Hillary Clinton’s Texas and Ohio firewalls held Tuesday, and she regained some crucial momentum — but was it really enough to put her back in contention?
As Democratic strategist Jim Jordan pointed out, “Her durability is impressive if not astonishing, but she is still looking at some pretty cold, hard numbers in the race.†Clinton would need to win by landslide margins — more than 60 percent — in remaining states to overtake Barack Obama in pledged delegate counts. He called the prospects of her nomination, even with wins in Texas and Ohio, “impossible, really.â€
Still, Clinton can now argue that she’s proved she can win most of the big blue states and some important swing states such as Ohio, and that neither candidate can win outright on earned delegates. So it all comes down to superdelegate arm-twisting.
It’s still a long shot for her, but impossible? I’m not so sure.
Obama’s campaign has to be rattled and disappointed by this missed opportunity to put her away. Once again, it raises the question: Can Obama close the deal with voters? He’s still not there.
171 Comments
Neither Obama or Clinton. at this point, can win the number of delegates needed for the nomination.
It will be decided at the convention and not any sooner.
I’m still curious as to how the Hilary supporteres feel about her trying to get the delegates from Michigan and Florida even after they all agreed to not campaign in those states and while Obama was not even on the ballot in one of them?
Seems a bit underhanded, after the fact, to try and get those votes now.
Don’t you think?
Do you hate and fear Hillary Clinton SO much that you would tell the people of Florida and Michigan that their votes should not count Nathan?
How very presumptive and demonstrative of you.
Obama supporters? Are you comfortable with the Nathan endorsement of your candidate?
I don’t envy Howard Dean and the DNC. This is the reality. If the superdelegates have to decide the race, it is a real lose lose opportunity for the Democrats. In particular, if Obama wins the total vote count and delegate count but does not have enough to win the total, the Democrats are looking at a very rough situation. If the superdelegates gave it to Clinton, then many African American (not to mention other Obama voters) are going to see this as a stolen nomination, and that will kill the Democratic campaign. Period.
That being said, Obama lost Ohio due to missteps that he made. This is a proving ground for both candidates, who will need to be tough in the general election. In particular, Obama is going to have to show that he can deal with tough questions (the experience factor is a fair question). I think both are very strong candidates, but they are now going to have to walk a very fine line between waging tough campaigns but not self mutilating campaigns.
For those of you who think that one candidate does not need the other, or who think that this is a slam dunk for Democrats this year, you are very deluded. The Republicans have nominated their best candidate, one who is not nearly as vulnerable under one of the real weaknesses that Republicans have this year. Hard core conservatives are not popular with swing and foul weather voters, but the hard core candidates did not win (Romney was a spot changing leopard and Huckabee, well, he was popular with the CR base and that was about it). The Iraq War will not be a sufficient disadvantage.
I didn’t weigh in on the Obama/Clinton ticket or the Clinton/Obama ticket, but I will now. This has gotten past the point where I think this may be an option, it may be an imperative. They may not have a choice on this matter any more. It may be the only chance they have to unite the party.
JR,
You didn’t answer the question.
Obama was not even on the ballot in one of the states. It was the DNC which punished both states for moving their primary dates. It was Hilary and all the other candidates who agreed to not campaign in those states.
So why are you not asking the DNC the same question you ask me? I am not the one who made the rules and agreed to them.
The DNC was correct in their ruling.
The already badly flawed primary process must not be allowed to spiral out of control.
But neither should the voters in Florida and Michigan be denied their voice.
And you are invited to stay out of our nominating process Nathan. Go tend your own 4th choice? candidate.
No loss at all if super delegates decide for clinton and she includes obama on the ticket. Would we have the specter of Republican ads whining about the Democrats party delegate counting tactics. Not a place they want to go, I suspect. If clinton is Obamas running mate, the Republicans will run against Bill. And what would you do with bill, should Obama Clinton run. No, at this point, Mrs. Clinton coupled with Obama would be the best ticket.
And you get the hispanics, and the youth. White men and Fundy xians would be the only voters for McCain.
My suggestion for MI and FL – somewhat follow what TX did. Have a caucus ‘after’ the vote and then split the delegations. Seat the delegates elected last month with a half-vote and then the additional ones with a half-vote.
This is not a wonderful solution but I do think it would be workable.
Hillary means higher gas prices and more war and Obama means lower gas prices and no war.
JR, all the state parties of Florida and Michigan have to do is hold another primary. Which the DNC has offered to pay for, btw.
Nobody questions whether or not Fla and Michigan should be penalized. They broke the rules. But to not allow them to have a regular primary within their ALLOWED time is ridiculous.
In order to regain their votes, they should have to promise never to pull this again.
I’d just be happy if all the states would vote on one day, one primary- just like election day is in November.
Are our lawmakers listening to us about wanting a real primary too?
I suspect that Obama gets more votes during a caucus than the primary because a caucus isn’t taken as seriously as a real on the record vote.
And republicans need to STAY OUT OF OUR VOTING.
Sign up here for the Hillary for President – from the
Republicrat Delegate Spoiler Committee.
(chortles)
Typical. And typical Hillary. Change the rules in the middle of the game. Michigan and Florida were told what would happen, and they did what they did anyway, knowing the consequences and believing that the DNC was bluffing. If you don’t want the primary system to truly “spiral out of control,” you MUST tow the line on Michigan and Florida. If you don’t, how many other states will race to the front in 2012? What does the DNC tell them – ‘well THIS time we REALLY mean it?’
No; Florida and Michigan (and the DNC) made their bed, they have to live with it. Otherwise, the loser (and Obama stands to lose here, otherwise Hillary would not be pressing the matter – as usual, this is not principle, it is politics) will justifiably believe the nomination was stolen. Millions of black voters, who often believe the Dems take them for granted (they’re right) will stay home – or worse.
God knows why I’m giving the Dems this advice (it must be my inherent fairness and goodness!); personally, I hope it’s a catfight all the way to the convention, and then the convention is brokered. When’s the last time a presidential nominee wasn’t elected on the first ballot? This is a chance to watch history!
What’s clear is that Hillary really, really, REALLY, REALLY wants to be president. Of course, anyone who wants to be president THAT bad should be disqualified from the job.
Isn’t this fun!!
I can’t figure out how people who write the news for a living consistently get things wrong.
Obama WON Texas.
After the caucuses were included, he won more votes and more delegates.
Sheesh, Randy, do your job, dude.
Another hate-radio CON comes out for HRC:
Cunningham says he was told by party officials to give the audience red meat to warm up the crowd that came to see McCain. He says he did and the crowd loved it, but McCain then threw him under the bus. Cunningham says McCain has now lost his support.
“I’m gonna follow the lead of Ann Coulter. I’ve had it with John McCain,” Cunningham told FOX News’ “Hannity & Colmes.”
“I’m going to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for president because she would do a better job in the Oval Office, I think, than the liberal John McCain. I’m done with him.”
