|
|
|
|
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 8:31:45 PM |
Well Dubya seems to have survived it, twice.
On the other hand I think it was Al Gore's habit of continually saying stupid things that caused him to lose the election against Bush.
I remember this great line from Ralph Nader when he was running as an independent in that presidential campaign. Reporters asked him a question to the effect of "But if you dislike Bush so much, aren't you helping Bush to win by taking away some of the votes that would have gone to Al Gore?"
And Nader said, "The only person that can make Al Gore lose is Al Gore."
That got a lot of laughs from the reporters.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 8:39:21 PM | who is Mary? Is she posting here? Oh! That was an INSULT! I get it, hahahaha.
Let me try and explain it again fer ya, s-l-o-w-l-y
People 'on this thread' are complaining that Clinton's supporters are just following a feminist agenda without paying any attention to the type of person that they are supporting. People on this thread are speculating that women supporting Clinton are doing so out of some misguided feminist agenda, rather than the merits of the candidate.
Additionally, it is my view that the national media have consistently used gender stereotypes to dismiss Clinton's credibility for the job. It's an opinion that is shared by quite a few people, and I've presented some of those links to that argument here.
If you are suggesting that the Rev Wright rascist church maelstrom was somehow hurting his campaign, I would respectfully disagree. I think the media feeding frenzy over that very quickly evolved into a 'black's just worship differently' decision and that was the end of it. As Philly has pointed out, Obama has other skeletons in the closet, and they're not getting much airplay. But I digress.
I am not arguing over who is the better candidate, who is the more honest, who has the most experience. Frankly, at the start of the campaign I was rather torn between the two. I studied Obama's speech given at the last convention when I was in university a few years ago, and even then the 'buzz' was that he was a solid contender for the presidential bid, so I just don't buy the whole 'dark horse' argument. Gee, I guess I can say that without anyone calling me a rascist, eh?
I just don't like the national media coverage of her campaign. As a woman, I'm insulted by the locker room nonsense from some of the men in the media and disappointed by a lot of my favourite feminists - Dodd and Paglia among them. But, being a free thinking feminist, I guess I have the right to disagree with them right? | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 8:43:10 PM | Al Gore's behavior during the debates was over the top and it turned a lot of people off (not enough to lose the election decidedly but turned enough over to make Election 2000 a debacle).
For me though, it was the announcement in the September before the election that Gore authorized the release of a few droplets from the National Oil Reserves that did it for me. Considering that Gore was not really the guy to be doing that and likely wasn't while allowing his name to be put on it was just so transparently a pandering for votes. I believe the Clinton Spin Machine constantly sat around conference tables laughing aloud at how easily they could manipulate the public. I do believe the phrase "stupid enough to buy it" was said. Just my personal opinion formed from "I didn't inhale" and "What is the definition of is".
I almost threw up in my mouth during this campaign when Hillary was speaking in Mishawaka, IN and I heard her mention that giving Bill credit for it. Either Gore did it as they said and she ignored that or she confessed that Gore didn't when we were told he did. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 8:51:29 PM |
You're jumping to a conclusion that you want to reach, because you want to argue that I'm wrong.
There's about 160 million women in the U.S.
There's about 30 million African Americans.
Obviously overt sexism would create a huge voter backlash which couldn't be overcome. Obama would be sunk. His campaign has been careful to avoid it. Not so the Clinton campaign. They have gone along with the Obama- Muslim racial profile attack.
Remember Ross Perot? He was ridiculed. Here's the Washington Post
We hear that Ralph Nader is running again, but the third-party candidate we need is Ross Perot. In 1992, with his squeaky voice and endless charts, Perot focused attention on the rising federal deficit. His warnings helped keep the major-party candidates from talking budgetary nonsense.
Wow, imagine if the Washington Post had accused Clinton of having a squeaky voice. That would be sexism. was it sexism when it's brought up to ridicule Perot?
