Hillary Clinton made some conciliatory comments in her victory speech in Kentucky Tuesday night, saying that “while we continue to go toe-to-toe for this nomination, we do see eye-to-eye when it comes to uniting our party to elect a Democratic president this fall.” But given that she has little to no hope of overtaking Barack Obama, who won Oregon yesterday, why is she still fighting full force? Much of the speculation about this has been negative, but here are some positive explanations:
The Washington Post reported that Clinton’s advisers say that “a major reason she does not want to be pressured out of the race is that she believes it will be easier to bring her supporters over to Obama once the primaries are over if they think she was able to finish the nomination battle on her own terms.” That makes sense, though it doesn’t explain the aggressiveness of her criticisms of Obama.
Columnist Richard Cohen wrote that Clinton “is acting as any leader would.” He added: “Take a tour of statues throughout the world, and, while you will find monuments to plenty of historical figures who lost battles, you will find none to ‘A Gracious Loser.’” However, Cohen also noted that fighting to the end could have political benefits later. Clinton would be 65 in 2012 and still younger than John McCain is now in 2016, so she would be “positioned to run for president, not as someone’s wife, but as a gritty fighter who just would not quit.”
The New York Times reported that Clinton thinks sexism was a significant factor in the campaign, and she wants to show younger women that she won’t be pushed around. But it also reported that Clinton thinks she still has a chance to win, and the more primary wins and delegates she can get, the more leverage she’ll have to argue for seating delegates from Florida and Michigan.
84 Comments
I think at this point it makes sense to finish playing out the table. June 3 should then be a day to reflect on the situation. As long as the proceedure is perceived as having been fait I believe the Party will come together as both clinton and Obama said last night.
Why is Clinton staying in race?
-To get Obama to pay off her campaign’s debt. He’s flush with cash.
-Because she believes it can still be stolen.
-Because she has a Messiah complex, and believes that she and only she can save us from ourselves.
Pick your favorite. I’m betting on #1, though #3 is certainly in the running. . .
The main driving factor in this presidential race is changing our foreign policy, which is destroying our economy with high priced gasoline, our jobs, and threatens all-out-war in the ME.
Attacking Iran would put the price of crude oil through the roof.
Anyone notice that H. Clinton is getting more ‘hobbit-like’ as she gets older? Nevermind, maybe it’s just me.
She is definetely hoping for the Florida/Michigan thing to turn around and pick up mega Delegates.
I read this column, by David Limbaugh, when it was re-printed in the Conservative Chronicle.
He’s not my favorite writer, but I think he got it right.
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2008/05/new_column_in_f.html
Here’s one that’s gone unmentioned–the more votes, the more delegates, the more power to affect the convention and subsequent race.
Ms. Clinton has the power to elect or destroy Obama, and she knows it. And so does he. Obviously, if she chose the latter, it would be political suicide (mutually assured destruction, heh); Barack Obama is not Jimmy Carter.
But between those two extremes, there’s considerable room for negotiation.
P.S. Anyone still worried about Nader? ;-)
Got to have a stand-by just in case the Republicans assassinate Obama.
Israel owns Hillary and McCain. Read their newpapers and see for yourselves, as they sweat Obama.
Be careful, Ben or Monkeyhawk will post something like the following:
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 21, 2008 at 12:19 pm | Permalink
“BTH” As long as the proceedure is perceived as having been “fait [sic]” I believe-
WAIT A MINUTE!! “FAIT?!” Can’t you used the language properly?! Go back to where you came from, illiterate!
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/clarity-on-%e2%80%98english-only%e2%80%99-school-debate/
Ben, just to be clear, I am reposting to make sure everyone understands that I am not calling you “illiterate”. Only copying with editing whay Monkeyhawk said about me and corrected the link.
—————————————–
Be careful, Ben or Monkeyhawk will post something like the following:
=============================================
“”Monkeyhawk
Posted May 21, 2008 at 12:19 pm | Permalink
“BTH” As long as the proceedure is perceived as having been “fait [sic]” I believe-
WAIT A MINUTE!! “FAIT?!” Can’t you used the language properly?! Go back to where you came from, illiterate!”"