Cunningham said McCain “embarrassed himself,” and then made up a name of his own for the Arizona senator, “John Juan Pablo McCain,” an apparent reference to McCain’s sponsorship of immigration reform legislation.
*****
Why do so many right-wingers support this woman?
Great point GMC, anyone who is willing to break all the rules, accept campaign money from criminals, likely break any laws, doctor any photos, throw buckets of mud, trade technology to the Chinese for money, etc – Probably should NOT be President.
They want that POWER waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy toooooooooooooo muchhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She’s doing reverse psychology. Lest you forget it was in Kansas where the cons came out in droves to vote for Obama.
They’re messing with our election, and you let it happen.
Capn, Obama won 91 delegates and Clinton won 92 delegates. Now how in your mind is 91 more than 92?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
OMG look at the photo there, there has to be racism. Obama looks darker than Hillary! Randy are you a racist?
Snark over the STUPID assertion that Hillary made Obama look darker in a commercial.
It will be Hillaryous when the Superdelegates are bribed by Clinton, the Dem rules are broken to count Florida and Michigan delegates, and the Dem Nominee Hillary Clinton loses the election in November as all 50% of those who disapprove of her turn out to vote, and the 10% that approve of McCain turn out to vote!
Hillary will lose by at least a 60-40 margin!
I can’t wait to see Hillary win the nomination at the bribed, oh I mean brokered Convention.
The NRA and Gun Owners of America will easily DOUBLE their membership in a matter of weeks, and will have hundred of millions of dollars to spend informing America of Hillary Clinton’s Gun-Ban agenda.
If I’m a Democrat Congressmen, I wouldn’t stand in her way, but then again, I wouldn’t jump on her bandwagon to H*ll either.
“What’s clear is that Hillary really, really, REALLY, REALLY wants to be president. Of course, anyone who wants to be president THAT bad should be disqualified from the job.”
I disagree, particularly following a president who is arguably the worst in well over a century (and given Warren Harding being included in that number, that is saying something) because, it is my firm conviction, he wanted to win the presidency much more than he wanted to actually be president. For the most part, Bush’s presidency has been characterized by winning the game (against Democrats or any other percieved opponents) rather than policy. I see that largely as Karl Rove’s influence, but the main issue is Bush’s personality in the first place (”Once I do my decider thing, I am done and I am right and that is the end of it. Never mind the fact that I haven’t really bothered to understand the issue.”). Given the difficulty of the job, and the fact that it may be the most visible job in the world, you have to have someone who has a very high opinion of themselves, and a great deal of ambition, to not only mount a successful campaign but to be a good president.
With all that in mind, it is very apparent that Hillary has wanted to be president at least ever since Bill Clinton successfully acquired the office in 1992. No one is under any illusion that her desire for the presidency is why she became a Senator in the first place. What this means is, that she is not going to give up, so Hillary’s ambition is likely to be problematic (as is Obama’s or any candidate who has run a largely successful campaign-but I think Hillary has wanted this SO long and SO hard that she will have a very hard time stepping aside if that is really what is required). What this also means is, this nomination process will be a very dicy process. Someone is going to have to eventually back down, and he/she will have to back down with sufficient and convincing grace so as not to form a rift in the party.
“Why do so many right-wingers support this woman?”
I suspect you know why. Because her candidacy is considered more likely to inspire right wingers to vote (ignoring the fact that their nastiness is also likely to inspire foul weather voters to vote FOR her). That being said, the biggest danger for the Democrats right now is that they will self destruct trying to decide the nominee.
Oh no, Clinton wouldn’t darken Barrack’s picture:
http://cliffschecter.bravenewfilms.org/blog/31401-did-clinton-campaign-darken-obama-s-skin-tone
Oh, so because George Bush really wanted to be President, then it’s OK for Hillary Clinton to be just as bad in her desires for POWER and CORRUPTION as Bush.
Fantastic point!
Well here is where I’m at.
If Senator Clinton is the nominee I’ve got a sign in my yard, bumperstickers on my truck and I’m just itching to vote even if I have to stand in line all day in a state like Kansas where it likely won’t even matter.
If Obama is the nominee? I have zero interest.
The bloggers aren’t posting the whole video, the ENTIRE VIDEO is dark, even the one where Hillary herself is in the frame.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/145.aspx
That’s the real video, even sources are saying this story the photos aren’t really what was used in the ad.
“After checking with ad guru Mandy Grunwald, however, Carson later said the images on the DailyKos site were not taken from the Clinton ad at all. “We don’t know what is up there, but it is not our ad,” he insisted.”
So you see, someone at DailyKos (a pro-Obama site) fibbed.
OMG…
“accept campaign money from criminals”
Hehehehehehhe. THIS from the party of Jack Abramhoff who was, let’s not forget, a Bush PIONEER fer cryin’ out loud.
Watching Hillary this week reminded me why we REALLY need her as President right now. I used to have this sign on my office door.
“Remember that age and treachery will overcome youth and vigor any day”
hee hee hee hee heeeeeee…..
Ksag – I agree that a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket has become imperative to bring the party back together.
“as all 50% of those who disapprove of her turn out to vote, and the 10% that approve of McCain turn out to vote!
Hillary will lose by at least a 60-40 margin!”
Not necessarily. The 10% who like McCain are a sub-set of the 50% (if it is that much) who hate Clinton. That would leave it at 50-50.
My only request of the Democratic Party is to make sure that whatever ‘fixes’ they come up with are perceived a being fait to all concerned. Thus my hybrid suggestion mentioned above which I think would be perceived as a decent compromise by both sides.
JR,
Still no response to the double standard from Hilary now that it is going to help her?
I suppose anything it takes to win, huh?
I wonder how many republican Kansans plan on voting for McCain when he counts as his accomplishments blocking Boeing from getting the tanker deal. And does Tiahrt plan on supporting McCain since the Tanker deal was his pet project
Obama/Hillary (or Hillary/Obama ) will not happen. The loser needs to stay in the Senate to polish their [currently rather thin] resume. And the historical record for sitting VPs becoming president is awful; Poppy Bush was the first in, I think, over a century.
As to whether it is good for the party – it doesn’t matter. Neither are in it for the party, nor does the party have any control over them. The illusion of “party leaders” pulling strings hasn’t been real for years; candidates run their independent campaign committees, largely with independent fund-raising. Party leaders have little or no authority to force such a marriage.
Won’t happen.
As a Republican, I HOPE Hillary jiggers the rules to get the nomination. Blacks will stay home in droves (or worse), believing (rightfully) that their candidate was cheated.
Either way, it’s gonna be a LOT OF FUN to watch . . . it’s like reality TV, except it’s reality!
And ksagnostic:
I understand what you’re saying, and yes, anyone who puts up with the crap that is a presidential run really wants the job. I have always thought, however, that anyone who was smart enought to be president is smart enough to know he doesn’t want the job. And anyone who REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wants it should be disqalified (and that’s Hillary, bless her black little statist heart – hell, she thinks she DESERVES the job).