Remember Nixon?
http://www.case.edu/news/2004/9-04/tv_debates.htm
If Looks Could Kill: The first televised presidential debate in 1960 between Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard Nixon proved appearance matters. Kennedy, in a black suit and make-up, was relaxed on television, while a flu-stricken, pale Nixon, sporting a five o’clock shadow, was noticeably sweating in a gray suit.
Wow, if the media points out Hillary's physical attributes that would be sexism. Was it sexism when they noticed Nixon's 5 oclock shadow?
What about Dan Quayle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle
Quayle was chosen to appeal to a younger generation of Americans and his good looks were praised by Senator John McCain, who said "I can't believe a guy that handsome wouldn't have some impact."
Imagine someone had said that about Hillary? That would be sexism.
These things have been said for generations. Now that a woman is in the position to garner such criticisms it becomes sexism?
Strange how sexism never became an issue until she was deperately behind. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 10:49:06 PM | Uninterested: First of all, she's not desperately behind. But I'm not surprised you hold that view, given that the media have been calling for her to step down, she can't win yada yada for months now. You know, a couple of posters including me have asked how come other primaries have gone all the way to the convention floor, and they weren't nearly as close as this one, without the constant harangue for one candidate to step down. Haven't seen a good answer to that yet.
“There's about 160 million women in the U.S. There's about 30 million African Americans. Obviously overt sexism would create a huge voter backlash which couldn't be overcome. Obama would be sunk. His campaign has been careful to avoid it.”
Not from what I’m reading, but you’re welcome to your opinion. I am reading that there IS a huge voter backlash which may NOT be overcome and Obama quite possibly WILL be sunk, and his campaign has NOT been careful to avoid it. Google Tom Watson – the Media Lynching of Hillary Clinton, among others.
“Not so the Clinton campaign. They have gone along with the Obama- Muslim racial profile attack.”
Really? The only interview I saw her give on that one she said it was a ridiculous notion. Was there more coverage than that? Can you provide links to what she actually said, if she said more than that – not op-ed pieces in the Post and the Times who chose to give it a different spin?
Yes, I remember Ross Perot and Nixon and Quayle and I remember the ways in which the media distorted their bid for the presidency with innuendo and cheap pot shots. Was it sexism? Well, no, it wasn’t leveled at them due to their gender.
“Wow, imagine if the Washington Post had accused Clinton of having a squeaky voice. That would be sexism. Was it sexism when it's brought up to ridicule Perot?”
Actually we don’t have to “imagine” the media already did that, although it wasn’t the Post. Several times media pundits have made an issue out of her voice. And the reason they ridiculed Perot is because he sounded like a woman. Otherwise, what’s to ridicule?
Nixon failed to grasp the importance of the television news clip, poor sod. Kennedy got it right the first time. You should really know your medium these days, but back then TV was new and neither Nixon nor his handlers understood the ‘image’ he would transmit. But everyone sure got it following that debate!
I can appreciate the valid point you are making, that other male candidates for office have had their faults, or what the media perceives as faults, ridiculed in the public view. That does not, however, discount the view, that the media have been particularly focused on finding faults with Clinton. In my view, the biggest faults of all have been things that are rather specific to my gender- “she married her way to the top” and “she cried” referring to her emotional moment. Remarks like the testical lock box, and taking her out behind the shed, and iron my shirt, are not specific to the person running for office, not like a five oclock shadow or a squeaky voice, but ridiculing women as a group for specific traits.
