post reporter was asked in an online chat yesterday why the Post isnt' covering how well Hillary is doing in recent polls. Here is his priceless response:
Quote:
I've spent the past several months talking to as many super-delegates as any reporter in America, I'd guess, since I cover on a day-to-day basis about 280 of them here on Capitol Hill.
I hate saying this, because all the Clinton people are going to flip out and say, You're biased, you're biased, you're biased. So go ahead and flip out if you want, but the simple basic truth is that the super-delegates stopped paying attention to the Clinton-Obama race about a couple days after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.
They've stopped paying attention to the primary, and instead they're focused on an Obama-McCain matchup in November. That's the basic, simple, definitive reality that has happened in this race. The "undecided" super-delegates at this moment are not going to "decide" any time soon, because to them the race is over, they're just waiting for Clinton to drop out.
Then he was asked, but what about the Gallup poll showing Hillary doing better in swing states?
Quote:
Again, don't yell at me because I'm only the messenger here. But the super-delegates have moved on, they're no longer looking at how Hillary Clinton fares in battleground states against McCain. This is very hard for Clinton supporters to hear, I'm sorry, but the super-delegates are not paying attention to your candidate anymore.
but shouldn't the bucket be labeled "inevitability" since Hillary is being hit with it? because the way your cartoon looks, hillary is inevitable and obama is trying to put out the flames of inevitability.
I believe the point is that, until a few months ago, it was widely believed that Hillary was the "inevitable" Democrat candidate and, with the rise of Obama, her chances (and air of inevitability) melted away.
Dems Agree at Hill's Expense: Clinton campaign outraged by rules committee decision to split disputed Florida, Michigan delegates
Oh, of course she won't go away. The only thing is though, I don't think anyone will care anymore.
It's time to move on and just let her shriek and pout all she wants without making a big deal out of it.
I predict the supers will come around by Tuesday.
I also predict that Hillary will again make a big deal about a long ago predicted win in Puerto Rico. She will assert that Puerto Rico's popular vote matters somehow in the general election and will probably promise to champion statehood to the island if she is elected President.
Ricky Martin will also make an appearance soon.
All to a half empty hall with 2 reporters, one from FOX news.
I've seen many pro-Hillary delegates voice outrage at the decision, and call it a betrayal.
Hillary won by a good margin in Florida, and Obama didn't even put himself on the ballot for Michigan. So I think it's really unfair to Hillary for the delegates to be split almost 50/50, where it doesn't accurately reflect how favored Hillary was in those two states. It smacks of bias for Obama from the DNC inner circle.
But then, so does the media's calling the election for Obama 3 months ago, and calling Hillary "mean" and "divisive" for simply exploring the options open to her as a still-VERY-viable candidate.
After Puerto Rico votes overwhelmingly for Hillary, she will again be within 150 or so delegates of Obama, as she's remained for 3 months. And that margin would be even closer, if a more fairly proportionate decision were made by the DNC, proportionate to the votes Hillary EARNED, rather than this decision that just demonstrates an Obama bias within the DNC, rather than will of Democrat primary voters.
And since Puerto Rico is 100% hispanic, and not West Virginia or Kentucky, how will the Obama people spin this as racist, without themselves being guilty of racist-stereotyping of Puerto Ricans?
Hillary won by a good margin in Florida, and Obama didn't even put himself on the ballot for Michigan.
But, to be fair, Obama (and the other candidates) took themselves off the MI ballot as part of a deal among the candidates that, for all intents and purposes, Hillary reneged upon.
If Hillary wants to keep running, that's her right and the polls show a majority of the party agrees that she should keep running. However, let's not turn her into some sort of wronged victim of backroom politics simply because you don't like the guy she's running against.
In fact, most of the backroom politics in this election are the result of rules that she and/or her husband participated in creating during their long tenures with the national party.
Hillary won by a good margin in Florida, and Obama didn't even put himself on the ballot for Michigan.
But, to be fair, Obama (and the other candidates) took themselves off the MI ballot as part of a deal among the candidates that, for all intents and purposes, Hillary reneged upon.
If Hillary wants to keep running, that's her right and the polls show a majority of the party agrees that she should keep running. However, let's not turn her into some sort of wronged victim of backroom politics simply because you don't like the guy she's running against.
In fact, most of the backroom politics in this election are the result of rules that she and/or her husband participated in creating during their long tenures with the national party.
G-man I believe your wrong about Hillary agreeing to take her name off the ballot...
Quote:
Five Democrats Withdraw From Michigan Primary
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Five Democratic presidential candidates said Tuesday they would remove their names from primary ballots in Michigan, hoping to deal a blow to those who are pushing to elevate their home state's heft in the election process by front-loading the primary calendar. Barack Obama and John Edwards, who trail only Hillary Clinton in the polls, as well as Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich filed paperwork to officially withdraw from the Jan. 15 contest, and Joe Biden said he would be following suit shortly. Clinton's campaign said Tuesday she would remain in the Michigan race as did Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd. In the most recent national polls, Clinton is leading her closest opponent — Obama — by 20 points or more, and could be breaking the three-way dead heat in Iowa among her, Obama and Edwards. ...
Obama took his name off for strategic reasons at the time. None of the candidates were required to do this.