As to your other point- when will we understand that a politicians primary job is NOT policy, it’s getting elected? Parties exist not to advance policies, but to get their members elected and gain power. Policy is a means to an end; it is not the end in itself. Beware the candidate who constantly proclaims they want to run to “help you and fight for you;” this run is about THEM, not you. Just once I’d like a candidate to be honest and say “I want to be president because, as a career politician, it is the top job in my field. It’s always been my ambition.”
Besides – there are fewer words more frightening than “I’m with the government, and I’m here to help.”
“It will be Hillaryous when the Superdelegates are bribed by Clinton, the Dem rules are broken to count Florida and Michigan delegates, and the Dem Nominee Hillary Clinton loses the election in November as all 50% of those who disapprove of her turn out to vote, and the 10% that approve of McCain turn out to vote!
“Hillary will lose by at least a 60-40 margin!”
As Ben pointed out, that is impaired math. Sort of like when you draw a comparison between percentage of income and amount contributed into the treasury. The majority of the “10%” (and it is a much greater figure than that, by the way) who approve of McCain already disapprove of Clinton. The danger of a McCain run against especially Clinton is that the right wing nuts will definitely be drawn out to vote while McCain is more likely to be an acceptable alternative to foul weather voters. However, to be blunt, people like you Max are actually an asset to a Hillary Clinton. You are so over the top in your dislike for her that you and people like you turn off swing voters. This phenomenon is why people like Phill Kline and the CR school board majority were turned out on their ear, and it is as much of the reason for the Democratic gains in 2006 as the Iraq war (the punditocracy, by the way, largely still does not get this, but a good number of Republicans do). However, the fact is that people like you will not be associated for the most part with John McCain. Which is why the Republicans nominated their best candidate.
“Oh, so because George Bush really wanted to be President, then it’s OK for Hillary Clinton to be just as bad in her desires for POWER and CORRUPTION as Bush.
“Fantastic point!”
You know, you can be an intelligent conversational partner, but not on this issue. You completely missed the point. My point was, Bush and Hillary were NOT alike. In my assessment, Bush wanted to beat Gore and later Kerry (that is, in fact, something that makes him pretty unique-the presidency was a prize to win away from someone-I would not say that about anyone else in presidential politics, Republican or Democrat-in the years I have been alive). Hillary wants to win the presidency (the presidency is the goal).
P-Mom–
The trouble with your figures is the source: Real Clear Politics.
This is just someone’s blog, and a major reich-wing blog at that.
Here’s what Newsweek says,
“Superdelegates won’t help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama’s lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren’t complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That’s 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010
Capn, you said Obama won the Texas delegates, now you’re changing what you said.
I know that Obama leads in overall delegates. Stop changing the subject.
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2008/03/05/obama_gain_3_more_delegates.html
Here’s another source predicting (yesterday) that Obama will net at least three delegates from Texas.
The caucus counts won’t be finalized until Monday, but trends are very indictive.
I’m not changing — it’s not definitive yet, because the caucus results are dribbling in.
But the evidence is showing that Obama is winning more delegates in Texas.
how can blacks believe that rightfully they were cheated? If we counted Florida and Mich, as we would in any normal election, Hillary would be in the lead. And Republicans have been screwing with this election just like they’ve screwed with the past ones. It FLOORS me that we allow Republicans to do this.
There is no cheating going on here. Obama can take the VP seat and be in the White House for potentially 16 total years.
BTW, Max’s assertions sound really really stupid.
More delegates in Texas = Obama wins in Texas.
BTW, I notice that Hillary is careful to put the emphasis on her win in OHIO; she’s wisely not saying much about Texas . . . since she knows by now that she didn’t win there.
If the Party had followed the rules as per the national presidential elections, Hillary would have been nominated on Super Tuesday. Hillary has already won New York, New Jersey, California, Ohio and Texas. If all the pledged delegates from these states are given to Hillary which she rightly deserves, there would have been no mess! DNC should have at least followed the same rules followed by the Republican Party so that all the candidates would have the same playing field during the primaries.
You don’t know that Capn.
“How can blacks believe that rightfully they were cheated? If we counted Florida and Mich, as we would in any normal election, Hillary would be in the lead. And Republicans have been screwing with this election just like they’ve screwed with the past ones. It FLOORS me that we allow Republicans to do this.”
1) You seem to be missing an important point here. Obama wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot, this there is NO rational argument for including Michigan as a Clinton victory because it wasn’t even a real contest (and by the same token, if it was an actual contest, we don’t know who would have won or by how much). Also, Florida and Michigan were penalized for trying to get the jump on other states. The DNC implemented the penalty, and the candidates agreed.
2) It floors ME how both sides of the Obama verses Clinton each claim that Republican “meddling” is favoring the other guy. Personally, I think all primaries should be open. I also prefer primaries to caucuses, because they more closely approximate the process through which presidents are elected.
Besides – there are fewer words more frightening than “I’m with the government, and I’m here to help.”
GMC dont you work for the government?
I still want to know why a primary result always comes in positive for Clinton, and the Caucus (which can be more easily skewed) always comes in for Obama.
Something is amiss here. The caucus and primary results should have been almost mirror of themselves.
“GMC70″ waxes philosophically –
“…anyone who REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wants it should be disqalified…”
By that logic, a surgeon who “REALLY, REALLY REALLY wants” to operate on brains should be disqualified.
It odd that Americans are so loathe to appreciate the efforts of “career politicians,” …unless they agree with one. In every other field, most people expect competence. If I go to the dentist, I want someone who’s been to dental school. If I’m going into the operating room, I expect people who know their way around knives and bodies and sutures. But so many people want politics to be be run by non-politicians. Next time you sewer backs up, I want to send you a non-plumber.
“…a politicians primary job is NOT policy, it’s getting elected.”
That’s a candidate’s primary job. But I refuse to take the Cynic Route to accept that
Policy is[merely] a means to an end…”
It’s just that power without policy is autocracy; policy without power is futile.
George WMD Bush’s administration has devolved into the former. Look back at “compassionate conservatism” and “no foriegn interventions without an Exit Strategy,” and “no nation-building” from Shrub’s 2000 campaign for the presidency. Once George WMD Bush won the Oval Office as the neoCons’ sockpuppet, all proclaimed “policy” gave way to power.
In 1984, Walter Mondale (the quintessential policy wonk) had the audacity to say taxes would have to be raised. Policy without power; futile.
I’d point out that Mondale ended up being right too.
Pmom, Hillary draws more blue collar working folks who may not be free for a few hours on a weeknight. Shift workers are usually excluded because they are working or getting ready to go to work.
Obama draws from the latte drinkers who have the time to participate in what USED to be an exercise for party insiders. Ya know, the elite.