That is why so many of her supporters are offended. Sure, we’ve heard it before, often directed at us. But from the national media – the so-called impartial, fair and balanced reporters? I see no reason to put up with that nonsense from those folks. And I’ve got lots of company. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 12:42:44 AM | In my view, the biggest faults of all have been things that are rather specific to my gender-
Like lieing about sniper fire at the airport? The child who was refused entry into the emergency room because she wasn't insured? Or her single handed end to the fighting in Ireland? There is also the lie- well known to most- where Hillary claimed that her daughter Chelsea was in danger on September 11, claiming that her daughter went for a jog down to the towers themselves, and when the planes hit, she saw the buildings right there and was nearly in peril. Too bad again, since Chelsea totally debunked her mother's phony story in a magazine article. She was realy on the other side of the city, and was woken up with a phone call telling her to watch the news- and she never got anywhere near the towers, instead she was staring shocked at the tv screen most of the day. Hillary claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.) You DO know she and Bill stole things from the White House when they left. Of course, according to Hillary, taking the White House gifts was a clerical error. She claimed she didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so. She said she didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had. She liked when she said she opposed NAFTA at the time Bill proposed it.
More. Hillary lied when she claimed:
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).
Good grief. The people who despise her (myself included) have ZERO to do with her sex. ZERO! That's just her excuse and apparently yours as well. I would love nothing more than to see the USA have the first woman president. But we've had quite enough liars in Washington.
So unless you're suggesting ALL woman are such liars, then your statement that Hillary's criticisms are sexist is pure bullshit. I wouldn't trust this woman around the corner let alone the presidency. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 3:18:56 AM | This just in ...
Dem lawyers: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.
Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.
The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday at a Washington hotel. The committee is considering ways to include the two important general election battlegrounds at the nominating convention in August, and the staff analysis says seating half the delegates is "as far as it legally can" go.
... It underscores a prickly problem: If the Rules and Bylaws Committee decides to restore any of the states' delegates, there is not a simple way to divide them between Clinton and Barack Obama.
That's especially true in Michigan, where Obama had his name pulled from the ballot. He didn't have the option of removing his name in Florida, but all the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in either state.
Clinton won the majority of the vote in Florida and Michigan and has been arguing that the delegates should be fully restored according to the results of the January primaries. But even if they were, it would not be enough for her to overtake Obama's delegate lead.
... The analysis also said there is an option to restore 100 percent of the delegates — by a recommendation of the Credentials Committee that meets later this summer. However, that would mean a final decision would not be made until the first day of the convention in Denver since Credentials Committee decisions have to be approved by the full convention as it convenes — risking a floor fight.
Anyone think Hillary will decline to keep up the fight right through the start of the convention? ... 
full story at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 3:28:43 AM | Well gee, easyoneverything, thanks for slowing it down, I am certainly benefitting from the slower pace....I'm stupid you know, because I don't agree with you.
Not so the Clinton campaign. They have gone along with the Obama- Muslim racial profile attack.”
Really? The only interview I saw her give on that one she said it was a ridiculous notion.
Untrue. The only interview I saw her give on that, she did not say it was a ridiculous notion, she said "well, I don't know, I don't think he is......"
And it was proved that the people that started that whole email smear were Hillary campaign workers who, when discovered, were fired.
But please, yes, slow it down some more. I find that when we slow things down, they make more sense. Maybe if you did that you would see that the sexist issue is playing to emotions and not facts.
I don't call myself a feminist, but I am proud to be a woman and womens' issues are important to me. I'm proud when a woman's enormous accomplishments are highlighted. I am saddened, when a woman reverts to using vicitimization as a means in which to get ahead when there is nothing else she can grasp at. We have to be above that. If the feminist movement hasn't proved that over the years, I don't know what they've done.
It's hear me roar, not hear me whine. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 3:33:41 AM | Thanks for the update, Vyper. I wonder if that's the final word now? They were originally supposed to have this all hashed out at a meeting of the minds on the 31st.
I hate to say this, because I'm just cringing at the thought of Michigan being in the middle of this maelstrom of stupidity. But I honestly think that the DNC should stick by their original decision of not seating anyone.
That's like grounding my kids for bad behavior and then letting them go out and play a few hours later. It's going to happen again with other states at the next primary, I would be willing to bet. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 3:51:57 AM |
Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.
