|
|
|
|
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 3:11:57 PM | Well , Edwards just endorsed Obama . 
"I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."
-----Hillary Clinton
Well, there are a couple of primaries left - I'd take her advice.
Actually, that's been a central part of her entire campaign through the primaries, hasn't it ? | |
|
| |
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 3:34:33 PM | Yup, with Edwards' endorsement, it's all but over. The superdelegates are going to start breaking Obama's way.
For the Hillary supporters, let the grieving begin.
Remember the five stages of grief.
Denial: "She's still got a chance. Make Florida and Michigan count."
Anger: "Well, I'm just going to vote for McCain then, that'll teach the Obamites"
Bargaining: "Come on people, can't you see that only Hillary can lead the Dems to victory"
Depression: "America's lost without Hillary"
Acceptance: "Feck, might as well vote for Obama" | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 3:36:45 PM | | The sixth stage is "geez why did I register for a party that continues to nominate candidates who get their ass kicked in November". | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 3:39:44 PM | Bike, your use of smilies is outstanding!
The Superdelegates have already been speaking. I believe most will go ahead and wait until after the final primary, but if Hillary had any chance of swaying them with any argument they would not be coming out for Obama in droves as they have been after Pennsylvania. They have already made their choice. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 3:46:52 PM | No political joke I could ever come up with could rival Hillary Clinton 2007-2008.
She said that McCain would be better as president, over Obama. Now she says the opposite.
Just words, that's all she's got. 
s Clinton suggesting that whites who voted for Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire (where she beat him by around 8,000 votes), Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington state, Minnesota and so many other states were phantom voters? Were they not hard-working white voters? Were they only the "eggheads and African-Americans" whom Paul Begala referred to on CNN on election night?
Look, I get spin. And I get that Clinton must figure out some kind of argument that makes sense for the superdelegates to go her way and ignore Obama's lead among pledged delegates, the popular vote and states won. But when a Democratic candidate continues to ram home this notion that hard-working white Americans somehow are the bedrock foundation of the Democratic Party, it's just not true.
Clinton wants to make the argument that her white working-class support in Ohio and Pennsylvania -- states the Democrats need to win in November -- shows she's the best choice.
But one major failure in Clinton's argument is the assumption that all the traditional Democratic constituencies will offer her broad support if she's the nominee. And considering her high negatives, she can't afford any erosion.
Obama could make the case that she has failed miserably in the primaries in garnering young and African-American voters, and without them, she loses.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/08/roland.martin/index.html
There's a wave of support that out there, for the Democrats. It's growing, and it will keep growing if McCain's platforms start to be put under the harsh light they deserve.
They've just won a critical House seat, in a district that voted heavily Republican in the past.
"There is no district that is safe for Republican candidates," according to the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Representative Chris Van Hollen. He tells the Washington Post that "no one could have imagined the tsunami that just crashed on Republicans in Mississippi."
That's where a Democrat won a Republican-held congressional seat in the northern part of the state yesterday. This is a district where President Bush won by 25 points in the 2004 election, and the former Republican congressman won reelection with 66% of the vote in 2006.
It's the third special election the GOP has lost this spring, including a House race in Louisiana that had been Republican for more than three decades and the seat of former House speaker Dennis Hastert in Illinois.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
The best choice to run against McCain is someone with the most contrast. Obama's that man. Hillary can't even get a decisive win in her own party's election.
Inexperienced ? So was Harry Truman.
Clinton campaign: We're ahead in the popular vote
Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Wednesday Hillary Clinton has overcome Barack Obama in the total popular vote.
“Senator Clinton took the lead in the popular vote last night because voters believe she is the candidate best able to beat John McCain and lead our country," McAuliffe said.
Clinton trails in all four counts, but by significantly different margins. In the first scenario she trails by by about 397,000, in the second she's behind 699,000, in the third she has a 405,000 vote deficit, and in the fourth scenario she trails by 77,000 votes.
The fourth scenario does not give Obama any votes out of Michigan, where he did not appear on the ballot.