I think that is why nationwide, the caucuses were short on ballots and seating and organization. They were used to a few party faithfuls showing up to coronate the person chosen by the party leaders.
Obama supporters are made for the caucus system, and Hillary’s folks show up during the day or evening for a real primary. I know lots of folks in Texas who voted in the primary but then blew off the caucuses.
And it shows…
Yeah. And Mondale lost too. We get the government we deserve.
“Political_mama” offers —
“DNC should have at least followed the same rules followed by the Republican Party so that all the candidates would have the same playing field during the primaries.”
See, I’ve wondered and have been looking for and not found an analysis of the Republic Party primary season had they not gone the winner-take-all route.
Had delegates been distributed proportional to the actual Repubic Party vote, the GOP would be faced with the same situation as the Democrats are experiencing with Hillary/Obama.
So Hillary won more votes in California and New York; the smart money is that any Democrat will win those Electoral College votes in November. Kansas Republic Party delegates are guaranteed a spot in the HumphreyDome’s cheap seats because they’ll all go to St. Paul dedicated to The Huckster. But McSame’s razor-thin victories (re: Missouri) in earlier primaries has alienated all the Huckabeens and Romneyites.
Just which party’s rules have best represented the people’s will?
I think a primary is the best way to truly reflect the will of the people. I know many in Kansas were unable to vote that evening we caucused because it was late at night, my hubby, the elderly couldn’t get out in the snow and they would had earlier.
The caucus is far more unfair than the primary, and it shows.
I say a primary best represents the people’s will, but if republicans are going to stick to winner take all, we should as well. Thats more in line with the general anyway.
I agree KFG, I agree.
Do you hate and fear Hillary Clinton SO much that you would tell the people of Florida and Michigan that their votes should not count Nathan?
JR,
I’m not Nathan (who I’m sure is thankful), but if the proverbial shoe was on the other foot and this was Hillary’s name not on the ballot, would you feel the same?
Does the word “agreement” mean anything at all to you?
Obama draws from the latte drinkers who have the time to participate…
Hmmmmm, interesting but inaccurate. I’ve never had a latte, don’t drink coffee, and am about as far from “elite” as anyone can get. And I don’t mean just money-wise, but in all ways.
Is there really a way to pigeonhole people on who they vote for? Telephone polling really doesn’t work anymore. Too many people, especially younger people, don’t have home phones and/or listed numbers. They’re being left out of the polls.
Heh RD, well, I dont think it was meant to predict the voting habits of everyone in a certain group.
Some of it is known by exit polling, other by market demographics, etc.
I mean, if there are double the normal number of Starbucks in a district, and that district goes overwhelmingly for a candidate, it’s safe to say that the picture or description of a typical voter would include a cuppa joe.
It’s not a box, just a market description. Latte drinkers as a description has been famous since Thomas Franks used it so well. You should read “Bobos in Paradise” and “The Rise of the Creative Class”.
“Bobos in Paradise”
My 19 yr old told me Bobos was crack. Boofin bobos was the term used.
We can look at it from both ways and never come up with an answer.
Hillary won the primaries in New York and California, states that will most certainly vote Blue regardless of the Democratic candidate.
Obama won Kansas and a lot of other states that most certainly will turn out Red in November.
Texas will go Red, probably, because we all know Texans are, by nature, stupid people.
Ohio voters should go Blue, regardless of the Democratic candidate, unless they want to go down in history as stupid as Texans.
Democratic primary wins in traditionally Democratic states don’t mean all that much. Democratic wins in traditionally Republic Party states don’t mean a whole lot more.
One of the most under-reported stories during this primary season has been how the Democrats have pulled voters to primaries and caucuses at about a 2 to 1 ratio over Republic Pary races; way before McCain was percieved to have sewn up the nomination.
“Obama won Kansas …that most certainly will turn out Red in November.
Texas will go Red, probably, because we all know Texans are, by nature, stupid people.”
Applying your own logic monkeyboy, you just called the people of Kansas stupid.
I love a good food fight. But now they are eating each other!
“WASHINGTON — A top aide to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has compared rival Sen. Barack Obama to independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr.
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson says Obama’s statement that he plans to be more critical of Clinton’s record is reminiscent of the attacks the Clintons endured during the investigations in the 1990s. Those investigations led to the impeachment of former President Clinton.
Wolfson told reporters on a conference call Thursday that he doesn’t think “imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president.”
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the comparison is “absurd” when Clinton has been calling for more scrutiny of Obama’s record.” Fox Reports
“Democrats have pulled voters to primaries and caucuses at about a 2 to 1 ratio over Republic Pary races”
Did that count me? I was a crossover just to vote for Obama. But wait and see what happens if Hellary steals the democratic nomination.
The topics title said it better than anyone ever could. Math is very difficult for these people.
MH – That is why I am so far the Clinton/Obama ticket, or vise versa. We would just overwhelm the Republicans with sheer numbers. It may even be possible for that ticket to take Kansas, especially since Kansans overwhelmingly voted against McCain!
And Pmom – The reason we had a caucus was the Legislation didn’t want to spend the money on a primary (stupid). Obama has been more organized for caucuses. And he does tend to get the younger vote, which helps with caucuses because as you pointed out, the weather sucked 2/5, and older voters couldn’t get out. But again, that was the state of Kansas’s stupidity in not being willing to pay for a primary. But we will hold a special election for a school bond issue that hopefully will be voted down. A total waste of money.
I really do think that Clinton/Obama could take Kansas against McCain.
I’m probably being naive, but it would be nice for my vote to count for once.
When Rupert Murdoch (Overlord of Neo-Con Propaganda) holds fundraisers for Hillary on top of Rush and Ann Coulter endorsing her, we know the game is fixed. But I’ve already heard the Neo-Con garbage that “it’s a political strategy”. When asked what that “strategy” is, I get, “we’ll let Hillary get the nomination and lose to McCain and then take the blame for the disaster to come”. I ask, “what disaster?”, “I thought everything was going fine”.
McCain ain’t got a chance and never did against Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush…
Silliness.
I meant beat McCain…proofread Pleefer.
“SolDevVB” displays his unique grasp of the obvious with –
“…you just called the people of Kansas stupid.”
And your point is…?
MH
After reading your response, I’d say we’re probably not that far off; we might actually agree here. (Oh, God NO!).
I’m not particularly a fan of term limits, and professional politician should not be a bad thing. But what you call cynicism, I call realism. I just deal with the world as it is, not as I wish it was. And in politics, policy usually isn’t about principle, it’s usually about attracting votes. The politician who sticks to principle and advocates a correct but unpopular policy, as it is, for example, contended Mondale did, loses. So policy inevitably gives way to politics. It’s just the way it is. It is why democracies are messy and inefficient affairs. It’s the price of admission.
