|
|
|
|
|
| Why did Hillary Lose This Thing?
Posted: 5/8/2008 7:16:48 PM | A moment of silence for Lou.
It's an example of why I didn't think she was the best choice for the job. Being a President lends to little margin for miscalculations, poor assumptions, and poorer judgment as she exhibited from day 1 of her campaign. | |
|
| Why did Hillary Lose This Thing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 1:55:52 AM | | That's exactly what Obama's been saying from the beginning - judgment judgment judgment. He's right. | |
|
| Obama's poor judgement
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:25:54 AM |
That's exactly what Obama's been saying from the beginning - judgment judgment judgment. He's right.
No doubt that's why he chose Rev. Wright to be his spiritual adviser for 20 years.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why has Hillary lost?
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:28:54 AM | Spitfire, most Americans also wouldn't want a president whose win depends on not counting two of the most populous states in the country, particularly when those states favored the other candidate.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Obama's poor judgement
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:30:57 AM | He should have joined a secret religious organization that believes that the elite are chosen by God to lead, segregates the sexes in prayer groups, and who has a leader that approves of some aspects of Hitler and Mao.
Oh...wait a tick.
Someone's already done that. | |
|
| Obama's poor judgement
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:32:37 AM | | MI came up with a sensible way to be represented. Clinton's campaign said no thanks. | |
|
| |
| Obama's poor judgement
Posted: 5/9/2008 5:53:19 AM | No, I'm talking about Hillary. 
As has been pointed out, a compromise was recently offered to Hillary on the votes...and she turned it down.
May 8, 2008, 2:20PM
Camp Hillary is rejecting the new plan floated today by Michigan Dems that would seat the delegation by awarding 69 delegates to Hillary and 59 to Obama.
Hillary spokesperson Isaac Baker emails over this:
"This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan's January primary. Those votes must be counted."
So much for the argument that she's standing up for those voters rights. She gets MORE candidates than Obama, and those vote totals don't give ANYTHING to the voters in Michigan.
The only importance they have to her is achieving the nomination. This latest refusal proves that beyond all of your ability to discount that simple fact.
Politics is the art of compromise, and Hillary is no artist. | |
|
| Obama's poor judgement
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:14:54 AM | MI& FL did not follow the rules set down by the national Democratic Party. The penalties were stated and yet the still followed through. If FL & MI don't get to pick, it is the fault of their state politicians, not the national party. Neither candidate really campaigned in either state (if any at all?).
And you know Hillary would not be for counting those votes if she had lost. Not at all!
Almost everyone has come to realization that she is not going to win the nomination, but yet she still continues on with this mess. I think this shows her bitterness at not winning more than it shows her fortitude. Do you want someone answering the 'red phone' at 3:00 Am who can't look at the facts and come to a rational decision?
She is just a bitter old woman who refuses to give up. I think it is safe to say she has shot any chance at being VP straight to hell. 
She would not want it anyway because she will run again in 2012 and kinda of hard to bash Barak if she were his VP for 4 years. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:38:59 AM | Not counting Michigan and Florida isn't why Hillary fell behind in delegates. She bungled her nomination campaign, and Obama outworked her. Plain and simple. With an adequate campaign I think she handily defeats Obama. Her campaign performance has proven to be less than adequate, that's for sure.
Oh, railing on somebody's choices of which religious leaders to which they pander for election votes is an issue for all candidates. An individual voluntarily attending vitrolic sermons for 20 years, claiming the pastor of those sermons is a "spiritual advisor", and receiving nuptials from that spiritual advisor, that's an entirely different issue. Don't confuse apples and oranges. | |
|
mj999
|
Joined: 10/28/2007
Msg: 911 | |
| Obama's poor judgement
Posted: 5/9/2008 7:55:29 AM | Whothehellknows said: "She is just a bitter old woman who refuses to give up. I think it is safe to say she has shot any chance at being VP straight to hell".
You're spot on. I think she's waiting for "Rev. Wright to throw Obama off a cliff"...there is no other way for her to win. | |
|
| Obama's poor judgement
Posted: 5/9/2008 8:05:00 AM | | I agree 100%. I was actually a Clinton supporter. She's certainly lost my vote. The Clintons dont care about the party. They only care about themselves.There's no way in hell she can win the nomination. There are very selfish in that respect. I just wish the superdelegates would get off their asses and make a decision so we can end this nonsense. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 8:10:54 AM | Good list, Vyper (#901). Those reasons are all central as to why Hillary is getting spanked so bad. She's losing resources and supporters almost by the hour. The only thing Hillary is doing now by staying in the race is racking up enemies and destroying whatever legacy she might have had. If she wants a shot at being the VP nominee or Senate Majority Leader, Hillary had better think about calling an end to her campaign right now.