So not only does the DNC choose fools to be on their rules committee they also choose fools to act as their lawyers.
The DNC rules committee own rules say a penalty will be assessed for moving the primary unless the state party leadership can show they made a good faith effort to be in compliance again. I don't know about Michigan but I know in Florida the bill to move the primaries forward was led by the republicans in the Florida state legislature who outnumbered the democrats 2 to 1. The democrats tried to have the bill overturned but were outvoted.
The Clinton campaign's lawyers will tear this so-called legal advisory to shreds once they get their hands on it.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 4:16:05 AM | | Going along with the rules in the first place, signing your name on dotted lines across the country, when you yourself are a lawyer, only to 'tear them to shreds' when you don't agree with the way things are going down later. This is what you want for a president? | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 5:19:57 AM |
But I honestly think that the DNC should stick by their original decision of not seating anyone. Would you think otherwise if Obama was trailing? I think so....regardless of the rules voters in Florida and Michigan are the ones being punished not the Democratic Party.......do you want someone for President who alleges that he wants Unity and to represent all people and isn't trying to help all the voters be counted because of some rules made by the Party and not the people? | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 5:48:39 AM | Bikeman
Blacks have been voting in elections ever since we've been "allowed" to vote. In the south during reconstruction when whites saw blacks picking black candidates they immediatly cried out racisim and the system must change....you never hear us say things like that...not even now...and up until now if you've been black and registered to vote....you've voted unbiasedly for a white candidate everytime...and proudly on issues. Your falling deeply for the Bill Clinton trap of making Sen. Barrack Obama the President for blacks alah Jessy Jackson....which was meant more to racially charge people who think like yourself. Blacks don't owe any candidate anything...we just owe America and our own conscience a decent Presidential pick....What Obama did in Iowa and Newhampshire was proove that he could out campaign Sen. Clinton and that's what got our attention not to mention the comments from her husband that galvanized us even more in South Carolina.....I'm soory that we no longer serve for your purpose anymore...but what this shows me more than anything.....is that there are people in the democratic party who have a since of entitlement.
Several years ago, one young White woman wrote the following sentence…: “I am in favor of affirmative action except when it comes to my jobs.” I wrote in response, “Which jobs have your name on them?”
The sense of entitlement conveyed in the statement was striking. Of course, she wanted to get the jobs she applied for, … yet she seemed to assume that because she wanted them, they belonged to her. She assumed that she would, of course, be qualified for the job, and would therefore be entitled to it. What was she thinking about the candidates of color? She did not seem to take into account the possibility that one of them might be as qualified, or more qualified, than she was. The idea that she as a White woman might herself be the recipient of affirmative action was apparently not part of her thinking. While she expressed a desire for equity and justice, she also wanted to maintain her own advantage.
PEACE
 | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 6:14:14 AM | Simmy, if I may call you that, these are the two key questions: (1) whether the DNC rules committee broke their own rules in assessing a 100% penalty, and (2)whether included in the rules are provisions to allow no penalty to be assessed if the state party leaders made a good faith effort to be in compliance (which the DNC lawyers claim not to know about.)
I say the answer to both these questions is yes.
If you want to find out yourself then you can read the delegate selection rules here:
DELEGATE SELECTION RULES
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf
This is a 27 page PDF file. But the part relevant to this discussion appears in Chapter 20, Challenges. This part is three and a half pages long but is pretty readable.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 6:17:55 AM |
That's like grounding my kids for bad behavior and then letting them go out and play a few hours later. It's going to happen again with other states at the next primary, I would be willing to bet.
No, it's like wanting to discipline your child and the child winding up having to be rushed to the emergency room with internal injuries.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 6:29:23 AM |
What Obama did in Iowa and Newhampshire was proove that he could out campaign Sen. Clinton and that's what got our attention not to mention the comments from her husband that galvanized us even more in South Carolina
Clinton won New Hampshire, and both primaries were before the Wright incident. I don't think you're going to see white voters supporting Obama in as great a numbers now. If it hadn't been for Wright, I don't know if McCain could have beaten him. I'd give him favorable odds at this time. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 7:39:37 AM | Well, again, the writing's been on that wall a long time now....