JR and I have had this same discussion in the context of a legislator’s vote? Is it his, or his constituencies? If a politician truly believes, after considering all the available information, that policy A is the correct policy but policy B is substantially favored in his district and policy A is unpopular, how should he vote? I’ve always contended the vote is the legislator’s, not the constituancies’, and a legislator is not beholden to vote as his constituency would have him. The price of exercising that conscience, of course, may be defeat in the next election. Let’s see: A, I’m right, B, I keep my job. Hmmmm? 9 times out of 10, which do you think will be done? Politics wins out, generally, over policy.
Unfortunate, perhaps, but true.
And Tom Paine, yes, I do work for the gov’t. And yes, if you hear from me, to one extent or another, it’s probably a bad thing!! Just the nature of what I do . . . .
Monkeyboy,
As you pointed out, you’re stupid. Damn.
Another interesting question for you Hilary supporters:
Why was it ok for Hilary to question her opponent on his tax return release in her first bid for the Senate and now she is the one holding out her tax information like it is no big deal?
These Clinton double standards just keep rolling in.
“I still want to know why a primary result always comes in positive for Clinton, and the Caucus (which can be more easily skewed) always comes in for Obama.”
There’s no mystery here. Caucuses are not “more easily skewed.” In fact, getting physically counted in a caucus was a helluva lot more of a sure thing to me than punching buttons on a voting machine “busy box” and having no idea if anything was actually recorded or not.
The reason that Obama always does better in a caucus is simply because the caucus system rewards people who are more motivated–motivated to stand in line, motivated to wait around and be counted.
Obama inspires that motivation in a way HRC does not.
Even though I don’t like Nathan saying it, he’s right.
Where are those tax returns? For that matter, where are those White House records? And how much lobbyist money does she take compared to Obama’s zero special-interest money?
All quiet on the Hillary front . . .
Capn, the caucus system also rewards the candidate with the better local organization. It seems to me, from the media reports, et al., that Obama’s folks have just flat out organized Clinton’s folks in caucus states. I am of the opinion that the Clinton campaign truly believed it needed to concentrate on primary states, and in the “inevitability” of the candidate, and didn’t do the needed work on the ground.
Very likely, VT, very likely.
GMC70,
It basically boils down to our being a Representative Republic.
That is why I believe principles are so important for those we elect to have. They are a good indicator on how they will vote on certain issues.
If they simply followed the polls on whatever way the wind was blowing, it would be chaos.
“GMC70″ –
You’re not the only one who’s diffident about us agreeing. Rest assured, now that we agree I’ll have to reconsider my original opinion. ;-)
I suspect the authors of the Constitution of the United States of America were a mite too idealistic and more than a little bit naive in thinking the House of Representatives would be the voice of the people and the Senate would be the voice of the states and somehow the President would be the voice of the nation.
Still, it wasn’t a bad idea at the time.
As this nation’s resources and people and spirit grew, serving in Congress ceased being a sacrifice and became a career option. I haven’t looked up the recent salary/benefits/expence accounts/etc., but I think if I were to be elected to Congress it’d be the best-paying job on my resume. But the power of being in Congress has transformed that nominal middle-management compensation into a job only the most wealthy can win.
Every law on the books is the direct result of somebody gaming the previous law.
We’ll never get it right.
“I suppose anything it takes to win, huh?”
You better believe it. The stakes are too high.
We have the opportunity to bury the right deep deep in the ground where they belong. At least for me, negotiation is not an option.
I agree with GMC on the legislator’s vote. It belongs to the legislator, to be cast by him/her in favor of or in opposition to a particular bill on the basis of what the individual legislator believes is the best policy. It then becomes the duty of the legislator to show why the policy position taken was the “best” to the constituency, who, of course, are free to show their disagreement with this by not reelecting the legislator.
Hi, J R.
I sent you an e-mail.
I agree 100% Vaughn Tolle.
I think the states that didn’t get their delegates counted will hold another election. That would be the best answer. Don’t want to alienate our base.
Phantom, that seems the most equitable solution.
A proposal that I overheard (wasn’t watching the tube at the time) made by someone last night was to split the MI and FL delegations down the middle. Saves the expense of another set of primaries, overcomes the “only Clinton on the ballot” issue, etc. Not a proposal that either side will like, which makes it a good one.
Of course, splitting the delegates down the middle would have the same effect as counting none of them.
The thing is, even if HRC took 70 percent of both states (virtually impossible), she couldn’t pull ahead of Obama’s elected delegates.
Given that she statistically CAN’T WIN or even LEAD in delegates, one wonders why she continues to campaign.
Consider if that money and goodwill were thrown behind Obama, instead of futilly hindering him . . .
This was posted on another Blog board–
“Only 611 Pledged Delegates can be won from this point on. That’s all that is left.”
Obama is ahead by 139 pledged delegates. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/
That would mean that HRC would have to win 22 percent more delegates than Obama does from here on out.
Given that Clinton’s win against “uncommitted” in Michigan was only 14 percent and her win in her home state of New York was only by 14 percent (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914), that is so unlikely as to be impossible.
Capn, the transformation is taking place, you already sound like a republican.
Heh, and the HRC people ridicule us for believing in “hope.”
What’s important about staying in this, is if Hillary keeps close enough the superdelegates won’t feel as if they HAVE to vote for Obama, they can vote who they really feel is best. There is a reason the party elders are preferring HRC, they know the election has been jacked.
Also since Hillary Keeps winning the big battleground states, what do you think will happen to Obama in those states.
I’m telling you Capn, if Obama does win this, and he loses the General, I never ever want to see you post again.
It will be an unforgiveable loss.
And as far as those polls that say Obama scores better? Dno’t you think the republicans are jacking those too?
Political Mama,
Would the opposite be true as well?
What if Hilary gets the nomination and then goes on to lose the general election?
Will you humbly apologize for all the grief you have given your fellow Democrats who supported Obama?
“There is a reason the party elders are preferring HRC, they know the election has been jacked.” – Political_mama
“And as far as those polls that say Obama scores better? Dno’t you think the republicans are jacking those too?” – Political_mama
Gosh – pretty soon PM will be blaming those dastardly Republicans for the cold winter, premature baldness, and sunspots . . .
PM – Republicans would RATHER run against HRC. Her negatives start out near 40%, and she’s proven to be a much less capable campaigner than Obama. But you keep pushing that Vast Right Wing Conspiracy story. (Hmmm, where have we heard that one before?)
See GMC, I don’t think Hillary is easier, that’s why you republicans keep pointing it out.
I think you look very forward to no experience and hope to go after instead of a proven leader.
“I don’t think Hillary is easier, that’s why you republicans keep pointing it out.”
Many reputable polls show Obama winning over McCain and Clinton losing.
Hillary’s “win” of Texas may not include winning the most delegates.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802
Also read in the Washington Post today that their poll says Obama and Hillary both beat McCain.
Check out Bush’s performance at the McCain endorsement event.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802
We can’t lose that smirking frat-boy cheerleader soon enough.