==================================================
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/clarity-on-%e2%80%98english-only%e2%80%99-school-debate/#comment-353688
I don’t think sexism had anything to do with Hillary’s campaign. What I didn’t like from the beginning was the fact that both Bill and Hillary Clinton thought the democratic nomination was going to be a cakewalk. They did not count on Obama becoming a threat to her. From the very beginning, I think Bill (especially) underestimated Obama.
That being said, I don’t think Obama (if he is the nominee) is interested in picking Hillary for his VP. He knows that if he picked Hillary, Bill would be right there in the mix of the White House trying to throw his weight around.
Rather, if Obama is the nominee, then I think he should pick a retired general that can help him with foreign policies and military issues.
But this blog is about Hillary and her staying in the race. She should continue to fight it out and let the chips fall where they may. As for the Florida and Michigan delegates, why would it be fair to count the votes where Obama’s name was not even on the ballot? (I don’t remember which state that applies to here).
If Hillary does get the nomination, it is going to look suspicious. And that, in itself, will turn off many voters.
then I think he should pick a retired general that can help him with foreign policies and military issues.
Best damn idea I’ve heard. I was thinking Richardson would be the best bet, but yours is far better.
sol – perhaps Sen Webb of VA – former Navy Secretary.
#Ed_Friedemann
Posted May 21, 2008 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
Israel owns Hillary and McCain. Read their newpapers and see for yourselves, as they sweat Obama.
————-
I think writerdog, you and I are the only ones on this blog that see this as a fact! It is still such an oddity that the neocons haven’t hidden their agenda and yet so few see it. I told writerdog recently that some days I thank him for starting me on my quest for information about neocons and other days I curse him for the same thing!
The term is thrown around too loosely and when it doesn’t apply but when it does apply Americans should pay closer attention and be aware of the great dangers.
bth,
Don’t know much about the retired brass, but the idea is intriguing and would help with those who are dicey on his foreign policy.
But it also reported that Clinton thinks she still has a chance to win,
It’s good that Hillary has a positive outlook. Without that, she’d have been toast a long time ago. Let her finish the campaign, if that’s her choice. She’s fought long and hard and deserves to see it play out. Besides, if she didn’t believe she still has a chance to win, she’d be betraying herself and her supporters.
Right Angle,
Perhaps Ben meant it in the French or Latin form, not as FATE, but as FAIT as in fait accompli.
Here are a couple of definitions from Wiki Answers:
fait accomplis: (law term used in divorce cases and others) Something that has already happened and is thus unlikely to be reversed.
fait accompli: This French term simply means that the problem has been solved; that the program has been completed; that whatever you started out to do has been done or accomplished.
Considering the wording of Ben’s post, it appears he did mean FAIT and not FATE.
actually it was supposed to be FAIR – as in “perceived to be FAIR”
just look at your kerboard and see what key is close to the ‘R’
‘E’ ???
other side – T – thus I get FAIT for FAIR since I cannot type.
Oh well, I was confused, I thought Ben was talking about a “fat accomplice.” Thought it was going going to be a Mickey Spillane detective story about the ‘Mystery of the Fat Man.’
“Why is Clinton staying in the race?”
Why SHOULDN’T she?
Millions of people have voted for her. She has won the most important states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
If another primary were held today, she would probably win Florida and Michigan.
Again.
Obama could not close the deal with voters and win on delegate count. NOW he has the chance to close the deal with the super delegates.
Will he fail that too?
And if not enough super delegates will bet on him before the convention?
That is what conventions are for.
The super delegates and the convemtion were set up so that the party would nominate the candidate they best think can win.
Senator Clinton is a very shrewd politician. If she thinks Obama cannot win the general it is her OBLIGATION to her party and her country to present her case. Obama may present his as well.
ha ha, Ben! I think fait worked just as well. :)
Latest Hillary news: She’s saying she may keep going up to and including the convention in August.
TAMPA, Fla. – Barack Obama criticized his likely general election rival John McCain on Wednesday where it could hurt most — the Arizona senator’s reputation as a champion of ethics. Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile, raised the possibility she might carry her fight to the Democratic convention floor.
With more superdelegate endorsements Wednesday after Kentucky and Oregon primaries the night before, Obama is just 64 delegates short of the 2,026 needed to clinch the nomination.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080521/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_florida
From the David Limbaugh link above.
jr has it right this time.