In the past few days, her surrogates, and even Clinton herself, have ramped up the talk about sexism. There is little doubt that she is trying to stir the ire of her female base and push them to demand that she either be the nominee or be given the vice president slot. But it's really about the former rather than the latter.
In Florida on Wednesday, she invoked slavery and the epic civil rights battle against Jim Crow in her quest to count the vote in Florida as-is.
Forget the fact that she once said the states wouldn't matter because they broke the rules.
Forget the fact that many of her supporters on the Democratic National Committee's rules committee supported the stripping of delegates in Michigan and Florida.
And forget the fact that her chief supporter in Michigan, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, signed the bill into law that allowed the state to move up its primary.
Clinton and her supporters now discount all of that and act as if they were always champions of the "disenfranchised" voters in Florida and Michigan. But they weren't. And the record is clear. Only when it became apparent that she needed the states' delegates to close the gap with Obama did she change her tune. She said one thing in Iowa and New Hampshire and now is saying something else.
The Clintonites don't want any compromises in Michigan and Florida. They want the results to stay the same, even though Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and all candidates signed an agreement not to campaign in those two states.
But The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets say the Clinton camp doesn't care. Her biggest backer, former President Clinton, is telling her to stay in it until the end, hoping to persuade superdelegates to switch and give her the nomination.
The DNC rules committee will meet May 31. Expect a bloodbath. Trust me; there will be nothing nice about that meeting.
The Obama camp better not let its guard down. The Clinton camp is gearing up for a protracted battle. Folks, this is for all the marbles, and feelings -- and party -- be damned.
Only one thing is certain: If this battle goes to Denver, the Democrats might as well dump those inauguration tickets on eBay, because supporters of Sen. John McCain will need them.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/27/roland.martin/index.html
That's exactly how I see it , too.
Obama 1978
Clinton 1781
2,025 delegates needed
Total Delegates 1977 - 1780 Obama + 197
Super Delegates 318 - 281 Obama + 37
Pledged Delegates 1659 - 1499 Obama + 160
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Roughly forty seven delegates needed.
Montana 06/03 16
South Dakota 06/03 15
Puerto Rico 06/01 55
RCP Poll Averages
General Election: McCain vs. Obama
RCP Average Obama 46.6
McCain 44.3
Obama +2.3
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton
RCP Average Clinton 45.9
McCain 44.9
Clinton +1.0
- Ibid
Expect a bloody fight this weekend, then the votes next week - and the plug being pulled by the superdelegates the minute the last vote is counted. They can't let this continue into the convention, and metatize. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 7:46:58 AM | Yes they can..but thanks for the advise, Canadian... just messing with you...all these dreams of a united party are for nought, to many will not vote for the other Democratic candidate if theirs loses. This race has become more than a political decision people have become vested in their choice and it has little to do with the democratic Party it has to do with their beliefs that their candidate is the "Best Candidate" ...wait and see, if Obama gets the nod many many Hillary supporters will vote for McCain..not everyone buys into your argument that McCain is Bush.Many know that every politician has to make sacrifices to become elected, then after being elected they start to show themselves as individuals...this is one of the main reasons I will never vote for Obama.... | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 8:22:05 AM |
every politician has to make sacrifices to become elected
And we all know they have to "pay up" on their ideological debts to those that bought their place in office. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 10:03:52 AM | Geez Simmie, take a valium. You sure don't like being criticized, feminists have to learn to take the heat. Just messin with ya,
"Untrue. The only interview I saw her give on that, she did not say it was a ridiculous notion, she said "well, I don't know, I don't think he is......"
