Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditHillary Clinton needed a double-digit win in Pennsylvania.
And she claimed it last night.
But the final results are likely to deny the wide win to the senator from New York, whose campaign at this point is all about perceptions.
Instead of a double-digit win, Pennsylvania's official count now has her ahead of Barack Obama by 54.6 to 45.4. That's a 9.2 margin and there are still a few precincts uncounted.
This is typical of high-turnout elections. When the all the totals are counted and reviewed, there is fluctuation.
That's why initial results are referred to as "unofficial."
But this variation is a significant one.
Clinton won Pennsylvania, no doubt about that.
But her campaign needed to win big and a double-digit win is definitionally big -- sufficient, in fact, to attract millions of dollars in essential campaign contributions that might otherwise be harder to pry loose.
That's why she's very lucky that she went into today talking about a 10-point win rather than a nine-point win -- or, even, when everything is counted, something smaller than that.
It would be silly for the Obama campaign to make too big a deal of this. That would only add pettiness to a campaign that is already too petty. But for those of us who actual care about the permanent recent, the results from Pennsylvania do matter.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
The Pardon Sellers will get their $$$, thanks to win spin + her appalling promise to obliterate Iran. And so they will be here for weeks, maybe months, to muddy the waters & wound the Dems even further. The Super Delegates could put a stop to all this destruction, but those remaining uncommitted may well be waiting for their payoffs to materialize in a more substantial form than mere promises.
Posted by sloper at 04/23/2008 @ 12:37pm
The Hillary Cultists know this, Mr Nichols (so do Howard Dean and a rapidly increasing number of Supers)...and now that Indiana, North Carolina, and the rest can't possibly save her now...
Soooooooooooo....the NEW spin now is "ONCE THEY SEAT FLORIDA, MAYBE MICHIGAN...those votes will push her closer and the Supers will see that and give it to her!"
But nobody sane is buying that. Even today, Brad Henry, Gov. Oklahoma came out endorsing Obama, not hours after Her Nibs claimed her "big win" in Pennsylvania.
It's over....just a matter of how SHE wants to end it.
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 12:37pm
Aren't you late for your government class!---Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 12:35pm
Are YOU late for....math class?
Explain how Hillary gets the nomination, via voted delegates from here on out, EULIE.
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 12:38pm
good point John..it seems like the cities come in with their votes last...she had a huge lead in ohio that got whittled away as well...and the difference between 9 and 10 is big since this is a 'closing argument' elecetion.
Posted by Obama123 at 04/23/2008 @ 12:49pm
Euler is correct when he/she stated that 9.2% isn't a big victory for the Clintons because the Clintons won't pick up enough new elected delegates for it to be a big victory.The big winner last night was McCain who can, now, sit back and watch the democrats continue to trash each other and further divide themselves.Only the democrats can manage to have a primary where the republican is the one who,actually,wins.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/23/2008 @ 12:51pm
She won Pennslyvania, but she is further behind now than she was before, regardless of whether it is 10% or 9.2%. She needed 20%+ and she didn't get it.
Even if you assume her argument that she is the better general election candidate is correct, there is still no way she can win the general.
To win it, she will have to convince the superdelegates to tear the party in half to get the nomination. That will render the nomination worthless.
Posted by jdnfyb at 04/23/2008 @ 1:03pm
Digits smidgets. It's still a two digit win, granted one set of digits has a period (point) in it. Heheheh.
Posted by FritztheCat at 04/23/2008 @ 1:06pm
Whether it is 9 or 10 points, Obama will make it all up AND SOME on May 6th with North Carolina and Indiana, which have more delegates at stake than Pennsylvania!
The media's focus on "Hillary states" rather than reporting this contest in an even-handed manner shows how desperately they want this race to continue to boost their ratings.
The other under-reported event is just how effective Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos was in PA. All of those Republicans rushing to register as Democrats before the deadline were clearly Operation Chaos types, and I believe changed a 4-5 point contest into a 9-10 point contest.
If Hillary can only get momentum from Republicans that only want to cause chaos for the Democrats, that is not saying much about her or her "victories".
Posted by Metteyya at 04/23/2008 @ 1:14pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 04/23/2008 @ 1:06pm
I almost expect one of the Hillary cultist....
to make JUST THAT argument and be SERIOUS about it!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 1:18pm
I have seen so much spin about this race and so many people are missing so many points. All the Hillary supporters are screaming that Barack can't win because he isn't winning in states like California and New York. The problem is and the point I made about these states a while back is that these are all traditionally Democrat states. With McCain running these states will be blue no matter what. She has also won in the red states which will be red no matter what. Barack is winning not only blue states but also purple states. States that when it comes to the general elections will be battlegrounds. So then how can Hillary win? If Hillary can only win in the guaranteed states then how does that guarantee her a win against McCain?
Then on top OF that you guys are claiming that she is the only one who can beat McCain, problem is she can't beat Obama. If Obama in the primaries is getting more vote and more of the popular vote doesn't that mean in the general he will get more of the vote therefore winning? If Hillary can't beat Barack without the help of super delegates how can that possibly with ANY logic transfer into a generals victory? The lack of logic is stunning. No body has ever stopped to really bother to think about it. Everyone is screaming that Hillary is the only one who can beat McCain but if she can't win the primaries without the help of the DLC how is she possibly going to win against McCain and if all it took was Barack Obama to stop her how would she have won at all?