The only scenario in which Clinton would appear to have the lead is a fifth scenario that only counts primary states – including both Florida and Michigan – and excludes any votes cast in the party’s caucuses. In that count, Clinton currently holds a lead of about 225,000 votes.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
I heard her campaign's just got an agricultural subsidy - due to all that cherry picking they are doing. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 4:24:23 PM |
Remember the five stages of grief.
Denial: "She's still got a chance. Make Florida and Michigan count."
Anger: "Well, I'm just going to vote for McCain then, that'll teach the Obamites"
Bargaining: "Come on people, can't you see that only Hillary can lead the Dems to victory"
Depression: "America's lost without Hillary"
Acceptance: "Fùck it, might as well vote for Obama"
Good one, Uninterested! | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 4:41:32 PM |
I am a Hillary supporter, I must be a racist, undereducated (too STUPID to know any better)... really OLD... generalizations can be fun and dangerous. Hillary is losing because of who she is and what she represents -- some people support those ideals, so far a majority has not. A hillary supporter will point and shout about things that obama's pastor said, but casually dismiss and forgive obvious fabrications from her own mouth. Race plays a part for each candidate -- but seeing as how only 13% of america is black, the chances of racial prejudice of blacks making much of a difference is decreased. The demographics are merely generalizations, and maybe you are part of the 50% of the HRC support that is neither racist or poor -- I just find it interesting how a financially secure, educated, and open-minded individual can then feel comfortable "following the masses."
As far as the issues go, Hillary and Obama have the same stance. The election boils down to character. As a former republican, I would have no problem supporting Obama. Hillary has nothing but ambition and has made it quite clear she will say and do whatever it takes to fulfill it. Obama was one of several people groomed by the DNC to compete for the candidacy against the "heir apparent" HRC because it is widely known that ultimately she is unelectable. Obama is most equatable to Jimmy Carter, a no-name upstart whose sole job it is to provide feel-good unity -- sadly, that is just what the country needs.
Another reason HRC is losing is because her "electorate base" has no financial ability to support her. The so-called educated and successful HRC supporters don't seem to be willing to put their money where their mouth is -- donate your $3000 today!
Just for fun ... HRC wants to claim that Michigan supported her -- in a state where she was the ONLY person on the ballot, 40% voted for "none of the above!" | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 5:02:25 PM | Well I have a first here. We just got home from a ball game and my kids have taken over the tv.
MG is my new news source!! lol "Edwards endorsed Obama"!!!
Oh Happy Day!!!
Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy!! 
The only thing that could make me happier is to see them run together!!!
Thanks MG you made my whole week, pal :)
**edit** this happened today about an hour away from me....damn I knew I should have taken the afternoon off and went to that arena! | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 5:18:48 PM | I have to agree that an Obama/Edwards ticket would be formidable. While having a female running mate might sound popular, there are few women that could garner as much instant support (from the disallusioned clinton crowd.) One exception in my book would be Madeleine Albright -- wonder if she's up for it?
And for those "Democrats" that want to switch to McCain if HRC drops out -- Clinton and Obama have THE SAME stance on the issues, there is no difference as they are both party mainstreamers. IF you decide to switch, you deserve to have more of the same Republicanism you have sufferred through the past 8 years -- talk about not thinking clearly!
(PS I wanted to use the term racist pigs for those that would jump ship, but obvious not all would do it because of race -- just seems a bit transparent.) | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 5:19:26 PM |
Acceptance: "Feck, might as well vote for Obama"
Or, Feck I might as well vote for McCain.
Won't vote for him with Hillary as VP (which I doubt will happen), and the day she pulls out of the race I'm joining the McCain campaign.
Just because Hillary tries to swing her people towards Obama, doesn't mean we're following. We all have brains, and we'll make our own decisions. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 5:33:02 PM |
"The reason I'm here tonight is because the Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I. There is one man who knows and understands that this is a time for bold leadership. There is one man that knows how to create the change, the lasting change, that you have to build from the ground up,There is one man who knows in his heart there is time to create one America, not two ... and that man is Barack Obama."