And it was proved that the people that started that whole email smear were Hillary campaign workers who, when discovered, were fired."
You'll forgive me, but I don't think you've captured the entire quote. Her very first statement was that it was a ridiculous notion. The reporter pressed her for what she knew about it, she personally, and she said something to the effect that she, personally, wasn't aware of any muslim affiliations. We might both benefit from having the actual quote, as I suspect we are both filtering the statement through our own biases.
Next frame, we have the media spinning that to mean she was suggesting it really was true, and distancing herself from the possibility in the same breath. Pretty good spin. But my take, from watching the actual interview, was that the reporters was pressing her, and she was saying, in effect, "isn't that YOUR job to find out?"
Bluesman, I am not arguing that she is a saint, that she hasn't lied, that her record is above reproach. In fact, I would argue that is exactly what the Obama-maniacs are arguing - that there candidate is the second coming here. They are sorely misinformed. Again, I think that's the medias job - to focus on both candidates flaws. Philly fellow presented a couple of examples - they haven't made the mainstream media in any meaningful way that I can see. Which speaks to unbalanced coverage, feminist or not. I'm sure that not all 18 million of her voters are feminists. Some of them just see it as unfair coverage. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 10:05:30 AM | Thought some of you might like this from one of my favourite bloggers, Rob Frankel:
Although it doesn't really seem over, the media pundits have proclaimed that it's all over but the Monday morning quarterbacking. They would have you believe that come November, 2008, the two finalists challengers for America's Presidential Idol contest are John McCain and Barack Obama. I've written enough about Obama, except for two minor items that I feel are worth mentioning at this point:
1. His wife is utterly obnoxious.
2. His political agenda seems to be nothing more than the same old stuff we heard from middle of the road Democrats circa 1970.
The good news about this election is that it will energize an entire electorate, whereas previously only half the electorate bothered to vote. This is because unlike the last two elections, this time, the entire country will be casting their votes for "anyone but Bush." Yes, Virginia, it's true that even most Republicans are disgusted and looking forward to the day that Bush, Cheney and their entourage have completed pillaging the country's moral and financial riches.
But that's another story.
What intrigues me at this point is the political branding of John McCain and the huge, spear-laden tiger trap he has set out for Senator Obama. In case you hadn't noticed, McCain is keeping very quiet on his association with the previous administration. It is only now, as the finalization of the Democratic nominee nears, that he is beginning to tip his hand in our direction.
And he's holding a bunch of, um, really good cards. Here's the deal:
McCain is no dope, but the people analyzing him sure are. They're so focused on what they think he's going to do that they're totally ignoring what options the man has before him. Sure, his people will trot out the prisoner of war stuff. They'll trumpet the patriotic montages. And they'll tell the softer side, too, including the fact that McCain and his gazillionaire wife adopted an abandoned baby as their own. That's pretty good material. The stuff of which public relations guys can only dream.
But it gets better.
The heat on Obama increases in direct proportion to his proximity to the nomination. As he nears his coronation, he's increasing his direct attacks on McCain, nibbling at the bait -- he knows his best shot is handcuffing McCain to eight years of the Bush administration. He also knows the time is getting near when he's going to have to lay out his eventual agenda with specifics instead of slogans. What Obama doesn't seem to realize is that he's feeding John McCain's agenda the political equivalent of human growth hormones.
The clearer Obama's proposals become, the more they're going to appear to be the same old Democrat policies from the 1960's and 1970's. And if you're reading this and thinking, "Oh, he means Obama is going to be perceived as a liberal", you're half right. Because the real perception is on the other end of the stick: With Obama being cast as a middle-to-left leaning liberal, McCain is now free from pursuing and pandering to the far Christian right. I mean, where else is the conservative right wing going to go? Libertarian? I don't think so.