“Indeed Hillary can make a compelling case that the superdelegate system was made to order precisely for the predicament in which Democrats now find themselves. The leading candidate in both popular vote and pledged delegates (putting aside the knotty issues surrounding Michigan and Florida), might be an entirely different person than voters in earlier primary states assumed.
Under the system they created, shouldn’t Democrats be encouraging Hillary to give it her best shot to win over the supers? If she is correct that Obama is unelectable, she could theoretically persuade a very large percentage of them to vote for her — enough to get her to the magic number. If it were not possible, the whole super-system of providing a safety valve against the initially popular but ultimately unelectable candidate would be a farce.”
fleettwood
Posted May 21, 2008 at 5:17 pm | Permalink
From the David Limbaugh link above.
jr has it right this time.
“Indeed Hillary can make a compelling case that the superdelegate system was made to order precisely for the predicament in which Democrats now find themselves. The leading candidate in both popular vote and pledged delegates (putting aside the knotty issues surrounding Michigan and Florida), might be an entirely different person than voters in earlier primary states assumed.
================================================
I bet the Republicans wish they had that system right about now!!!!
“I bet the Republicans wish they had that system right about now!!!!”
I don’t think so. McCain wasn’t my first or second or even third choice, but he will do. His “maverick-ness” will work for him this cycle.
The you people’s had it in the bag and blew it.
And that’s a good thing.
Wiseman
Posted May 21, 2008 at 1:39 pm | Permalink
Got to have a stand-by just in case the Republicans assassinate Obama.
=================================================
Wiseman, if I was Obama, I would really be concerned about my longevity if Hillary is VP.
fleettwood,
Do those Wingnut sites tell you what to think?
There is the difference.
I don’t know any.
“RightAngle” whines –
“…Monkeyhawk will post something like the following:
MonkeyhawkPosted May 21, 2008 at 12:19 pm | Permalink
“BTH” As long as the proceedure is perceived as having been “fait [sic]” I believe-
The cited comment, which apparently got under your skin, came as you were ranting about proper use of the English language. An appropriate comment with that context.
The original post, which you chose to malign me with, and its context is there for all to see:
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 21, 2008 at 12:19 pm | Permalink
“RightAngle” cites the “Lawer[sic]” with –
WAIT A MINUTE!! “LAWER?!” Can’t you use the language properly?! Go back to where you came from, illiterate!
Classy as always, monkey.
“fleettwood” praises me with –
“Classy as always, monkey.”
Thanks.
I try to be.
;-)
BlueJay posted May 21, 2008 at 5:13 pm
“Senator Clinton is a very shrewd politician.”
Then why is her campaign in debt? Why did she have to loan her campaign funds to keep it going?
“If another primary were held today, she would probably win Florida and Michigan.
Again.
Obama could not close the deal with voters and win on delegate count.”
Let’s put Obama’s name on the ballots this time.
And also let California vote again
‘Californians Would Switch Clinton Vote For Obama’
http://cbs5.com/politics/poll.clinton.obama.2.720136.html
“Then why is her campaign in debt? Why did she have to loan her campaign funds to keep it going?”
Relevance cosmos?
“Let’s put Obama’s name on the ballots this time.”
Perhaps he should have done that in the first place?
And I don’t think you do well pursuing buyer’s remorse. LOTS of people voted for Obama before they knew anything at all about him.
Aside from a slight difference in the numbers? I could easily ask why Obama is still in this race. But I don’t. Neither does the press.
We have a process. It is playing out. For those who would rush it? Why? Doesn’t that make you feel undemocratic? Who are you to tell 18 million people to sit down and shut up?
More from the David Limbaugh link:
“Against all odds, the infatuation of the media, the swooning of intoxicated Obama groupies, and the perpetual motion machine that is her annoying, gaffe-prone husband, she is still hanging in there. Her resiliency — despite all her flaws — is formidable, even if it springs from her lifelong obsession to acquire power.”
Obama should be GLAD Senator Clinton is still running.
Otherwise, last night he would have lost Kentucky by 30 points to someone not even running.
But don’t we get ENOUGH of Phil and Randy hounding Senator Clinton and swooning over Obama?
I request a thread.
I keep hearing all this “yes we can”.