She has used every dirty trick the Republicans would including it would seem nowadays getting help from the Republicans. I guess we see now that Frank was wrong and Repubs want to run against Hillary. However I posit the argument and I would love to be proven wrong that IF Hillary can't beat Barack without the help of super-delegates how can she possibly beat McCain? You say that Obama can't win because the Republicans will throw every dirty trick at Hillary they can however Hillary has already been doing that to Obama and she is still losing. On top of that the Barack campaign has fired back very little about Hillary. They have never bothered to once go into her past and bring up talking points whether they be old or new. McCain will. He will tear down your queen. If she can't beat an uppity Jr. Senator from Illinois I contend to you how the hell is she going to beat McCain? Especially when she can't use the experience argument or the the progressive argument because you also have to remember that McCain is tacking center now. Which means himself and Hillary are going to start looking a lot alike. Face it. The primaries are showing that just because Hillary claims she is the only one who can beat McCain doesn't make it so. The person who gets the most votes is the one who can beat McCain and Hillary can't get the most votes without the help of the party elders.
I am reposting this here because I want an answer to this question. If she can't beat Obama without the help of super delegates how can she possibly be more electable?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 1:21pm
Thom Hartmann had a great comment on his show today. He said rather than attacking each other, Obama and Clinton need to run on how either of them are the best at beating McCain. Then let the voter's decide who we think would give us the best chance for a GE victory since that is the ultimate goal.
If the candidates (and BOTH have to do this) would do so, I think it would go a long way toward bringing the party back together. And the sooner, the better.
Posted by FritztheCat at 04/23/2008 @ 1:40pm
If she can't beat Obama without the help of super delegates how can she possibly be more electable?----Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/23/2008 @ 1:21pm
That is a logical question, for which there is no logical answer from the Hillary Cultists....
Point 1- Hillary is a Democrat running the Democratic primary for the Presidential nomination.
2- She is losing the popular vote amongst Democrats.
3- She has lost more state primaries.
4- She has fewer Democratic delegates pledged to her.
5- She is nearly broke, while her opponent is awash in money.
6- Only via BOTH a "changing of the rules" (i.e. FL and MI) and the help of a VAST majority of the "party bosses", can she win her Party's nomination.
But....somehow "she's got the better shot against John McCain in the Fall"? Whose key electoral trait is the ability to win independents and moderates?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 1:43pm
It's dumbfounding the cultism that can lead to a lack of bothering to ask that question. How is it possible for her to be more electable if she can't even get the nomination without help. It's AMAZING. I am sitting here just thinking about this question stunned and unable to perceive just the large mental hole that goes into just entirely ignoring that question.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 1:55pm
Um ... maybe because you're talking about the difference between an electorate composed of party activists vs. an electorate composed of every Joe and Susie Mainstreet who are gonna vote in November ...
Gotta run, late for the cult meeting, post me some more LOGIC in the meantime will ya?
Posted by MyParadigm at 04/23/2008 @ 2:00pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/23/2008 @ 1:21pm
McCain isn't the issue. Both Clinton and Obama can beat him. The question is how are they going to do it - cutting up the country to win a majority (Clinton) or by trying to transcend political differences (Obama). Both can work, but whichever you go with will set the tone for the next four years.
Posted by srjenkins at 04/23/2008 @ 2:01pm
will set the tone for the next four years.
Posted by SRJENKINS 04/23/2008 @ 2:01pm
and tone means everything.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/23/2008 @ 2:03pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/23/2008 @ 2:00pm
Are you kidding me with record turnout you call this only party activists? I will bet you if you look at the numbers in this primary race this will be closer to the numbers you see in a general than you have ever seen before. Dem primaries never go this long. There are plenty of Joe and Susies voting in this primary. I contend that most of the people are Joe and Susies and she still can't win.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 2:04pm
Thom Hartmann had a great comment on his show today. He said rather than attacking each other, Obama and Clinton need to run on how either of them are the best at beating McCain. Then let the voter's decide who we think would give us the best chance for a GE victory since that is the ultimate goal.
If the candidates (and BOTH have to do this) would do so, I think it would go a long way toward bringing the party back together. And the sooner, the better.
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 04/23/2008 @ 1:40pm | ignore this person
It's a bit late in the process for that (either the discussion as to who's better against McCain or bringing the party back together). Too many of Hillary's Coalition of the Bitter will vote for McCain (isn't that right, Frank?) in the general. Unfortunately, Hillary has played by a single rule - she must be president. If not now, then she must poison the Democrats' chances in this cycle so she can have another shot at it in 4 years. The Bush-Clinton Dynasty must prevail at all costs.
Posted by jmusolino at 04/23/2008 @ 2:05pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/23/2008 @ 2:00pm
How is it not a logical question? Or are you just so mesmerized by your cultism and entitlement that you can't see the logic in that question? You are willing to make ANY excuse that continues the entitlement of your candidate.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 2:05pm
Actually, just because of the overwhelming stupidity I've been reading over the past month or so ... let me vent.
Why are you pinheads all excited about this guy who has basically hid in the shadows his whole career? Why DIDN'T Barack Obama go to work for some huge law firm and "effect change" there? Maybe because his skinny ass wasn't up to it?
Say all the shit you want about Hillary Clinton. She has taken every shot for decades and she's still standing. Normal people respect that. Chickenshits don't.
And the people standing in the way of our agenda after 01-20-2009 are not chickenshits. I want someone who I KNOW is going to go the distance with those bastards.
Posted by MyParadigm at 04/23/2008 @ 2:11pm
MSNBC -- 26 April, 2007 -- By Tom Curry -- National affairs writer
'Before 1972, party elders, such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Charlie Buckley, the boss of The Bronx who helped John Kennedy clinch the 1960 nomination, wielded inordinate power. ... But in early 1970's, the party's rules were reformed to open the process to grass-roots activists, women, and ethnic minorities....
Sen. George McGovern, the leading anti-Vietnam war liberal, won the 1972 nomination. McGovern turned out to be a disaster as a presidential candidate, winning only one state and the District of Columbia.
So without reverting to the days of party bosses like Buckley, the Democrats decided to guarantee that elected officials would have a bigger voice in the nomination....