Hillary is becoming a farce.
Philly Fellow said:
Spitfire, most Americans also wouldn't want a president whose win depends on not counting two of the most populous states in the country, particularly when those states favored the other candidate.
Even when you count Michigan and Florida (which Hillary initially agreed NOT to count) Obama comes out ahead. There is no doubt who has the nomination sealed up. My relatives in Florida don't have an issue with it, and neither do my friends in Michigan. There is no controversy about it at all, except for among a small gaggle of die-hard Hillary fanatics. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 8:46:41 AM | I was actually a Clinton supporter. She's certainly lost my vote. The Clintons dont care about the party. They only care about themselves.There's no way in hell she can win the nomination. There are very selfish in that respect. I'm not so sure the Clintons don't care about the future of the Democratic party; that's a bit of an overstatement, but I can relate to the sentiment. There's no doubt they give off an aura to the public that they care highly about themselves, perhaps to the point of egotistical obsession. This sort of public perception is something Hillary needs to change if she stands any future chance toward earning her party's nomination for presidency, that's for sure. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 9:42:54 AM |
This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan's January primary. Those votes must be counted.
It's about the Delegates and never, ever, ever has been about the popular vote!!! Fight for the 18 delegate lead you got over UNCOMMITTED which is translated to NOT YOU. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 11:29:52 AM | Thanks, Spitfire.
The whole "Rev. Wright" argument has been beaten harder than War Admiral! We've got a one or two brief and aging video clips of a guy who the anti-Obama smear team has trolled up, voicing some incendiary (though not entirely baseless) and less than flattering personal opinions about America. The anti-Obama forces continually, relentlessly, and tirelessly try to extrapolate that/those clips(s) into a completely unfounded claim that he has been preaching two decades of hate (in and of itself a "fallacious reach," at best) and then extend their COMPLETELY unsupported argument to another level by claiming that Obama is somehow unfit to run the country -- with the assistance of a gazillion aides, advisors, and experts -- because he did not disassociate himself from that reverend.
Aside from the fact that three to six minutes of video can HARDLY stand in as "representative" of what ANYONE has said, done, and stood for for twenty years, Barack has repeatedly and expressly stated that he was not always in complete agreement with the Rev.'s positions. Hell, I know I'm not always in complete agreement with those who I hold dearly either; and I'd be willing to wager a double sawbuck that there ain't a single ONE of us highly-opinionated members here who agree with every expressed controversial opinion of his/her friends and loved ones. To make the straight-faced and earnest indictment that he (or YOU, in the case of your own friends) should have disassociated himself from someone in whom he found many other redemptive qualities, strikes me as naive at best, and disingenuous, at its most nefarious.
Moreover, more importantly and directly to the point, however, is that at NO point has Obama indicated that he endorsed the opinions espoused during Wright's tirade NOR is there ANYTHING in Obama's political or personal history which even SUGGESTS that he might!!! In fact, quite to the contrary, he has EXPRESSLY CONDEMNED Wrights opinions on the scope of issues he addressed in his tirade and AFFIRMATIVELY STATED that he disagrees with Wright on those issues.
Finally, Wright ain't running for office.
You usually know you got yourself a pretty stand-up guy if the most damaging scum folks can find on him is via proxy with his associates. The Clintons know this better than anyone. While trying to drum up dirt on Bill, his enemies spent $20 Million indicting and unsuccessfully prosecuting his friend Mike Espy for improperly accepting Super Bowl tickets and a Thanksgiving turkey! All told, the special prosecutors dispatched by the Republican-controlled Congress hellbent on unearthing impeach-worthy dirt on Bill, spent approximately $100 Million investigating and/or prosecuting -- in some cases, for the silliest of offenses -- everyone who had even tenuous ties to Bill and, in the end, had to settle for a failed impeachment effort on the grounds that he got himself a BJ and lied about it under oath. 
As a taxpayer, I'm pretty bitter about that one myself. 
In sum, Bill was as good a man, on balance, as any to run our country. And if the grimiest dirt they can come up with on him is that one or two friends of his may have done something questionable, then he's alright in MY book. Similarly, if the most damning thing that the anti-Obama forces can dredge up -- despite their very best efforts to find worse -- is that his friend and pastor holds a few controversial beliefs that he disagrees with ...
then "Hail to the Chief we have chosen for the nation ... " and, for goodness sakes(!), give the Jeremiah Wright -thing a rest!  | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 12:18:20 PM | Well, to answer the OP's question in an updated manner.....