So with the infamous Christian right wingers in the bag, all that's left for McCain to do is convince disenchanted Republicans and Reagan Democrats of his disassociation from the Bush administration. And if you're a fan of facts over fiction, you'll find that's exactly how McCain's resumé reads. In fact, anyone seriously examining McCain's record would likely surmise that if there ever were to be a "third term for Bush", McCain would probably be out in front with Joe Lieberman opposing it.
The media previously publicized the death of McCain's campaign once before. No doubt, they'll do it again. But like I said, you'd have to be a fan of fact over fiction to see this one play out. That's fine. There aren't many good movies out now anyway.
For more on Rob Frankel's branding, visit http://www.RobFrankel.com | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 10:24:49 AM | Respectfully, Simmah & Easy ...
I think you both may be a little off the mark (although I think Easy may be "farther" off the mark in her recollection of the "ridiculous notion" bit). Let's just see what she said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7eAnx6Vxrs&NR=1
or a more comprehensive look at the efforts to smear him before the underinformed public here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYspjJCjgX8 | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 10:26:29 AM | Oh, it's much better than McCain just adopting an abandoned child. Cindy was on a medical mission to one of Mother Teresa's orphanages in Bangladesh. There were two little girls that they thought might not survive. One had a severe cleft palate and the other had a heart problem. Cindy brought both of them back to the United States and adopted one of them (Bridget, the one with the cleft palate). The other, Mickey, was adopted by a close friend.
As I've said before I know McCain, and so I get a Christmas card from him every year. I can't remember what year it was that Bridget started appearing on the cards, but he never mentioned that he'd adopted a child much less a black child. That's how I found out that Bridget had joined the family. Both of them are very modest people.
In the 200 election people made snide remarks about Bridget, said she was the product of an affair. I bet they felt all kinds of stupid when they found out how Cindy and John came to bring her into the family.
One thing's for sure. Obama isn't going to be able to play the race card with McCain given that he has a black child.
v v v v Oh, and I'm voting for McCain because I don't think Obama is capable of running the country, among other things. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 10:29:21 AM | If your voting for McCain because you didn't get your way....then the democratic party didn't need you anyway....maybe the democratic party needs a good cleansing. It will only make it a stronger party in the long run. Maybe it will feel like a homecoming of some sort when joining with republicans who have some of the same fears and since sof entitlements as you do. I'm just glad not all of you are like that.....This nation needed the quakers....it needed the Susan B. Anthonys. There are always certain events that happen in a lifetime that expose groups for who they really are. We're learning who the Elizabeth Cady Stantons are in our party. They're putting their own agendas before the good of the party or the country....all for the sake of history. The sad part is.....while trying to make history at any cost your becoming a sore eye in history. You elite feminist better start thinkin about your legacy. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 10:30:29 AM | MG, I've appreciated Roland Martin's political analysis in the past. But he is an overt Obama supporter in this campaign in his on air commentaries. He is certainly allowed to be. The complaint that Hillary supporters have against CNN and MSNBC is that they have no on air Hillary supporters to balance the political analysis.
Also, a key fact you have to keep in mind is that it now appears likely that at least half the delegates will be restored to MI and FL. If the delegates were fully restored the number of delegates required to secure the nomination will increase to around 2210. I presume then if only 50% of the delegates are restored the number required will increase to around 2110. So Obama will be further away than he is now even when you add in the delegates that he might get from MI and FL.
One more point about terminology. The Obama campaign claims to have a "majority" of the delegates. This is incorrect. A majority would be more than 50%. He does not have that even when you include the superdelegates who currently for the moment give him as their preference (which they can change at any time up to the August convention.)
What he has NOW is only a plurality of the pledged delegates. But even this might not hold in the possible case of full restoring of the delegated to MI and FL. Because then his lead in the pledged delegates slips to less than 50. And it is mathematically possible that Hillary could make this up with the delegates left in the 3 primaries left over.
PhillyFellow | |
|
|
| Page 71 of 98
|
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 |
|
Home
login 