"There was a belief that they would not want candidates who were dramatically out of sync with the rest of the party -- particularly if these were people who were going to have to run on the same ticket with them," says Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer, who has written extensively on the nomination process....
In next year's contest, could a candidate amass a stockpile of super-delegates, survive disappointing showings in early primaries, and go on to win the nomination? That seems unlikely.
"Do the super-delegates have the capacity to resist the choice of the overwhelming majority of primary voters and caucus participants? The answer, I think, is a clear ‘No,'" said Mayer.
Nevertheless, there's a romantic streak in some political junkies who fantasize about a scenario in which the nomination could still be in doubt at the end of the primary season.
That hasn't happened in either party in 30 years.
In that scenario, perhaps party heavyweights would line up votes at the convention to swing the nomination to one of the contenders, or to a dark horse....'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/23/2008 @ 2:12pm
Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 04/23/2008 @ 2:12pm
Temarc! The river, Temarc.
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 2:21pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/23/2008 @ 2:00pm
So she can LOSE the "party activists"...in HER OWN Party...
but win over "Joe and Susie" despite polling that shows she has higher negatives with them than Obama?
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 2:23pm
Why DIDN'T Barack Obama go to work for some huge law firm and "effect change" there? Maybe because his skinny ass wasn't up to it?
He did work for a law firm. Much of his work there was working with community groups and he also did some corporate work. Please explain how that is wimping out.
Posted by brunowe at 04/23/2008 @ 2:30pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 04/23/2008 @ 2:30pm
What kind of "change" did Hillary "effect" at the Rose Law Firm?
Protecting the civil rights of Tyson Foods, Wal-Mart, Stephens, Inc. brokerage, Worthen Bank, and the Arkansas Democrat newspaper and other Hussman family media holdings?!?!??!
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 2:37pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/23/2008 @ 2:11pm
So the only people who deserve to win are the people who have been repeatedly abused? Not the person who actually is winning? Why didn't Hillary go to a huge corporate firm and effect change there? Why is she in politics if she is so amazing?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 2:42pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/23/2008 @ 2:11pm
All the points you bring up against Obama can be brought up against Hillary. It's amazing but still the Hillary cultists don't see that. All they see is the inevtiability of their candidate. They see the crown snatched away when Hillary was the one who "deserved" it. The fact the Euler and Frank can sit here and say that everyone here are a bunch of chickens because we calling for Hillary to drop out and we should just let everyone vote and then go and call for Obama to drop out is an amazing show of hypocrisy. That fact that you can say that the person who is losing is the only person who can win is an amazing show of a huge lack of logic.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 2:44pm
MASK 04/23/2008 @ 2:23pm
BRUNOWE 04/23/2008 @ 2:30pm
Debatable points, and I wish I had more time. I also wish a few more posters would come out of the grandstands for a while and talk politics.
Posted by MyParadigm at 04/23/2008 @ 2:45pm
Posted by MASK 04/23/2008 @ 2:37pm
Now you are on target!
Posted by Metteyya at 04/23/2008 @ 3:01pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/23/2008 @ 2:45pm
Old poll, but not good and doubtful after her primary performances, if it has improved. Also note, McCain loses to Obama in this poll 45% versus 37%--
October 20, 2007----Zogby International
The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.
Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.? %
Clinton (D) 50%
Kucinich (D) 49%
Gravel (D) 47%
Paul (R) 47%
Brownback (R) 47%
Tancredo (R) 46%
McCain (R) 45%
Hunter (R) 44%
Giuliani (R) 43%
Romney (R) 42%
Edwards (D) 42%
Thompson (R) 41%
Dodd (D) 41%
Biden (D) 40%
Obama (D) 37%
Huckabee (R) 35%
Richardson (D) 34%
Not sure 4%
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 3:05pm
Posted by METTEYYA 04/23/2008 @ 3:01pm
Calm down, METTE. Remember I only believe that "clouds can produce rain"....while you believe "it'll rain gumdrops and teddy bears"...if you get the analogy to Obama!
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 3:06pm
Posted by MADLIB 04/23/2008 @ 3:15pm
I said it earlier....can you imagine "Hillary--Selected, Not Elected" and the ceding of ANY moral high ground as far as 2000 and Florida-2000 goes???
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 3:28pm
Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 4:01pm
Hahahah gotta love the Hillary cultists. Funny you are talking about her looks when most people say Obama is one of the more handsome presidential candidates but then again does that really matter? Again what experience? And if we voting because of experience why not vote for McCain? I don't know about you but if I were married I wouldn't put my wife's experience on my resume.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 4:06pm
Again, EULER, the pertinant question...
Why is she so much more "electable"...if she can't get elected (to the nomination) of HER OWN Party?!?!!?!?
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 4:15pm
Posted by MADLIB 04/23/2008 @ 4:03pm
Who do you vote for in a Hillary Clinton vs. Laura Bush match-up? And to be fair, Hillary Clinton could very well of been Bill Clinton's Dick Cheney. Laura Bush couldn't be Dick Cheney, not unless she wanted to brave possibly getting shot in the face.
Posted by srjenkins at 04/23/2008 @ 4:15pm
Posted by MADLIB 04/23/2008 @ 4:14pm
That's not fair, MADLIB....
you forgot the sniper fire in Bosnia and bringing peace to Northern Ireland!
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 4:16pm
Posted by MADLIB 04/23/2008 @ 4:17pm
And she killed her a bear...when she was only three...
Hill'ry....Hill'ry Rodham....Queen of the Wild Frontier!
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 4:26pm
Why are you pinheads...
Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/23/2008 @ 2:11pm | ignore this person
way to frame an argument. why would anyone bother with you?