Sen. Barack Obama picks up four more superdelegates
Reports: Ex-Sen. John Edwards says Obama likely Democratic nominee
Clinton's superdelegate lead over Obama narrows to three
The Obama campaign announced the support of four new superdelegates -- including a previous Clinton backer.
California Democratic National Committee member and superdelegate Ed Espinoza endorsed the senator from Illinois Friday, according to the Obama camp.
Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon also told The Oregonian newspaper that he will support Obama's bid. Oregon voters are in the middle of primary voting, which takes place through the mail.
Rep. Donald Payne, a New Jersey Democrat and an early Clinton supporter, told The (Newark) Star-Ledger that he was switching to Obama.
John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, also said he is backing Obama. He had been uncommitted. His union, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, said it represents more than 600,000 workers.
Espinoza, Payne, DeFazio and Gage are superdelegates -- party officials, elected representatives and activists who are free to vote the way they want or to change their minds after pledging to a candidate.
There are now more superdelegates than pledged delegates among those who remain undecided. A flood of endorsements from superdelegates could virtually end the Democratic race.
The latest announcements narrow Clinton's lead in superdelegates to three -- 267 to 264. At the year's start, she led by more than 100 superdelegates.
Nevertheless, the Clinton campaign said it had picked up the support of Rep. Christopher Carney of Pennsylvania.
Clinton is not going down without a fight, making pitches Friday to superdelegates that she is the best candidate to lead a Democratic ticket in November.
Her campaign tried to appeal to elected Democrats in Republican-leaning districts, arguing that Clinton can win more votes there than Obama and thus help their re-election prospects.
In a PowerPoint presentation e-mailed to the nearly 800 superdelegates, the campaign detailed how she had defeated Obama in GOP-leaning congressional districts and had consistently topped him among key voting blocs such as senior citizens and Hispanics.
Despite those efforts, the Clinton camp already appears to be planning an exit strategy, according to Lawrence O'Donnell, a Huffington Post contributor who cited Clinton insiders.
"They are saying that Hillary will be out of the race by June 15," O'Donnell said Friday on CNN's "American Morning."
"What the senior campaign official has told me is that they will go through the final votes on June 3.
"Remember, Hillary is going to win maybe three of the elections, and Obama is going to win maybe three elections coming out of it," he said, referring to the remaining six contests.
O'Donnell said the Clinton campaign then would make its case to the superdelegates for about a week after the primaries ended.
"The superdelegates have no chance of moving over to Hillary Clinton in a week," he said. "So for the Clinton campaign to say we will only make the case for a week, and then by June 15, we will have a nominee, that is to say she will drop out."
Meanwhile, former Democratic contender John Edwards said Friday on NBC and MSNBC that Obama is the likely nominee. Edwards is not a superdelegate.
Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have heavily wooed the former senator from North Carolina since he ended his presidential run in January, but he has not publicly endorsed either candidate.
Edwards said Friday that he worried the continuing campaign could take a toll on the Democratic Party's chances in November.
"I think it's fine for Hillary to keep making the case for her," he said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "But when that shifts to everything that is wrong with [Obama], then we're doing damage instead of being helpful."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/09/dems.wrap/index.html
Looks like it's over.
She's lost. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 12:50:40 PM | | OMG that's it. Hillary is a jerkface. Thanks for posting that MI delegate article, MG. I'm glad I know this. That is a very fair way to have handled it if you ask me, and she rejected it, makes one think she's the elitist, doesn't it. Either that or she thinks she can act like an infant in a presidential election. boo Hillary. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 12:51:52 PM | Yeah, I know Donald Payne personally. I knew he was initially backing Hillary because he is obstinately pro-establishment and not one to take any sort of political risk. So, if HE has bailed, then you can take that as the bellwether symbol that even the most conservative insiders are acknowledging that it's all over, except for the concession speech.
Look for a continual "trickle" of superdelegates until Hillary formally decides to bow out in June, "unifying the party."
Hillary's slow, agonizing, though self-inflicted death saddens me. 
I like her and sincerely wish that she hadn't taken the race down such nasty roads.
Now, it's just painful; not unlike listening to a wounded cat, slowly dying in the street ... | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 1:38:51 PM | MG and Vyper just "delegated" the correct info to the thread.