Yes we can….what? And how do we do what ever it is?
And then there is all this fluff about hope and change.
Hope for what? Change TO what?
Now we know he can make a pretty speech and we’ve seen him draw a crowd. But that’s talk.
I won’t vote for talk. I am partial to talk I like to hear. But Obama fails me there too.
Millions of zealots have sent him enough money. Let him buy some time and fill us in. Call it “Barack unplugged”.
““Let’s put Obama’s name on the ballots this time.”
Perhaps he should have done that in the first place?”
BlueJay – an agreement had been made to boycott buth rule-breakers. That said I would offer this compromise: Seat FL with the delegates split as they resulted since all names were on the ballot. Seat MI but give Obama the ‘not-Clinton’ proportion of delegates. I will let ‘numbers wonk’ MrControversy run the numbers and tell us where this would put the candidates in regards to delegates and total popular votes.
“Seat FL with the delegates split as they resulted since all names were on the ballot. Seat MI but give Obama the ‘not-Clinton’ proportion of delegates.”
I LOVE the smell of desperation in the morning.
Wasn’t it you people who moaned so bad about the phony fraud in Florida? This looks like real fraud.
“Relevance cosmos?”
1) Going into debt suggests poor management skills.
2) Campaign donations indicate support.
3) You cannot run an effective campaign without good funding.
“And I don’t think you do well pursuing buyer’s remorse. LOTS of people voted for Obama before they knew anything at all about him.”
This poll was conducted about two weeks ago.
‘Californians Would Switch Clinton Vote For Obama’
http://cbs5.com/politics/poll.clinton.obama.2.720136.html
Tell us what they learned about Obama since two weeks ago that would cause them to switch back to Clinton.
“Against all odds, the infatuation of the media, the swooning of intoxicated Obama groupies, and the perpetual motion machine that is her annoying…”
Somebody’s sounding a bit jealous. Purple prose much, Mr. Limbaugh?
That sounds vaguely fair ben.
And to Obama supporters, neutrals, and just so I have it on the record all in one place….
I think the party’s original decision re Florida and Michigan was the correct one. The primary process was getting rediculous.
Well it IS rediculous to begin with. New Hampshire and Iowa get to usually determine the nominee? Dumb.
But I digress. Fixing the primaries deserves its own thread.
SO the party made the right decision.
But no battle plan survives the first engagement.
No one could have seen this close race.
So here is where we are at with these now pivotal states.
Senator Clinton wants them to count. This is selective as to her ethics. But it is proper political strategy both for her AND the party. Dissing Florida and Michigan is not a good idea.
Obama has fought them counting. Be fair. This is not just him sticking to the rules. Counting those votes has not favored him. His ethics LOOKS cleaner here at least. But his political strategy for him (in the long run) AND the party is flawed.
Ben’s idea is the best I’ve heard. But even it will not likely settle things.
Everyone thinks a convention is a bad idea.
Maybe it’s really a good idea.
Half the people in this country don’t vote. A convention would be civic education. And IMAGINE! A convention where the nominees are a black man and a woman. Don’t discount the message that would send to young people.
What is in Senator Clinton’s heart? I don’t know. I’d give a LOT to know.
She is not my enemy. So I have to afford her the best guess.
She IS the first woman candidate to advance this far. What does it say if she quits when she doesn’t have to? I mean in a larger sense.
It’s in the hands of the superdelegates. And then it is a matter for the convention.
All those Obama supporters and Clinton supporters…SHOULDN’T they be in one place together hashing things out?
“Obama should be GLAD Senator Clinton is still running.
Otherwise, last night he would have lost Kentucky by 30 points to someone not even running.”
Actually, it looks like Obama was the one not really running in Kentucky.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obamas_kentucky_fly_by.html
“The Louisville appearance is the only planned Kentucky stop for Obama for the next several days — if not the only one prior to the state’s May 20 primary.”
And his previous visit to Kentucky was about 15 months ago.
Sooooo cosmos?
Our leaders should be the people who can raise the most money? Heck! Save a step. Let’s just have our leaders be the people who already HAVE the most money?
Like the taste of that? Me neither.
And even with all that money, Obama can’t win it clean. What is he failing at? He’d better figure that out don’t you think?
We don’t want him still working on that one in September.