Ooops, this is the correct 2nd link – Bush being his real self at the press conference:
http://democrats.org/a/2008/03/mccain_bush_pre.php
Interestingly the video does not show up on McCain’s website, the RNC wedsite, instead the democrats put it on their website. Take a look it; is not difficult to understand why they posted it.
Any bets that the above event will be the last time Bush and McCain are seen on the same stage. McCain’s mentioning of Bush’s “busy schedule” 6 times in a few minutes, might be interpreted as “this clown is coming nowhere near my campaign.”
“this clown is coming nowhere near my campaign.”
The Clown In Chief himself may not show up, but he will be on McCain’s campaign like flies on shit.
Every photo-op over the last seven years that featured Bush and McCain will be shown over and over again, ad nauseum…………………
McCain can never escape the shadow of George 19% Bush.
I saw that Capn, we’re cool.
Mostly.
But?
“Given that she statistically CAN’T WIN or even LEAD in delegates, one wonders why she continues to campaign.”
Your point is she can’t win?
Neither can Barack.
This isn’t a ballgame where we call the thing concluded just because one side is ahead in the eighth inning.
The super delegate were intended to keep the party from nominating someone by mistake. And there are no small number of us who see Obama as a HUGE mistake.
He is winning:
States that will likely go red anyway.
With the support of Republicans attempting to pollute the process.
And he is starting to reveal that all his “coming together” talk is just that. At least as applied to Democrats.
Now you see how it falls among our resident cons. They want Obama. Don’t you ask yourself why?
“And there are no small number of us who see Obama as a HUGE mistake.”
And there are no small number of us who see Hillary as a HUGE mistake.
As in, not being able to take the White House in November and turning out a HUGE Republican voting bloc that will negate our ability to increase majorities in the House and Senate.
Obama will take crossover votes from McCain, Clinton will give crossover votes to McCain.
That is not a good scenario for Democrats.
“Also since Hillary Keeps winning the big battleground states, what do you think will happen to Obama in those states.”
Hillary doesn’t keep winning the big battleground states. She lost Texas. The ones she wins are by such small margins, like Ohio, she gets very little benefit from them. This is the woman who came in THIRD in Iowa, remember, and who barely beat Edwards in South Carolina.
It makes no sense to say that she can carry Ohio and Obama can’t just because she got ten percent more votes than he did out of 2.2 million cast, particularly when his appeal for independents is well-known.
“I’m telling you Capn, if Obama does win this, and he loses the General, I never ever want to see you post again. It will be an unforgiveable loss.”
Heh, no kidding. Now you know how I felt after rich-boy John Forbes Kerry just wrote himself a check during Iowa to knock Howard Dean out — Howard Dean, the fighter, the former wrestler who said that he “represented the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.”
I’m fully aware of what’s at stake, and that’s why I’m compelled to back the candidate I see as better.
As for hurting our chances, that’s what Hillary’s doing with her divisive campaign, IMHO.
Thanks, J R.
I value your opinion (even if I don’t always agree completely on the Hillary question).
Also, nobody kicks EconPaul’s ass like J R, hehehe . . .
Well for all I know, and all he has shown?
Obama might be WORSE than McCain.
The Republicans are not entirely happy with McCain. Some of them have an idea to let whichever Democrat win in hopes that the mess they inherit will stick itself to them. Then, some right wing hero rides in 4 years later and breezes to office.
If Obama is the nominee, this strategy looks good from our side. Let McCain win, then 4 years later, we get a REAL Democrat.
“Obama might be WORSE than McCain.”
He might be a secret Muslim, too, but it is not likely.
capn – Hillary winning the TX vote (primary) will be duly noted by the super delegates. They will factor that into their calculus when they decide who to support. OH, PA, FL, MI are infinitely more important that TX, GA, KS etc. The reason? They are SWING states. THEY are the ones who will decide the election in November.
I will happily and enthusiastically support EITHER Clinton or Obama against McBush. I think EITHER will make a good president with the other working diligently in the Senate to support a strong pro-America agenda. So, the key over the next 2 months is for BOTH of them to maintain dignity and realize that defeating McBush is more important than defeating each other.
If Obama is the nominee, this strategy looks good from our side. Let McCain win, then 4 years later, we get a REAL Democrat.
Absolutely NOT J R. I love my country too much to wish that fate. That happened 8 years ago with another “moderate” Republican – remember?
If someone could make a persuasive case that red states are going to stay red and blue states will stay blue, and Hillary can carry the purple states when Obama can’t, that would be the one argument that would convince me to back Hillary.
Trouble is, no one can see into a crystal ball and make that prediction.
Iowa elected John FORBES Kerry because they thought he was more “electable.” Turns out, he wasn’t. Or wasn’t electable enough, anyway.
Meanwhile, Kerry didn’t lay a glove on Worst. President. Ever.
The other problem with waiting for a “real democrat” to come along, J R, is that I’ve been waiting for that to happen since Reagan beat Carter in 1980.
There aren’t that many “real democrats” out there these days. Wellstone was killed in a conveeenient airplane crash. Russ Feingold didn’t run. Even centrist Al Gore didn’t run.
Kucinich and Edwards DID run, and that didn’t pan out . . .
I would have to ask what a “real” Democrat is? Who would be an example of that species?
The country is pretty much evenly divided between various levels of conservatism and various levels of liberalism.
An extreme on either side is not going to get very far, unless they hide their stripes – vis a vi George W Bush.
The country has gotten wise to that kind of switch and bait.
Neither a far right nor a far left candidate can win – so we MUST compromise – that is just a political reality.
I’m trying to figure out how P_Mom thinks the primaries are more akin to the general elections. I’d say caucuses are more like the general because of the electoral factor.
Steven,
Thanks for sharing the McCain/Bush video. It only strengthens my conspiracy theory that McCain was promised the nomination this year if he toed the party line after the crap they shoveled over him during the 2000 runup. And that’s why he lost me.
What’s the difference between Monica Lewinsky and John McCain?
Monica got her president impeached.
No RD – the caucuses require far too much time and tend to be dominated by those comitted to theor candidate. Primaries – and general voting – take little time.
The caucus was very very hard on the elderly and disabled who had to stand. I had some who wouldn’t come or left early.
It should’nt be like that in America to have your voice heard.
Bush didn’t hide one bit, we real democrats KNEW why he’d be so bad for the country before he was elected.
And lets face it, had he not screwed up the war so bad, those same people who belived he was a moderate would still love him.
As long as it doesn’t affect their life they don’t care. Bush was far right. He’s always been far right.
Ben,
I see your point, but I’m looking at it from a different angle. Al Gore won the popular vote. He didn’t win the Presidency. I’m not factoring in the Florida debacle, of course.
Political Mama,
So what did you do or your fellow Democrats do to help those who couldn’t make it to have their voices heard?
I’ve been to exactly one caucus.
I wouldn’t bother with another. Just a big mess.