- John Edwards
Two out of three Democratic presidential candidates now agree.
Checkmate.
| |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 6:01:38 PM | | the john edwards endorsement is suicide for the southern states. he is HATED by lots in the south. I have no opinion on him, other than he is a d o u c h e. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 6:14:11 PM |
I have no opinion on him, other than he is a d o u c h e.
Now there's an intelligent assessment.  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 6:19:30 PM | WHAT???!!!! I have alot of friends down south and none of them hate John Edwards. In fact, many admire him greatly. Those I know love him because he stands for the working man and woman, and is pro-union. Obama would do well to choose any of the following: John Edwards, Jim Webb (VA senator), or Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. They are all good people who care about the average working man and woman as opposed to supporting special breaks for the rich.
Cheers to John Edwards for endorsing Obama!!! I've always respected John Edwards, and this endorsement makes me respect him all the more! GO JOHNNY GO GO, Johnny B. Goode--He IS GOOD!!!!!! | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 6:35:42 PM | | DW, you have liberal friends. you also said that obama was the man in VA. I live in these states. I talk to everyone. john edwards is the one working for one america, as long as it doesn't infringe on his gigantic multi million dollar estate. if these rich democrats cared so much about the working man, they would give up all their money. not likely. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 6:40:40 PM | | Shillary is the one saying things people want to hear, like that ridiculous gas tax holiday, which is fiscally irresponsible. Of the three candidates the only one who has the guts to tell the truth instead of what people want to hear is Barack Obama, who has gone on record against such an irresponsible move. People are smarter than that, and are not falling for Shillary or McInsane's baloney. That's why Shillary is losing, and McInsane will lose in the Fall. | |
|
| |
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 7:01:41 PM | A "wounded cat," I tell ya. A wounded cat. 
We all know this is over. Perhaps Barack will be victorious in November; perhaps not. One thing for sure, however, is that the majority of the voters (both popular and delegate/superdelegate) have decided that they want to give him that chance (despite Limbaugh's mission to his listeners to the contrary).
She fought a long, driven (though at times very muddy and ethically-questionable), and impassioned battle. But it's over.
Barack cannot countenance asking Hillary to serve as VP because:
(1) It would fly in the face of his candidacy theme "to change the way business is done in Washington" for him to bring in our last Democratic First Family (replete with one of the most masterful "typical Washington" politicians in recent memory);
(2) The compendium of (arguably) "below-the-belt" mudslinging antics, Hillary's campaign has employed thus far, has resulted in dividing the Democratic party so very sharply that some of us who have been stalwart Democrats, year-after-year, and candidate-after-candidate, for virtually all of our voting lives, have made it clear that our divisions are SO stark, bitter and impassioned that we would vote for our common political enemy, before we would get on-board behind the opposing Democratic nominee contestant;
(a TRULY sad commentary on the present-day division of the party. )
(3) He would lose many of the "Obama Republicans" and "Obama Independents" for whom his message of "Change in Washington processes" has resonated to his advantage in this contest thus far;
and
(4) He knows that Hillary would have her mole at CTU shoot him in the throat during his first year in office.  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 7:15:01 PM | Oh, incidently ...
This may be a tad bit off topic, but I seem to see a lot of it in this thread, anyway, so I'll ask.
Please forgive my ignorance here, but can someone please explain for me (type very slowly, please, because it may be a little hard for me to follow  ) why it is so apparently "inevitable" that, if selected, Barack will get vanquished in the fall's general election??
I want to be clear here that I'm not saying that contention is "wrong," but those who contend it to be true seem to me so very "certain" about it, so I'm just curious to learn how they can be so. That is, what is it that you are looking at that makes his doom appear so certain?
I know I have seen in this Democratic nomination process, how many of us hear a politician tell us something and we run off, evangelizing it as "truth" without doing any independent, corroborating research upon which to buttress the allegation (e.g. "Barack is a Muslim"). So, if indeed Barack is headed off to his certain demise in November, I just could appreciate a little help in understanding why that is so inevitably the case.  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 7:17:44 PM | Simmah you beat me but here goes....