Hill is toast.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 4:29pm
Posted by MASK 04/23/2008 @ 4:15pm
I don't think we will ever get an answer to that question because it is unanswerable. There is no amount of spin that can reconcile that. Myparadigm tried to answer the question with another illogical answer but it didn't work. I want a completely logical answer as to why if Hillary Clinton can not win an election on her own merits against a racist, inexperienced, empty suit how is she going to win when there are no super delegates to help her against a war hero?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 4:30pm
Another tough question for you Hillary cultist. A phenomenon that has been very rarely mentioned in this election. Why is it that coming into so many of these states Obama has been behind by anywhere from 10-20 points and in every state he cuts her lead in half if her doesn't completely overtake her? Even PA. She had a 20 point lead in PA a month ago. She has been favored by the MSM for a month. They have been running scandal after scandal on Obama. They have said everything, he's a racist, he is colluding with terrorists, he supports Hamas. They have thrown everything INCLUDING THE DAMN KITCHEN SINK. Yet her lead was still cut by MORE than half. Even through all of the scandal he still cut her down to half of what she led by in the beginning with everything favoring her. While Obama has managed to win in states where they compete equally by margins of 15% or more.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 4:35pm
Look at the numbers Frank. Your candidate is a failure. Every state where campaigning takes place where it is equal or not she loses 5-10 percentage points every time. Without fail. Obama has never led in a state that they entered yet in a month he ALWAYS cuts the lead at LEAST in half.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 4:37pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:31pm
This doesn't answer the question Frank. All you did was evade and give statements like this one "There is so much wrong with this little essay that I don't even know where to begin." If it is all so wrong why don't you actually write answers to it? You are really good at evading and writing rhetoric but you never answer the question. So answer Frank. If she can't win based on her own merits how does she win come the generals?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 4:38pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:38pm
At the beginning of the race Frank she was outspending him 3 to 1 it is only in Pennsylvania that he has outspent her by these margins. How do you explain that Frank? Stop trying to spin it and answer directly. This is the first time that the margin of spending has been this great in his favor and yet he has consistently in this race cut her leads by half.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 4:40pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:37pm
And I could explain how gender plays into but you would just call me a misogynist.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 4:40pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/23/2008 @ 4:40pm
You don't REALLY expect him to be logical, do you?
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 4:42pm
Also, don't pay too much attention to polls. They're all corrupted.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:38pm
Yesterdays exit polls were interesting on that question.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:37pm
Need to get your arguments in order before you make them.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 4:42pm
Posted by MASK 04/23/2008 @ 4:42pm
I'm hoping if I hammer into him enough he will answer directly instead of constantly trying to spin.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 4:43pm
Obama can mainly explain his loss in PA on a failure to understand the local political process. In particular, the overriding imporatnce in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh of WAM - Walking Around Money. For decades, it has been handed out to ward leaders, underbosses and party workers to deliver the actual votes on Election Day. CLinton's campaign, as advised by Fast Eddie Rendell and the city mayors, understood this and made the most of it. The Obama people somehow thought they could just rise above this somehow. Ha! Instead of the 70-75% vote he SHOULD have received in Philadelphia County, he got around 65%. He lost Pittsburgh's Allegheny County - a county Rendell wins handily in governer elections, even though they hate him out there.
You hand out as much WAM in just those two cities alone, and the overall state totals - not to mention the district-weighted delegate results - are reversed.
You simply CANNOT ignore local tradions, no matter how distasteful they seem! I hope they have learned this lesson, but I'm not sure they even know what happened...
Posted by sjduskin at 04/23/2008 @ 4:45pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:44pm
Prove it. Give me actual proof. All you are giving me so far is opinion without fact. Give me a logical and reasoned answer with proof and I will happily concede. If you say she hasn't ever outspent him then provide me proof because I remember accurately multiple instances where he was outspent.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 4:49pm
Ask this...
What HARD FACT, not "faith" (like "she's the more electable one"...despite losing her own Party's nomination)...but hard fact of votes, delegates, MONEY, etc....
should the Super Delegates use in their decision to GIVE the nomination to Hillary Clinton?
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 4:50pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:46pm
Frank you havent answered anything I posited here directly. You have given me spin and avoided.
"There is so much wrong with this little essay that I don't even know where to begin. So I'll just say that I've explained it all before but you weren't paying attention.
"If she can't beat Obama without the help of super delegates how can she possibly be more electable?"
The superdelegates were created just in case a scenerio like the one the democrats now find themselves in. After all the votes are counted and all the results analyzed, the superdelegates will decide who has the best chance of defeating John McCain. The obama people tryed so hard to get Hillary to quit but this country doesn't like quitters. Besides, Obama's ship is sinking. The longer the process takes, the more he is outted. Plus, more and more people are moving from Obama to McCain everyday. Don't think for one minute the the four hundred or so remaing SD's aren't noticing. Relax. The democrats will have their best candidate face McCain after the process is seen to its end. As a democrat, that should please you."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:31pm
THAT is not an answer to my question Frank. I asked you how is it possible for her to win in the general elections of she can't even win the nomination without the help of super delegates no where in your rambling retort did you answer the question. You evaded and then you went off topic in order to avoid answering the question.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 4:51pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:50pm
No I said it was the only state he outspent her by THAT much. I didn't say it was the only state he outspent her in. You are intentionally misquoting. She was outspending him at the beginning of the race and losing. Now that the honey pot has dried up she can't afford to do it anymore.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 4:53pm
No one has mentioned the 160,000 crossover Republicans. I canvassed for Obama in Chester County and I encountered several "converted" Democrats who obviously were going to flip right back to the GOP and vote for McCain. I think this had a bigger effect than the media is giving it credit for. Some of these guys thought it was a joke, like they were pulling of the scam for the greater good as they went into the polling station and pulled the lever for Hillary.
Posted by shonabby at 04/23/2008 @ 4:55pm
Prove what? I was there. I spoke to a few of the regular guys. Why the hostility?