This decision by the credentials committee was terrible no matter how they want to sugar coat it. The rules were thrown out the window when they just gave Obama the uncommitted delegates & a couple of Hillary's pledged delegates. Talk about changing the rules!
WB's right, this pissed of at least some percentage of Democrats. It could be a fairly sizable amount too. My party deserves to lose when it rewards a candidate who took his name off the ballot.
Clinton to superdelegates: I will win 4 hours ago SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AFP) — Hillary Clinton used the springboard of a hefty win in Sunday's Puerto Rico primary to demand that party elders crown her, and not Barack Obama, as the Democrats' best bet to seize back the White House. However, Obama remained in sight of the Democratic presidential nomination after a fractious deal on Florida and Michigan struck at the weekend, ahead of Tuesday's climactic contests in Montana and South Dakota. With 85 percent of the vote counted on the Caribbean US territory of Puerto Rico, Clinton was far ahead of her rival from Illinois with 68 percent to 32, according to US television networks. In her victory speech, Clinton pivoted from thanking Puerto Ricans -- who are US citizens but lack a vote in November's election -- to addressing the single most important Democratic constituency left: "superdelegates." "I will lead the popular vote. He (Obama) will maintain a lead in the delegate count," she said, anticipating Tuesday's finish to five months of coast-to-coast nominating battles. "I ask you to consider these questions -- which candidate best represents the will of the people who voted in this historic primary? Which candidate is best able to lead to us victory in November?" she told superdelegates. "And which candidate is best able to lead our nation as our president in the face of unprecedented challenges at home and abroad? I am in this race because I believe I am that candidate, and I will be that president." CNN exit polls said that 72 percent of Clinton supporters in Puerto Rico would be unhappy with Obama as the Democratic nominee, reinforcing other polling evidence suggesting the party is at risk of fracture. ...
AFP Yet another lopsided win for Hillary. And depending on the voter turnout will cement her claim to the popular vote winner. It's too bad that it looks like the superdelegates seem settled into just giving Obama the nomination. I said it a little while back but maybe not getting the nomination this time will end up working better for her in the long run though.
only the moveon.org types could cry endlessly about Gore winning the popular vote and not getting the win, but now they are rallying behind a guy that couldnt even get the majority of democratic voters.....
only the moveon.org types could cry endlessly about Gore winning the popular vote and not getting the win, but now they are rallying behind a guy that couldn't even get the majority of democratic voters.....
Man, does that sum it up nicely.
The candidate who wins the popular vote should be the winner.
Unless, of course, the candidate the Democrat elites have pre-selected as their choice doesn't get the majority of votes. I love how the Democrats constantly re-define our democracy to suit their socialist agenda. And anyone who disagrees with their on-the-fly rules changes is just "mean", "evil", or "a racist/bigot". While excusing their own mean, evil and racist/bigoted behavior in pursuit of victory, by whatever underhanded or ruthless means.
I loved in this Associated Press article on Hillary's victory in Puerto Rico today, how they can't even acknowledge in the headline that their beloved Obama got pounded into the dirt by a ratio of greater than 2-to-1, and that a 72% majority would not be satisfied with Obama as the Democrat candidate.
The AP article buries this fact in rationalization that the few delegates Obama won in Puerto Rico inch him slightly closer to the nomination that has eluded him for 3 months. But AP fails to note that even the last two upcoming primaries won't clearly give Obama the nomination, he'll still require 30 superdelegates to secure the points needed to win. (i.e., a backroom deal with party elites, -vs- the clear popular choice of Democrat primary voters)
In Hillary's words, If Obama is the clear nominee, then why can't he seal the deal?
When it comes to the popular vote, Obama actually leads Clinton by nearly 450,000 votes in primaries and caucuses where delegates were at stake. That doesn’t include caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Washington, Maine and Texas, where party officials did not report any popular vote breakdown between the two candidates. Obama won all of those caucuses except Nevada.
Clinton claims the popular vote lead by including the results from Michigan and Florida, where no delegates were initially at stake. All Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in those states, and Obama removed his name from the Michigan primary ballot. When the Michigan and Florida results are included, along with the nonbinding results in primaries in Washington, Nebraska and Idaho, Clinton has a 126,553 vote lead out of more than 35 million votes cast.
Puerto Rico is not part of the electoral college in the general election, so a victory there would do little for Clinton’s argument that she’s the better candidate for a general election.
Sounds to me like neither of them has a clear majority of the popular vote.
As I said it depends on how many votes she gets out of Puerto Rico. If it's a couple extra 100 thousand I think that gives her the popular vote edge. Now that Florida & Michigan delegations are being recognized those vote totals should also count since the rationalization was that they didn't because the delegates would never ever be recognized.
BTW I don't think that should make her the automatic winner. It does show that Obama really only has the illusion of a big lead once you start scrutinizing what constitutes the extra pledged delegates in his column.
I don't think anyone is claiming that Obama has a big lead, only a big enough one that she can't realistically get the nomination without rewriting the rules.
I don't think anyone is claiming that Obama has a big lead, only a big enough one that she can't realistically get the nomination without rewriting the rules.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the rules require a candidate to reach a certain number of pledged delegates to win the nomination. Obama won't be able to do that. He like Hillary needs superdelegates to win the nomination. Superdelegates can change their mind at any time until the convention. What rule do you see her rewriting to win?
.jpg)