The best ticket in the world Obama/Edwards
Yeah Baby
Edwards gives long-awaited endorsement to Obama
Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., right, is joined by former Democratic presidential hopeful, John Edwards, at a rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., Wednesday, May 14, 2008. Jae C. HongBy CHARLES BABINGTON (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
May 14, 2008 7:05 PM EDT
GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan - Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a move designed to help solidify support for the party's likely presidential nominee even as Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to give up her long-shot candidacy.
The surprise endorsement came a day after Clinton defeated Obama by more than 2-to-1 in the West Virginia primary, and it helped the Obama campaign steer much of the evening news coverage away from a painful subject. The West Virginia outcome highlighted Obama's challenge in winning over "Hillary Democrats" - white, working-class voters who also supported Edwards in significant numbers before he exited the race in late January.
| |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 7:55:54 PM | I just read each page of this thread! WOW, we've all talked a lot of chit!!!
Germane to the most recent news in this contest, I point to a prophetically insightful dialog exchanged by a couple of our members at Msgs: 188, 193, 195, and 196.  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 8:12:28 PM | I'm not sure why, but I just thought this story was funny :
Clinton Superdelegate Reveals He Voted for Obama
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff Wed May 14, 6:12 PM ET
Clinton superdelegate Brad Ellsworth said Wednesday that he cast his vote in the May 6 Indiana Democratic presidential primary for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, adding yet another intriguing twist to the mystery of just who the conservative freshman lawmaker supports.
"In the booth, I voted for Obama," said Ellsworth, who announced after the Indiana primary that he planned to use his vote as a superdelegate to support New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton unless there was a compelling reason not to back her.
That was taken by many observers, most notably the Clinton campaign, as an endorsement. But Ellsworth's office quickly sought to clarify that, saying that the commitment of his superdelegate vote was contingent on the race going all the way to the convention and was not tantamount to an endorsement.
Instead, Ellsworth notes that he is following the wishes of the Democrats in his southwestern 8th District, who overwhelmingly favored Clinton and helped her to a narrow win in the Hoosier State ...
[story at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080514/pl_cq_politics/politics2841491] | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 8:30:08 PM |
"In the booth, I voted for Obama," said Ellsworth, who announced after the Indiana primary that he planned to use his vote as a superdelegate to support New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton unless there was a compelling reason not to back her.
Great story, Vyper. The Force made him vote for Obama in spite of himself. I'm sure Hillary appreciates him as a "superdelegate" even though he went against his entire district and punched out the chad for Obama. Hillary probably finds his honesty refreshing, too. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 9:10:45 PM | It's going to the convention, bud. Let's see what happens there.
That's assuming that Obama isn't indicted after Rezko tries to work a deal for lesser time:
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part II
Wednesday, 14 May 2008, 11:43 am
Column: Evelyn Pringle
"US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald does not make a habit of destroying pubic officials by listing them in indictments for no reason and the only two political candidates identified as receiving campaign money from Operation Board Games kickback schemes are Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and the US Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.
"Instead of referring to Board Games as the “Rezko” case, before long the media will likely be calling it the “Blagojevich” case. However, because the governor did not become the presidential candidate, when the scandal is recorded in the history books it will be the “Barack Obama” case.
"Curtain Time Part II will show that Obama was the inside guy in the Illinois senate as far as setting up the Health Facilities Planning Board to extort contributions from companies in exchange for the approval of applications to build medial facilities.
"Obama was chairman of the Senate Health & Human Services Committee in January 2003. A few articles in the media have mentioned that Obama sat on a committee that reviewed matters related to the Planning Board in conjunction with the Governor's staff but none have discussed his integral part in getting the bill passed.
"A review of senate records from January 2003 to August 2003, shows Obama played a major role as chairman of that committee, in pushing through Senate Bill 1332, that led to the "Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act," which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, making the votes much easier to rig. "
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0805/S00185.htm
PhillyFellow | |
|
|
| Page 46 of 98
|
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, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 |
|
Home
login 