I think Democrats have their nomination process just a little TOO open. People who really want to vote for a Democrat don’t decide the day of the vote and then stick to it. This is why I think about 10% of the Obama vote is not to be taken seriously.
JR,
Whats that? Too open you say?
What would you suggest? Checking peoples ID’s?
Sounds pretty Republican of you. Watch out, people might think you are being a racist and attacking the poor people too, who don’t have an ID.
“This is why I think about 10% of the Obama vote is not to be taken seriously.”
The only reason that Republicans would have to sabotage Democratic primaries would be if they wanted Hillary to win – she would be a far easier mark than Obama and she would elicit a huge Republican turnout in November, resulting in difficulty for Democrats to increase their margins in Congress.
Obama, on the other hand, will cause a HUGE turnout of Democratic voters, resulting in the Democrats taking a firmer hold on the House and Senate while also taking the White House.
Obama turns out the vote – Hillary does not.
Just in case you were wondering…
The Republican conspiracy is to vote for Hilary, not Obama.
We want to see Hilary drag this all the way to the convention so it will sap Obamas funds and hers fighting each other.
Meanwhile McCain has a free ride to the election now.
We want to see the Democrats keep fighting.
If you listened to Laura Ingram at all you would have heard all the Republicans who went out to vote for Hilary in Texas to do just that.
A little bit of information brought to you by your local member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy :)
It doesn’t matter what the Republicans do – John W McBush is toast – dead in the water – DOA.
The Democrats will tie McCain to Bush so tightly that McCain will be lucky to get the 19% of Americans that still think that Bush is doing a good job.
McCain has yet to offer ONE policy or position that differs from Bush – Democrats will never let him forget that.
His “hug around the waist” position towards Bush may have worked during the Republican primaries, but it will hardly float in the general with the American public that is sick to death of George.
McCain better hold onto his Senate seat or he will be out of a job come November.
And he can take his spooky looking wife back to Phoenix with him – I’ve seen Barbie Dolls with more life to them than Cindy McCain.
It is well known that the right wanted to get rid of Senator Hillary Clinton BEFORE the general election.
They were opposing her nomination several years before she even announced her candidacy.
Sean Hannity announced the “stop Hillary express over four years ago.
Their “god” Ronald Reagan was a doddering sucker who they reprogrammed. I think they see Obama the same. And I am not convinced they are not correct.
Nathan, then perhaps you and Amway can have a little talk about how his voting for Obama hurt the GOP.
See, I think ya’ll are trying to pull a fast one. I think Obama is easier to beat from his lack of experience, and people remember how good the years were during Clinton.
“I think they see Obama the same. And I am not convinced they are not correct.”
So Barack Obama, at 46, is a doddering sucker?
What does that make Hillary? She is fourteen years older than Barack.
A cadaver?
Political Mama,
If you think that the Republicans somehow have this much control over your nomination, then you give us far more respect than we deserve.
We couldn’t even get someone besides McCain for our nomination and you think we are in charge of yours?
LOL
I am being 100% honest when I tell you this, for whatever that is worth.
All the Conservatives and Republicans I know and have spoken to, want to see Hilary drag this out all the way to the nomination.
We have far more to gain with Hilary and Obama fighting all the way to the end than we do with Obama being more clearly the nominee.
It isn’t that hard of a concept to grasp.
I’m TRYING to be nice.
Fact is? Ronald Reagan was a good hearted guy. He was a Democrat and union leader.
Then his wife Nancy decided she liked nice things and the people that could give them to her and Ronnie.
She introduced Ronnie to folks who pumped a lot of sunshine up his skirt.
Starting to sound eerily familiar?
I might even get myself a Hilary sign and place it in my yard. LOL
“We couldn’t even get someone besides McCain for our nomination and you think we are in charge of yours?”
Huh? When did I even suggest that Republicans were “in charge of” ours?
Dang, Price, read much?
My point was that Republicans had NO reason to support Obama over Clinton.
Try reading before you make stupid statements…..
Nathan I would not take your word that night is dark and day is light.
What you know is that you are going to lose to either Clinton or Obama.
And you are hoping that Obama and his egomania can be twisted into making him a Republican in Democrat clothing.
WS Clark,
The statement was in response to Political Mama’s thoughts that somehow the Republicans are “pulling a fast one”
JR,
Are you kidding? After Hilary gets through dragging the nomination through the mud I still have plenty of reason to believe that the Republicans have a strong shot at keeping the White House.
J R, I am not interested in playing another flaming war with you, but I would like to see your math that proves that Hillary can win the general WITHOUT the Obama supporters.
At worst, Barack is supported by half of the Democrats and progressives.
At best, Hillary is in a statistical tie with McCain.
How could she win if HALF the Democrats do not support her?
“The statement was in response to Political Mama’s thoughts that somehow the Republicans are “pulling a fast one””
So why did you address your comment to me?
Have a reading problem, Price?
Wait! That’s your line………….
My bad.
WS Clark,
Once again, please read more carefully.
The post was addressed to no one, but immediately followed a post to Political Mama.
So how do you get that it was addressed to you?
Because it showed up immediately after mine, Price.
Next time, address the comment to whom it was intended.
Why are you fighting with Nathan WS?
Obama says he can be worked with.
I’ll let you and him alone to diplomacy.
“I’ll let you and him alone to diplomacy.”
So, I’ll ask again – how can Hillary win the general WITHOUT half of the Democrats?
You have stated that Clinton can win without Obama supporters and I would like to know how you plan to accomplish that.
Easy question, right?
WS Clark,
The post immediately followed MY post which immediately followed Political Mama’s post.
So once again, you are wrong.
It is ok to admit you made a mistake.
Sorry, should read that my post immediately followed my post which was directed to Political Mama.
It did not immediately follow your post.
It doesn’t even make sense following your post.
It pretty clearly was a followup to my post which was directed to Politcal Mama.
Yours at 10:36 and mine at 10:32………..
Any more questions?
WS Clark,
Can you not see my post at 10:35?
How can my post “immediately” follow yours when I have another one right in front of it addressed to Political Mama?
“Can you not see my post at 10:35?”
No, I skip every other one of your posts.
Most bloggers copy and paste the comment that they are responding to or at least reference the name of the person that they are addressing, PRICE.
Easy, right?
See, I did both…………………..
“It doesn’t even make sense following your post.”
Most of what you post doesn’t make sense, PRICE.
Sorry to interrupt your summit tea with Nathan there WS.
“You have stated that Clinton can win without Obama supporters and I would like to know how you plan to accomplish that.”
Do you mean to suggest that Obama supporters are Obama or bust?
I think that is what I have been saying all along.
Sorry the interruption. Go on showing me how the right can be worked with.
WS Clark,
So… You expect me to always refrence the name of the person I am addressing…
Perhaps you shouldn’t jump to conclusions about who I was addressing if you are not sure.