You can't even go to the bathroom for a quick shit anymore without finding out that another super-delegate declared for Obama while you were gone...... | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 3:34:51 PM |
Even when you count Michigan and Florida (which Hillary initially agreed NOT to count) Obama comes out ahead. There is no doubt who has the nomination sealed up. My relatives in Florida don't have an issue with it, and neither do my friends in Michigan. There is no controversy about it at all, except for among a small gaggle of die-hard Hillary fanatics.
Your friends say they have no problem, with not counting their votes? And are they Obama supporters?
I can tell you there are many Hillary supporters in those states who do want their vote to be counted. The polling in those states showed Clinton to be in the lead. Then we may conclude the number who do want their vote counted is greater than those who do not.
Take a look at this table of votes in the elections:
Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008
At the bottom is shown the possible voting breakdown according to surveys only for the states that still have votes to be cast. Hillary leads by large margins in 4 of those 6 states. In West Virginia where Obama will not campaign, Hillary leads in the latest surveys by 40 points, with the primary less than a week away.
The remaining states that Hillary is leading, and by large margins, amount to 150 delegates. The 2 states that Obama is leading in the surveys amount to 67 delegates. Hillary could pick up a considerable delegate swing from those remaining states.
The Obama campaign has announced they want to announce their winning the nomination by May 20th. There are three states, including Puerto Rico, left to vote after that date. In two of those three states Hillary leads by large margins in the surveys. The two she leads in amount to 71 delegates. The one Obama leads in amounts to 15 delegates.
How do you think these states who will vote after May 20th will feel about Obama saying their vote will not count, as he says about Michigan and Florida? Also, since he says the campaign will be over by then, he very likely will not campaign in those states.
My guess is that the undecideds in those states will vote largely in Hillary's direction. So these 3 states alone could result in a considerable delegate swing in Hillary' direction.
Remember this is not even considering the delegates from Florida and Michigan which would also give large delegate swings in Hillary's direction. Taking into consideration the large delegate swing Hillary can likely get from the 6 remaining states and the proportional representation of the votes cast, Hillary could well indeed wind up with the lead in votes cast if not the delegate count IF a way is found to count the votes from Michigan and Florida either by another primary or by some formula based on the votes already cast.
In any case considering the fact that Obama leads Hillary now only by about 160 delegates, less when you consider the superdelegates, and there is likely to be a significant delegate swing in Hillary's direction from the remaining 6 states, the results of the full primary campaign can hardly be viewed as an overwhelming mandate in Obama's direction.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 3:54:21 PM |
How do you think these states who will vote after May 20th will feel about Obama saying their vote will not count, as he says about Michigan and Florida? Also, since he says the campaign will be over by then, he very likely will not campaign in those states.
My guess is that the undecideds in those states will vote largely in Hillary's direction. So these 3 states alone could result in a considerable delegate swing in Hillary' direction.
In any case considering the fact that Obama leads Hillary now only by about 160 delegates, less when you consider the superdelegates, and there is likely to be a significant delegate swing in Hillary's direction from the remaining 6 states, the results of the full primary campaign can hardly be viewed as an overwhelming mandate in Obama's direction.
If I was a Michigan voter, who just heard Hillary reject a compromise that would have counted their states delegates, with the vote advantage going to her - I'd be
As for any lead by Hillary, she lost four superdelegates today, and gained one. Net loss three.
As for the remaining states, Hillary's strong in three. Obama will probably carry the rest, if present trends continue as they have. The only question seems to be the point spread in all of them, not the results.
Total Delegates Obama 1865 Clinton 1698.5 ( anyone understand the .5?)
33 PLEDGED DELEGATES needed for a majority (of pledged delegates)
160 TOTAL DELEGATES needed for the nomination
source : Obama.com
She's lost McGovern, which is a big one, since he was an ex-supporter, and close to her.
She's lost some critical credibility by disagreeing with pretty much every single economist of note - and joining McCain on the gas tax holiday bandwagon to pander to more votes.
Even more importantly, she can't overcome the momentum Obama has currently. Even under heavy attack, he's still gaining supporters. That's the overwhelming mandate that counts.
Keep trying, Philly, I admire your steadfast dedication. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 3:57:59 PM |
If I was a Michigan voter, who just heard Hillary reject a compromise that would have counted their states delegates, with the vote advantage going to her - I'd be
See post 919. lol You are correct, sir! | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:26:58 PM | Oh, Philly man!!! We are geographic brothers! Lemmie take you out for a drink somewhere in Philly either before or after this thing is wrapped up; your choice. SURELY, even YOU know this thing is SO VERY over!