Yes cosmos.
I’ve noticed that. Obama doesn’t campaign in places he can’t win.
Against Senator Clinton.
He DID manage a stop in Kansas. Which he can’t win against any Republican.
I’ve said it all along. Obama is just not very politically savvy.
I’ve another idea for a thread.
You know, since you editors are kinda short of new ideas lately?
John Hagee. Remember him. The guy McCain sought an endorsement from and then denied it. Because it came out Hagee was a nut? Yeah.
Well, I hear there are some new tapes out.’
Apparently Hagee said that God sent Hitler to Earth so the Jews could have a homeland?
Maybe some good link wrangler will help me out here. Ya busy cosmos?
Hitler as heaven sent. Hoo boy.
“Our leaders should be the people who can raise the most money?”
What is wrong with a large number of citizens supporting a candidate with small donations?
“Let’s just have our leaders be the people who already HAVE the most money?”
Like the Clintons? Didn’t they make something like $109 million the last 7 or 8 years?
Would she still be in the race, if she had not personally funded her campaign?
Here ya go JR, a link to HuffPo. I’ve seen it on several sites today, but I know how the wingnuts hate to click on HuffPo.
They should just be glad I dont go to DU anymore, where it’s all HillaryHate all the time….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/mccain-backer-hagee-said_n_102892.html
I especially like this part…
” John Hagee, the controversial evangelical leader and endorser of Sen. John McCain, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis had operated on God’s behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and shepherd them to Palestine. According to the Reverend, Adolph Hitler was a “hunter,” sent by God, who was tasked with expediting God’s will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.
Going in and out of biblical verse, Hagee preached: “‘And they the hunters should hunt them,’ that will be the Jews. ‘From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.’ If that doesn’t describe what Hitler did in the holocaust you can’t see that.”
Huffington post?
baabaa baa baa baa
Thanks kfg.
And yikes!
Editors? This is some real creepy stuff.
And McCain SOUGHT this guy out to stand for him!
I think you gave us one thread about Senator McCain’s questionable associate. May we have another in light of this news?
Well fleetie.
Huffington post did not make Pastor Hagee say those things.
Apparently, God made pastor Hagee say them?
And Huffington post MIGHT have told John McCain to seek Hagee’s endorsement.
Who DID tell him to do that?
What other sources of information does he rely on?
BlueJay – some time back I had hoped they would do some sort of caucuses to settle MI and FL. The sad irony is that if they had waited they would REALLY hae been important.
As for Hagee – go and look at “Armageddon Parsley” who wants the US to wage Holy War against half the world. Both Hagee and Parsley want to start that war in order to bring about the Second coming.
And top that off with McCain singing “Bomb Iran” and you can really see the insanity.
“fleettwood” –
If you love the smell of desperation in the morning, you’ll love this site:
http://tinyurl.com/6ormqf
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw sheep.
Clinton has loaned her campaign $11.4 million so far. Total campaign debt is around $21 million.
‘Clinton Debt Means Tough Choices Ahead’
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/clinton-debt-me.html
“Paying herself back the money she pumped into her campaign might prove to be trickier if she exits the race. FEC rules limit a candidate from raising more than $250,000 after the conventions to pay personal debt. However, she has until now and the Democrats’ August convention in Denver to fundraise to pay herself back.”
Ok cosmos?
When you persist in attacking Senator Clinton?
You just push Clinton supporters away from even considering Obama.
And you all should really agree on a conspiracy theory. One voice and all?
Is Senator Clinton scheming to “steal” the nomination from Obama through legal party means?
Or is she just faking it to milk her supporters?
Pick a direction. Then attack.
And even with all that money, Obama can’t win it clean.
Explanation, please. What do you mean by that? He can only win it dirty? Doesn’t make sense, so I’d like to understand where that’s coming from.
What is he failing at? He’d better figure that out don’t you think?
BlueJay, what makes you think he’s failing at something?
I’m really trying to figure out where you’re coming from on this. Can you give an example of the failure of Obama? Simply thinking it doesn’t make it so.
When you persist in attacking Senator Clinton?
You just push Clinton supporters away from even considering Obama.