Posted by shonabby at 04/23/2008 @ 5:01pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:55pm
You aren't answering again Frank you are evading. If we abolished the super delegates right now Obama would win. So yes he can win without them. Hillary literally can not win without their help. If they were abolished right now she would lose. She HAS to collude with them in order to win so answer the question. How is she more of a viable candidate if she can't win her own nomination without the help of party elders. I know why the SDs were created it still doesn't answer my question. If you can't answer this then how can you POSSIBLY argue she is more electable. If you don't have an answer you burn up all of the electability credit because there is no logical answer to the question.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 5:02pm
The superdelegates were created just in case a scenerio like the one the democrats now find themselves in. After all the votes are counted and all the results analyzed, the superdelegates will decide who has the best chance of defeating John McCain.
That misses the point. The argument is that if she can't win a majority of Democratic voters, how can she claim to be better placed to win a general election. You've argued (with no basis) that the new voters (dismissed by you as "hip-hoppers") that Obama brought in won't come out in the general election.
Besides, Obama's ship is sinking. The longer the process takes, the more he is outted. Plus, more and more people are moving from Obama to McCain everyday.
You have some basis for this shift?
The point is that Obama will need far fewer of the SDs to back him at the convention than Clinton will. Given that she has only been able to keep a slight lead in SD support, that seems very unlikely, especially as SDs have been trending [tinyurl.com] to Obama.
Posted by brunowe at 04/23/2008 @ 5:02pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:56pm
Frank you have been making that argument from the beginning FOR Hillary. You have been saying that Republicans are crossing over to mess with our elections because they in fact WANT to run againstr Obama. Now that the argument is levied against you, you all of a sudden feel it is unviable.
Mask if you could so oblige me would please bring up a quote from Frank about cross over Republicans.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 5:04pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:38pm | ignore this person
You've often said that...I haven't seen you provide any proof.
Posted by brunowe at 04/23/2008 @ 5:05pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:55pm
That's right Frank instead of directly addressing this difficult question that has no logical answer you try to back down from it. I will leave it for you to mull over and you come up with an answer whenever you want however I think the problem is you don't have one and you can't come up with enough spin that is logical to fabricate one. Multiple people here have pointed out that you yet to answer my question. All you have done is evaded. I will give you the topic again.
"If Hillary can not win her own part nomination without the help of super delegates how can she possibly claim to be more electable?"
The answer you gave about Obama not being to win without the delegates is BS because if they were abolished right now he would win without them. The only reason he needs the help of the delegates is because they exist in the first place. If all of them voted undecided he would win.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 5:08pm
Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 5:05pm
Can't argue with that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 5:09pm
I never said that Hillary Clinton would be able to beat McCain in November, I simply state, categorially, and inarguably, that she is the superior candidate in the Democratic nominating process
Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 5:09pm
That's not categorical or inarguable but at least you are honest.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 5:13pm
Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 5:12pm
So then you are saying Obama who many have argued is less electable can win just as much? OR are you arguing that Hillary is less electable but can win? You cite me proof that it has happened yes but give me more than one instance in a presidential nomination where the person who lost the nomination but was given it by super delegates then came back to win, while the person who should have won it was proven to not be able to win the presidency.
And why must you call me names? It doesn't strengthen your point.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 5:15pm
Listen idiot - Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 5:12pm | ignore this person
not a promising beginning for a discussion. these kinds of posts always besmirch the author.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 5:17pm
Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 5:12pm
Also I argue that yes he would have lost. I posit that if you can't beat the loser how can you claim to be winner?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 5:18pm
Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 5:12pm
You posit that he would have won because he had better policies and because he was "inevitable" at the beginning of the race. But if your campaign falls apart that is proof that you would not have made it through the generals. If you can't hold together in the primaries. Frank argues that she is more electable but she can't even make it through the primaries and it is only going to get harder in the generals. So if she can't run a tight ship now how is she going to run a tight ship then when the wave are 80 feet instead of 40?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 5:20pm
I wonder when Frank will be back with his talking points if there are any?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 5:26pm
On top of that. All you Clinton cultists say that Hillary has strength to last. Frankly Hillary sounds like a child to me. Every time she loses or if her leads are cut massively instead of being graceful in defeat or in victory like and adult would do she comes up with an excuse for her less than expected victories and her many defeats. Look back on when Obama won 9 states in a row. Instead of congratulating him she had first tried to pretend like nothing happened in her speeches. She then made up excuses for his winning. I will list a few for them.
He is only winning because he is black, he only wins among the affluent, he only wins among men, he only wins in small towns. Some of there are funny because they backpedaled over their previous predictions. Clinton said Obama couldn't win because SHE would carry the black vote. Now that they aren't she is playing the other side of the race card. Clinton said Obama couldn't win because whites would never vote for a black man. Now they are saying the only reason he is winning because white's feel compelled to vote for him because he is black, you can't have it both ways. I have seen all of these arguments come from the Hillary cultists on this site and repeatedly have lost their luster as the primaries carry on. Everyone of them has been disproven time and again. He has won primarily white states, black states, almost won a hispanic state, he has gotten poor votes and rich votes. The excuses keep coming like a child trying to explain why they didn't do their homework.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 5:36pm
On top of all this I see through these candidates equally. Neither of them was my first choice to begin with so I am not deceived by the shine. The risks of an Obama presidency for me far outweigh the risks of Clinton. The fact that she recently said she would obliterate Iran is proof of the reason I am not voting for her. So many people accuse Obama of being nothing but a good speaker but a good leader HAS to be a good speaker. Look at Bush. There have been entire shows written off of his inability to speak without a TelePrompTer. He has books about him that detail his "Bushisms." An inability to speak articulately is something we consider to denote a person as uneducated. I don't want someone who is uneducated running this country. I want someone who can convey ideas through speech and bring people to his ideas through words not through threats. Obama has been equated to Hitler because Hitler could speak well but had awful ideas. However I want you to look at Hitler in the fact that, for having so many awful genocidal ideas he managed to bring a lot of people to believe in them through the power of words. He was a bad person but he was a bad person who through speech could convince people to join his bad ideas. Why is the ability to convince people through speech looked down upon? Obama's ability to bring people around through talking to them is a great trait to have for a President considering part of a Presidents job is diplomacy. Diplomacy uses the art of speaking and dealmaking to bring people around. So why should he be looked down upon because he is educated and speaks well?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 5:47pm
Posted by MADLIB 04/23/2008 @ 5:43pm | ignore this person
this moldy oldie again. whattaloadofcrap. he is leading by ALL accounts. that's the kind of experience Hillary has never had.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 5:48pm
Posted by MADLIB 04/23/2008 @ 5:43pm
I absolutely agree with you. I don't like cultists of any kind. However Hillary lacks credentials in the eyes of most people. She has built up her White House experience so much that people have actually come to believe it but it is not true. She has almost the same amount of experience as Obama.