I know you teach Math, and I have a great measure of respect for you for THAT, if nothing else, , but the logic you just put up there is chuckleworthy, to say the very least! But, since you took the time to put all those ducks up there in that nice little neat row, I supposed the least I could do is to take shots at them, so here goes:
The remaining states that Hillary is leading, and by large margins, amount to 150 delegates. The 2 states that Obama is leading in the surveys amount to 67 delegates.
None of the states for the Dems are "winner take all" contests. That means that, of those 150 delegates, there will be a split, and it will probably be pretty tight a split as well; something like 80/70 or 85/65 in favor of Hillary. As such, she may -- optimally -- achieve a net gain of 10-20 elected delegates there. Of the remaining 67 delegates, Obama holds the edge (by your contention) so he will likely get the greater share of those, thereby paring down whatever gains Hillary gets from the "battle for 150." That applies for the smaller contests you mentioned, as well. Add to this that she is down 165 elected delegates (according to Real Clear Politics), and I think we have what amounts to an "inconsequential gain" for Hillary. Keep in mind that Hillary held a large margin in Indiana, too.
In West Virginia where Obama will not campaign, Hillary leads in the latest surveys by 40 points
I don't know where you got the idea that Obama is not going to campaign in West Virginia, but he already said in a recently-published article that he expects her to win there and he knows that he'll have to campaign vigorously there. So MY money says West Virginians will see and hear a fair amount from the Illinois senator.
Remember this is not even considering the delegates from Florida and Michigan which would also give large delegate swings in Hillary's direction.
Because those states "opted out" of the delegate process, with the agreement of the states and both Hillary and Barack that the delegates in those states would not count, any change to that (i.e., sitting those delegates) would require both that Barack and Hillary agree to the terms that they are seated. At best, Hillary gets 79 to Barack's 59 in Michigan (resulting in a net gain of 20 elected delegates), and I'm not sure what the numbers would look like in Florida. Now Barack is a nice and personable guy and all , but I REALLY don't see him signing off on any agreement to give Hillary virtually ALL of the delegates for both states, which is what she'd need for your proposal offered above to make much sense. I don't know ... maybe it's just me. 
Philly, Bike, and all the other remaining loyal Hillary supporters out here ... she appreciates your service and loyalty, but the U.S.S. Hillary has hit tremendous icebergs on on both sides and is taking on water FAR faster than any number of you can bail it out. She is -- and HAS been for a very long time -- trailing in just about every measure of leadership in this race. In fact, the only thing that she has held a viable and significant lead in at all, since January, has been in superdelegates (as a direct result of being an "establishment" democrat, benefiting from the most powerful brand name in the party). So --
What's that? ... Can you repeat yourself, Jim? ... OK. Are you sure??! ... Very Well ... I got it. Thanks.
This just in from the newswire:
Obama picks up 9 superdelegates, union endorsement
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer 44 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama all but erased Hillary Rodham Clinton's once-imposing lead among national convention superdelegates on Friday and won fresh labor backing as elements of the Democratic Party began coalescing around the Illinois senator for the fall campaign.
Obama picked up the backing of nine superdelegates, including Rep. Donald Payne of New Jersey, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who had been a Clinton supporter.
In addition, the American Federation of Government Employees announced its support for Obama. The union claims about 600,000 members who work in the federal and Washington, D.C., governments.
Obama, who won a convincing victory in the North Carolina primary and lost Indiana narrowly on Tuesday, has been steadily gaining strength in the days since.
"I'm gratified that we've got some superdelegates who are coming our way. And I think we've got a strong case to make that I will be a nominee that can pull the party together and take on John McCain. Our focus has always been on the pledged delegates and just getting the American people to vote for us. And we think that ultimately that should be the strongest measure of who's the nominee," Obama told reporters in Woodburn, Ore.
Clinton also gained a superdelegate.
The developments left the former first lady with 271.5 superdelegates, to 271 for Obama. Little more than four months ago, on the eve of the primary season, she held a lead of 169-63 ...
Well ... so much for what I was saying about superdelegates, eh?
you can follow the action at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:29:09 PM | We're wasting our collective breath at this point. The press is now calling Obama "the presumptive nominee". He's also gained 7 delegates today to Hillary's 3.
The party's over...... | |
|
|
| Page 37 of 98
|
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 |
|
Home
login 