Where the H did Cosmos attack Senator Clinton? Is the mention of her using her own money (loaning) supposed to mean he/someone thinks she’s “stealing” the election? Are you going to say that her loaning her campaign money isn’t a sign that her campaign is up to its ears in debt? I’d say it’s more like she’s trying to buy the nomination, if that was possible. As Cosmos quoted, she’s in a time bind to pay herself back. I think it would pay to keep a close eye on this.
Seriously, you seem to be imagining things are hiding behind rocks or something.
I’m sorry I was not more clear Rox.
Don’t be so touchy. You are one of the Obama supporters that doesn’t irk me too much.
By “win it clean” I meant winning it on pledge delegates. It is the same for “what is he failing at?” What I meant there is what is Obama doing wrong or not doing right that he can’t seal the deal. And he better figure it out if he gets to go to the big game.
A good 50% of Democratic voters chose someone else. As an example, I cite myself. It was Obama’s own words ran me off and keep me running.
Oh, yeah, BlueJay, and just when in the past 4-5 months have you considered Obama?
It was a shot and you know it Rox.
Cosmos was asserting that the only reason Senator Clinton was staying in the race was to pay herself back.
I could do shots like that. I could ask just who is keeping tabs on where all of Obama’s money is going. I don’t.
And as to “imagining things”, I have admitted that some of my darker suspicions of Obama may be no more than cockeyed hunches.
I know there are people who would like me to shut up and sing. I’m not saying you are one of them Rox. But I can’t do that. It isn’t in me.
I haven’t considered Obama in a long time Rox.
That’s on him and his supporters. Not me.
But I’m far from alone. I post honest concerns about Obama. I try as hard as I can to make them fair. I won’t apologize for doing it though.
You have to admit there is a bias on this blog. Among the editors anyway. And certainly SOME of the Obama supporters give me more than a fair share of grief.
I’ve called Clinton supporters out too when I thought they went too far.
Clinton was too sure of herself, I’m afraid. She counted on the big bucks from her corp friends, not thinking any of the little people would make the difference. But they have. And now she’s trying to make up for that. Honestly, I wouldn’t slight her for staying in to make up some of that money. I just don’t think that’s her main reason, although it may be one of many. That is NOT a diss. It’s an honest observation of someone (Hillary) being human.
All this picking and scratching we keep doing is a waste of energy and brain power. There’s someone out there much more deserving of being questioned. Let McCain show how well he flip-flops. Let the Republicans know we, the people, are onto him and their tricks.
I DID try to point to the enemy and organize fire Rox.
I even asked cosmos for help.
And I note you start your last with a shot at one of our Democratic candidates.
Oh and the “little people” that support Obama? Yeah. Most of them are way better off than me.
BlueJay,
I posted facts… Clinton has loaned her campaign $11.4 million, and she has “Tough Choices Ahead”.
Please explain how that is “attacking” Clinton.
Please try to answer my earlier question,
“Would she still be in the race, if she had not personally funded her campaign?”
Please answer my other post upthread,
——-
“This poll was conducted about two weeks ago.
‘Californians Would Switch Clinton Vote For Obama’
http://cbs5.com/politics/poll.clinton.obama.2.720136.html
Tell us what they learned about Obama since two weeks ago that would cause them to switch back to Clinton.”
——-
Please explain why the word “ideas”, without any modifiers, can only mean something like “good ideas”, “positive ideas”, “brilliant ideas”, etc.
And please explain how reducing child health insurance costs in the future, so that all responsible parents can afford it, makes parents today, who cannot afford the huge costs “irresponsible”.
BlueJay, you represent Clinton, so choose your words wisely.
I was being honest, Jay, not trying to take a shot. When I take a shot, you’ll know it without question. :) What I mentioned was one of the three things the “pundits” were saying has hurt her and made it necessary for her to add her own money to the pot. I’ll hunt up the link, if it helps, but I doubt it will. Anyway, I don’t like to see that kind of thing happen, but it’s one of the reasons Richardson (my first choice) dropped out. Pity all of us for a good candidate not able to run the length of the race because of lack of funds, no matter who that candidate.
I know a lot of people from across the country who were not Kerry supporters in the 2004 runup. Most voted for him, a few who were basically libertarians or independents didn’t, but they sure as heck didn’t vote for Bush!
Oh and the “little people” that support Obama? Yeah. Most of them are way better off than me.