I also put forth that Senate experience is not always a positive thing. It can turn an idealistic person into a cynic who owes debts to corporate interests. Someone who hasn't been in the Senate long hasn't had time to build up debt to outside interests. Obama only owes the people right now. Clinton owes the war machine and other big business ventures A LOT.
The proof is in the fact that she has no money right now. The method she is getting her money through is big business. They are investing in her to buy what they want when she is President. When it looks like she is not going to be President they stop giving money. However even when Obama was being slammed by the media and his campaign looks down and out he is still gaining tons of money because he is getting from the people who will continue to donate 20 bucks here and there even if it doesn't look good.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 5:53pm
osted by HAPPY2 04/23/2008 @ 5:52pm
I have to agree that most of the faults of this country are in fact the peoples. People don't realize how much we can control if we get our heads out of our asses and use the power of the mob but that will never happen. People are too concerned about what Paris Hilton just did.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 5:55pm
I wonder when Frank will be back with his talking points if there are any?
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/23/2008 @ 5:26pm
CC you have to give Frank some time. He has to email the Hillary campaign to get answers to your question. Here's how it has gone so far:
Frank: An unassimulated person asked how Hillary is supposed to be able to win in the general when she can't win in the primary. What do I say?
Clinton Campain: Ignore the question and bash Obama.
Frank: I tried that already.
Clinton Campaign: Do it again.
Frank: Did that too. Now what?
Clinton Campaign: Ramble on about why the SD's were created and spin it.
Frank: I tried that too! I'm getting desperate here as other unassimulated voters are starting to ask too!
Clinton Campaign: Did you try the big state theory? The experience line? How about the "Obama is ruining our chances because he didn't wait his turn?"
Frank: Yes, yes, and repeatedly yes. Nothing's working! Why won't these people see her greatness? See the aura of power she has? Help me here!
Clinton Campaign: I've forwarded your email to our secret advisor known as "KR". We'll get back to you.
Posted by FritztheCat at 04/23/2008 @ 6:01pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/23/2008 @ 2:44pm
I believe, the answer to your question, lies with people like our boy, Frank'not a mulatto'Grits. Even though he, ironically, pointed this out.
Frank denies. But how else do you explain his vote for mccain? I may even abstain from voting, if hillary is the nom. But, he will vote for bush44, rather than that boy, the mulatto.
Lots of folks hate clinton. and there is a certain amount of misogyny going around. But, I believe the racism thing is bigger.
I grew up in taxachusetts and lived in the caorolinas for some years now. There is a Huge racist element around here.
There is the (unsubstantiated) theory (mine), that while the dems have their share of racists, most racists are reps. If this is true, then it could actually be a factor.
This is my biggest fear. Because, while Obama ain't all that, he's still the only chance we have to turn this countries fascist/imperialist policies around.
The sad part is, if I (and frank, even though he tries to exclude himself) are correct, then America deserves to go down. The constitution is awesome...the plan was admirable... but the citizenry seems (from where I sit) uninterested/undeserving.
Here's hoping I am wrong. I will cast my vote anyway...and hope.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 04/23/2008 @ 6:04pm
Pull your head out of your ass before you flip your lid.
Posted by MADLIB 04/23/2008 @ 6:00pm | ignore this person
ignored. basta
Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 6:14pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 04/23/2008 @ 6:04pm
Thank you that is the most honest answer I have gotten. I don't know if it is true but I thank you. Funny that the honest answer came from an Obama supporter not a Hillary one.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 6:15pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 04/23/2008 @ 6:06pm
I feel as long as the person hasn't done anything truly disgusting, ie. kill someone, bribery, putting babies on spikes, I think they should be judged on their platform. I'm not perfect so how can I expect anyone else to be?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 6:17pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 04/23/2008 @ 6:06pm
I feel as long as the person hasn't done anything truly disgusting, ie. kill someone, bribery, putting babies on spikes, I think they should be judged on their platform. I'm not perfect so how can I expect anyone else to be?
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/23/2008 @ 6:17pm
It got time warped.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 6:19pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 04/23/2008 @ 6:04pm
I hope this isn't true because I would like to hope that this country is a little better than that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 6:20pm
i'd just like to remind all of the hillary supporters out there that have been touting the whole: "a victory is a victory," rhetoric, that at the end of the primaries and caucuses the plain truth is that obama will be ahead in the popular vote and the elected delegate count. so if you care at all beating republicans in november, if you want to redirect the abysmal economy, and if you want to try to salvage our international relations, then quit the bickering and in-fighting and realize that obama is by most estimations going to be the democratic nominee and that he is a much better choice than mccain... let's realize that the primary season is essentially over and let's start focusing on preventing papa smurf from turning the white house into what looks like a retirement home...