Didn’t seem to stop you though.
I typed that comment right after my response to Political Mama. It seemed rather obvious to me that it was a quick follow up post in addition to that original one addressed to her.
Either way, you have been wrong on two accusations so far.
First you said I did address you.
I did not. It was addressed to no one.
Second you said my post immediately followed yours.
It did not. It immediately followed my post to Political Mama.
How many different ways do you have to be proven wrong before you simply admit you made a mistake?
“Do you mean to suggest that Obama supporters are Obama or bust?”
No, J R, YOU said last night that Hillary could win in November WITHOUT the Obama supporters.
I just asked you to show me the math.
“Perhaps you shouldn’t jump to conclusions about who I was addressing if you are not sure.”
Perhaps you could be an adult instead of a Jr. High schooler and actually ADDRESS the person you are talking to rather than leave it subject to interpretation.
Notice how I copied and pasted your post, PRICE?
AND I used your name, also.
Easy, right?
To help your memory, J R…..
J R
Posted March 5, 2008 at 10:52 pm | Permalink
Yes I believe that the supporters of Hillary Clinton can beat McCain without the supporters of Obama.
WS Clark,
You have made two false accusations so far:
1. That I did address you:
WSClark
Posted March 6, 2008 at 10:50 pm | Permalink
“So why did you address your comment to me?”
2. That it immediately followed your post:
WSClark
Posted March 6, 2008 at 10:58 pm | Permalink
“Because it showed up immediately after mine, Price.”
On both counts you were wrong.
Is that enough cut and paste for you?
Ready to admit you were wrong yet?
“Ready to admit you were wrong yet?”
Learn how to read yet, PRICE?
WS Clark,
You were the one who made two false accusations based on my comment.
Apparently you are the one who needs to learn how to read.
Perhaps you missed it the first several times I have posted it:
WS Clark,
You have made two false accusations so far:
1. That I did address you:
WSClark
Posted March 6, 2008 at 10:50 pm | Permalink
“So why did you address your comment to me?”
2. That it immediately followed your post:
WSClark
Posted March 6, 2008 at 10:58 pm | Permalink
“Because it showed up immediately after mine, Price.”
On both counts you were wrong.
Is that enough cut and paste for you?
Ready to admit you were wrong yet?
WS CLARK
WS CLARK
WS CLARK
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS POST IS FOR WS CLARK
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have made two false accusations so far:
1. That I did address you:
WSClark
Posted March 6, 2008 at 10:50 pm | Permalink
“So why did you address your comment to me?”
2. That it immediately followed your post:
WSClark
Posted March 6, 2008 at 10:58 pm | Permalink
“Because it showed up immediately after mine, Price.”
On both counts you were wrong.
Is that enough cut and paste for you?
Ready to admit you were wrong yet?
I think I have proved my point.
Obama says the right can be worked with. He preaches bipartisanship and bleats endlessly about hope and change.
And here is Obamaniac WS in a blood feud with eptitome right winger Nathan over semantics.
I rest my case.
“Is that enough cut and paste for you?”
It’s COPY and paste, not CUT and paste, moron.
If you CUT it is gone – if you COPY it is still there.
And it would be considerate (something foreign to you) and helpful (something also foreign to you) to ACTUALLY address posts to those that you are replying to………………….
Of course, being CONSIDERATE is not something you would want to do……
WS CLARK
WS CLARK
WS CLARK
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS POST IS FOR WS CLARK
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have made two false accusations so far:
1. That I did address you:
WSClark
Posted March 6, 2008 at 10:50 pm | Permalink
“So why did you address your comment to me?”
2. That it immediately followed your post:
WSClark
Posted March 6, 2008 at 10:58 pm | Permalink
“Because it showed up immediately after mine, Price.”
On both counts you were wrong.
Is that enough COPY and paste for you?
Ready to admit you were wrong yet?
Reposted, J R………………….
How about an answer?
Or should we all take your approach and whine and cry and refuse to vote for the Democratic candidate if it isn’t the one we want…..
“To help your memory, J R…..
J R
Posted March 5, 2008 at 10:52 pm | Permalink
Yes I believe that the supporters of Hillary Clinton can beat McCain without the supporters of Obama.”
How about some math here, J R?
WS CLARK
WS CLARK
WS CLARK
Sleep on it.
Perhaps you might see how you were wrong by the morning or be man enough to admit you made a mistake by then.
Good night.
Oops I think your pal Nathan went to bed WS.
I’m headed that way as well.
Hey, it is YOUR candidate wants to work with these folks. I THINK you better learn to love your “enemies” because I don’t think you can find common ground with your new hoped for friends.
Mitigating between Nathan and WS. Sheesh how low I have sunk.
For the second or third time…….
Reposted, J R………………….
How about an answer?
Or should we all take your approach and whine and cry and refuse to vote for the Democratic candidate if it isn’t the one we want…..
“To help your memory, J R…..
J R
Posted March 5, 2008 at 10:52 pm | Permalink
Yes I believe that the supporters of Hillary Clinton can beat McCain without the supporters of Obama.”
How about some math here, J R?
__________________________________________________
How are you gone to win in November WITHOUT the Obama supporters, J R?
I asked what would happen if all the Obama supporters took your approach and refused to support Hillary if she were to get the nomination.
You said that Hillary doesn’t need us.
So, show me the numbers…….
“Perhaps you might see how you were wrong by the morning or be man enough to admit you made a mistake by then.”
I am more of a man that you could ever hope to be, PRICE.
Your pal Nathan will be back to talk to you later WS.
And I can go get where you said that you and your Obamaniacs do not need those who oppose Obama.
But I won’t. You need to work this out with your new friends.
Good night.
“And I can go get where you said that you and your Obamaniacs do not need those who oppose Obama.”
Quite the opposite, J R. You said that your candidate does not need US. I never said that WE do not need the Clinton supporters.
So, show me the math………
I posted your comments – now back them up.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/overall_favorable_ratings_for_presidential_candidates
Favorable Unfavorable
Clinton 49% 50%
Obama 51% 46%
McCain 52% 45%
“Oh no, Clinton wouldn’t darken Barrack’s picture:
http://cliffschecter.bravenewfilms.org/blog/31401-did-clinton-campaign-darken-obama-s-skin-tone ”
Typical Max. This is known as the self confirming delusion. Hillary is evil, so of course she would do this.
There is no substantiation for this charge.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_darken_obamas_skin.html
Right agnostic!
We all know how sweet and innocent Hillary is.
The fact of the matter is that many *itches love Hillary for being a *itch.
How’s that for curb appeal!
Thattaboy Max.
Don’t let reality confuse you or deter you from your pre-existing conclusions.
The race is NOT over until one of the Democratic candidates gets the 2,025 delegates needed.
I am happy Hillary won 3 state primaries Tuesday and is staying in the race. She is the most qualified to be President and I will continue to support her all the way to the white house.
HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT !!!