Nope, not all of them.
BlueJay, do you think I haven’t been in your place? I have. And I’m not so far away still. I understand and can relate. But letting this darkness and hatred fester is not helping. Negative energy only attracts the same. Find something once a day that makes you smile.
I’m off to watch National Treasure 2, so I won’t be back until later, if at all. It would be nice to get more than 4 or 5 hours of sleep a night. Just for chuckles (or is that chortles?), of course. :)
John Kerry had to make a $6.4 million loan to keep his bankrupt 2004 campaign running.
And Kerry lost the general election.
Rox I was saying cosmos took shot. Not you.
You have been in favor of the process playing out. I am guessing cosmos has a different agenda. Perhaps cosmos can clarify.
But Rox? You were for Richardson? I have to be honest here and say I think Richardson is Republican lite. Too business friendly.
I was originally for Kucinich.
Cosmos? Do you read close?
I had troubles with Clinton. I didn’t like the dynasty thing. Obama drove me away, this blog is biased unfairly through the editors towards Obama, I increasingly find Obama supporters off putting, and the more I see of Hillary Clinton the more I like. The more I see of Obama the less I like.
I don’t so much “represent Clinton” as I represent fairness and getting the best nominee.
Again cosmos, your point?
I wasn’t enthusiastic about Kerry. I can’t be enthusisastic about Obama.
I CAN be enthusiastic about Clinton.
You can blame your own candidate and SOME of his supporters for that not me. Check out the threads.
BlueJay,
You again ignored my questions,
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/why-is-clinton-staying-in-race/#comment-354165
So why should I answer yours?
You seem to incorrectly insist that the word “ideas” can only mean good, positive, excellent, etc ideas.
You seem to incorrectly insist that Obama personally called you “irresponsible”, because you can’t afford the HUGE costs of child health insurance today.
You have ignored those questions before, on earlier threads.
And you do represent Senator Clinton, on the WE Blog.
I’m sorry cosmos.
I’m involved in another fight just now.
You must see it on the recent posts. Mine and who I am engaging.
Why do you call me away to fight you?
You can look around and fight in the right direction. Or you can stay here and take me to task.
Me I place fighting the enemy ahead of arguing with friends. You?
BlueJay,
You have plenty of time. Scroll down.
“Comments for this post will be closed on 20 June 2008.”
Knock yourself out, later. Or don’t… if you want to prove my points.
I’d say I have until August and Denver cosmos.
If you are opposed? Why?
And I’m sorry you choose to bail on a fight with GMC, “Regular”, and Nathan to duck out with a swing at me.
BlueJay,
How long did it take you to type the three sentences at 12:15 am?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/open-thread-521/#comment-354266
Well, what have I missed?
Off to find out—–>
She is trying to do one of two things- either force her way on to the ticket as number 2 or knee cap Obama and hope he loses so she can try again in 4 years.
Maybe she don’t want Mccain to win in Nov.
Sad but the bimbo is probably hoping some moron “whacks” her opponent from some balcony.
Hopefully She will hang in there till the Convention; So far Dems who don’t vote for Obama have delegates that override them. The working class pay the brunt of the taxes, we should say who supports them, not the Media or the Political elite (Superdelegates).
FORGET FOREX E-BOOKS! Get the software that tells you what to do and WHEN to do it and finally start earning the big bucks you truly deserve. Many People earn thousands of dollars each month useing the “Forex-Killer” Software and even quit their own day jobs! Why don`t you too? I urge you to take this chance ASAP! Besides what do you have to loose? They have a full 58 days refund policy in place supervised by clickbank: http://www.urlpire.com/?MALFY
Aren`t You fed up with all those Forex E-books that promise heaven and deliver hell? The “Forex-Killer” is an automated Trading software that does it all! It analyzes the markets and gives you a clear buy or sell order. All you have to do is feed it with the necessary data. A simple 2 minute process !!!…Download The Amazing Software Now: http://www.urlpire.com/?MALFY
3 Trackbacks
[...] RSS: O’Dwyer’s Blog: Covering PR, public affairs, marketing and the world of communicati… wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt” But given that she has little to no hope of overtaking Barack Obama, who won Oregon yesterday, why is she still fighting full force?… [...]
[...] Continue Reading [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]