Posted by MMM...DIGGY at 04/23/2008 @ 6:26pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/23/2008 @ 6:20pm
I'm hoping too. But, I haven't got any money on it.
I am really not, at all, enthused about being correct. I hear alot of "I'll move to some island" crap, but 1.) sucky as it has gotten, I'm not sure where would be better. (And wingnuts, that is not an excuse to do nothing, move backwards or ignore the damage already done).
And 2.) I wonder if all these fantasy expatriations are based on the concept of the dollar being valuable in foreign countries. Good luck with that lasting through your retirement...trade 'em in for local currency immediately upon arrival.
Seriously, though... I was born, raised and learned to survive here. I take no joy, in no longer being proud.
Posted by Malcontent at 04/23/2008 @ 6:38pm
"Hillary/Obama, in that order..is the ticket, or else the Dems lose in Nov."
Posted by JOMAMMA 04/23/2008 @ 6:37pm
Do you, honestly think that is a possible/viable combination? Would either of them accept the others vice presidency?
Would clinton haters vote for her, just cause obama's on the ticket?
Would racist accept a black veep? (Frank?)
Not an ideological argument, john. Just curious if you can actually see that happening. Seems very unlikely to me.
Posted by Malcontent at 04/23/2008 @ 6:43pm
"Hillary/Obama, in that order..is the ticket, or else the Dems lose in Nov."
Posted by JOMAMMA 04/23/2008 @ 6:37pm
Do you, honestly think that is a possible/viable combination? Would either of them accept the others vice presidency?
Would clinton haters vote for her, just cause obama's on the ticket?
Would racist accept a black veep? (Frank?)
Not an ideological argument, john. Just curious if you can actually see that happening. Seems very unlikely to me.
Posted by Malcontent at 04/23/2008 @ 6:44pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 04/23/2008 @ 6:37pm
Problem is it goes back to my point. She had a 20 point lead. Her monumental win isn't so monumental when you put it in the context that she lost half of her lead in the worst month of the Obama campaign.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 6:46pm
Frank? You have stated, both, that obama was big talk in an empty suit and that he is somehow acceptable in 2012, when it is his "turn".
Would you vote, this time for an Obama/Clinton or a Clinton/Obama ticket? (Two separate questions in there).
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 04/23/2008 @ 6:48pm
if the Party interests take hold, they may be forced to take each other, as to who is on top of the ticket...it may come down to Paper, Rock, scissors...and declare victory.
Posted by JOMAMMA 04/23/2008 @ 6:54pm
I thought it should be a gladiator match.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 7:01pm
Posted by MADLIB 04/23/2008 @ 6:56pm
Eh I think it's a legit position.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 7:01pm
After all the votes are counted and all the results analyzed, the superdelegates will decide who has the best chance of defeating John McCain. ... Relax. The democrats will have their best candidate face McCain after the process is seen to its end. As a democrat, that should please you.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:31pm
It certainly is comforting to know that The Party will ensure that the best candidate is chosen.
Posted by freezecoll at 04/23/2008 @ 7:08pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 04/23/2008 @ 7:04pm
But the question is. Just because he lost it to Hillary does that mean he will lose it to McCain? A primary loss doesn't always translate to a general loss. For instance I he lost Cali but I don't think McCain would get it in the generals.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 7:12pm
actually the people have already chosen, and their choice is Obama.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 7:14pm
osted by JOMAMMA 04/23/2008 @ 7:04pm
To answer the last question I think Obama is more like to share. Clinton feels entitled to this and has proven she is willing to try anything to gain power. I don't think once she has gotten that power she will be willing to share it. I think a vice president with her would just be a figurehead. Much like the emblem on a car a jaguar.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 7:15pm
Anybody else catch this?
"Don't you even realize the Obama cannot defeat Hillary without the help f the SD's either?"----Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/23/2008 @ 4:55pm
That's the EXACT OPPOSITE of the reality of the situation. Hillary cannot defeat Obama without the help of the SDs, since if the SDs were to be split EVENLY between BO and HRC....Obama wins and she loses.
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 8:15pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/23/2008 @ 7:12pm
C3, let me put my 2 cents in on this one. California may prove to be a tough one for Obama. Just about half of the state's voters are hispanic and they tend to vote on name recognition. Clinton and McCain are well known. They don't know enough about Obama nor are they sure about him. Also factor in the prevailing anomosities(sp) between blacks and hispanics in and around Los Angeles county. If he loses that entire area, he loses the state. And right now, they outnumber African-Americans 2-1.
Posted by ACook at 04/23/2008 @ 8:18pm
Posted by ACOOK 04/23/2008 @ 8:18pm
ACOOK, three words....that sum up the McCain Candidacy and would influence a lot of folks come November...
"Four More Years"?
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 8:26pm
Posted by MASK 04/23/2008 @ 8:26pm
What?!?! Four more years of republicans? Yeah. Obama's base isn't strong enough or large enough to get him in the WH. All he has is the African-American and youth vote. He needs a good percentage of white voters (especially the older more established voters) to give him the advantage over McCain. And from where I sit, I don't see that happening. Something about entrenced perceptions and people of color, comes to mind.
Posted by ACook at 04/23/2008 @ 9:00pm
What?!?! Four more years of republicans? Yeah.---Posted by ACOOK 04/23/2008 @ 9:00pm
Well, four more years of deficits....endless occupation...death and nothing much to show for it in Iraq...etc....etc.
Bush is at 30% and what is McCain offering but..."more of the same"?
Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 9:41pm
actually the people have already chosen, and their choice is Obama.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/23/2008 @ 7:14pm
so that means that he will never be president.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/23/2008 @ 9:52pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=frosty%20zoom
?
Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 10:42pm
Posted by ACOOK 04/23/2008 @ 9:00pm
Yep, 'entrenched perceptions' through re-re-re-re-re-re-re-repetition of Wright, socialist, Muslim, bitter, elite, racist 'allegation-echoes by all mega-media in people of white color very well may trip Obama up.
Posted by ACOOK 04/23/2008 @ 8:18pm
I think California may go OK for Obama. There'll be Oprah & Denzel & Chapelle by his side in African American venues, Richardson & Hillary with him for Hispanic rallies and ad blitzes.
Posted by winyahn at 04/23/2008 @ 10:44pm
EXPERIENCE ... who, in the entire living US political class, has more experience running wars than CheneyBush? Want 'em to run more? There's a difference between successful experience & failed experience. Hillary's is mainly failed: health insurance ... want her to do it again?
Then there's the warmongering, lying ... & her dawg.
Posted by sloper at 04/23/2008 @ 11:00pm
Posted by ACOOK 04/23/2008 @ 8:18pm
I don't know if that is the answer though. They said Hillary would dominate in New Mexico and didn't, which has a higher populous of hispanics than LA. Plus on top of that I don't think there is a time in the near future when Cali goes to the repubs. You are forgetting the large population of San Francisco and San Diego would easily offset any losses.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 11:06pm
Posted by ACOOK 04/23/2008 @ 9:00pm
That has been the argument the whole time but then how did he win Iowa?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 11:07pm
Posted by ACOOK 04/23/2008 @ 8:18pm
If he is ONLY getting black and youth votes then how is he winning anything. The majority of folks in most states are still white. This argument has been repeated over and over but the evidence is to the contrary. I hope to my bones that it's not true. I hope that this country is not that racially biased. If everyone is that racist then what the hell are we fighting for?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 11:12pm
Posted by ACOOK 04/23/2008 @ 9:00pm
Also if this case is correct and we are a nation of racists... Doesn't that make the point of Reverend Wright's sermons completely correct? It's funny people will sit here a berate Reverend Wright saying that he's a racist and then say that white people will never vote for a black person. Does that not strike you as odd?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 11:23pm
RE: Not Quite ...
Obama's spin doctors work on his defeat. Let's just say that the small guy gets only small states and that's not going to propel you in \to the WH.
Posted by HelenDAO at 04/24/2008 @ 03:22am
"Too petty?"
Nice little dig.
Did you think we wouldn't notice?
Posted by Lil at 04/24/2008 @ 08:03am
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/23/2008 @ 11:06pm
The populations in San Fran and Sacramento would make things even.
Posted by ACook at 04/24/2008 @ 08:21am
"That has been the argument the whole time but then how did he win Iowa?"
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/23/2008 @ 11:07pm,/I>
The folks in Iowa didn't like Bill.
Posted by ACook at 04/24/2008 @ 08:22am
"Does that not strike you as odd?"
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/23/2008 @ 11:23pm
No. I know too many people who say one thing in front of your face and do the exact opposite behind your back.
Posted by ACook at 04/24/2008 @ 08:24am
"If he is ONLY getting black and youth votes then how is he winning anything. The majority of folks in most states are still white. This argument has been repeated over and over but the evidence is to the contrary. I hope to my bones that it's not true. I hope that this country is not that racially biased. If everyone is that racist then what the hell are we fighting for?"
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/23/2008 @ 11:12pm
Believe me C3, this country is still very racist. This primary year has not turned out like the dems had hoped for. You can blame the whole dem fiasco on two things..Bill Clinton and Howard Dean.
Posted by ACook at 04/24/2008 @ 08:35am
"I think California may go OK for Obama. There'll be Oprah & Denzel & Chapelle by his side in African American venues, Richardson & Hillary with him for Hispanic rallies and ad blitzes.
Posted by WINYAHN 04/23/2008 @ 10:44pm
NEWSFLASH Win,...Billary's people will never back an Obama presidency should he win the dem nod.
Posted by ACook at 04/24/2008 @ 08:37am
anyone notice that the old old soldier gave an economic speech in front of a factory which has lost hundreds of jobs and had broken windows. no this was not intentional. his campaign staff is as clueless as he is.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/24/2008 @ 10:16am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/24/2008 @ 12:22am
You have still yet to answer the question Frank. Instead you have spent time trying to find ways to slink around it by insulting me in your normal way. When you answer the question I will stop posting it. The answer you gave above doesn't answer the question. I am not saying to abolish the super delegates. I am saying how can Hillary claim to be the most electable if she can't win without them giving it to her.
The reason I said Obama doesn't need them is because if they were abolished right now he would be the winner due to having the lead. If they voted according to the person who got the most pledged delegates, popular vote or most states he would be the winner. Hillary has to have the nomination LITERALLY handed to her by someone else in order to win because she can't do it in on her own merit. It's a joke to me. Answer the question Frank.
"I don't really feel the need to reply to your question of earlier because it is a silly one and a moot point. I was enjoying the Yankee game while you pent your night trying to figure out why I didn't answer the question you posed although I thought I had. Apparently not to your satisfaction ."
This type of insulting makes it more apparent that you don't have an answer to the question because instead of answering it you are trying to give me the run around and get off topic but here I will address both your points. The question is not silly OR moot. Last I check the election is still going. If the election is still going then the question of electability is still there and it influences the choices of super delegates. So the question I proffer is one that is very important to an election that Hillary is running based mostly on electability. How can she claim electability if she can't win without help?
Your second point is a hilarious one. You make an assessment of my personal life based on no facts here Frank. You sound like a child lashing out because they have been confront with a question they can't answer. I spent most of my night sleeping in actuality Frank. Notice I didn't post last night. You should try not looking so desperate to evade a question from now on.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/24/2008 @ 12:45pm