|
|
|
|
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 10:41:33 AM |
Obama isn't going to be able to play the race card with McCain given that he has a black child.
Can you please cite for me -- because I don't follow this whole Democratic Primary thing very closely -- one or two (or more, if you've got or can find them) instances where Barack Obama has "played the race card?" 
Thanks,
Vype | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 10:46:21 AM | wait a minute fridayboo,
Sounds like you want it both ways.
On the one hand, you've got people arguing that Obama is the better candidate by far, and that this election should really be about electing the best possible president.
On the other hand, you've got people arguing that between Obama and McCain, the latter is the better candidate.
Partisan arguments aside, it's not a feminist legacy if Obama loses to the bettter candidate. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 10:54:53 AM | fly, just to be a stickler for terminology Bangladesh is a south asian country that borders India. I believe they also speak one of the many dialects common to India.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 11:14:02 AM | Hi guys! I'm back. 
Bill was a great president. And his surname is the most powerful name in democratic politics, even more so today than Senator Kennedy's. It is my sincere belief that that passport is the ONLY reason why Hillary has gotten as far as she has in this race and, indeed, the ONLY reason why we are having this argument about seating delegates that she -- by her signature without objection -- originally stated should not be seated. Had this been any other candidate, the DNC would not even be considering listening to arguments on this issue, let alone acquiescing to them.
I'm not one for "smear campaigns," -- and would much rather stay focused on the "issues" which, I think, both candidates mostly handle comparably -- but I did find the following video clips interesting, from the added credibility vantage that they involve legal proceedings and official government records:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idon1YPlCdA&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgC0-0bY0Q&NR=1 | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 11:43:47 AM | Republicans even question voting for bush over the last several years...John McCain has alligned himself with this administration...he practically seems like a man who would have fit in well with the regime of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. can't you see him doing the same quirky assed things that bush was doing over the last few years in front of the cameras. cracking jokes in front of the camera amid huge foreign policy blunders....let's call it cowboy light.
You say i'm trying to have it both ways...what about Hillary? Who has tried to have it both ways: to stand in the glow of her husband's nostalgic popularity while simultaneously claiming to be a victim of sexism. Well, which is it? Are men convenient sugar daddies or condescending oppressors? Her surrogates are beating the grievance drums, trying to scare every angry female out of the bush. But doesn't this melodrama undermine the central goals of feminism? Will every losing woman candidate now claim to be a victim of male pride and prejudice? After raising well over $100 million, she is now more than $20 million in debt and sinking deeper every day and sexism has nothing to do with it!
 | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 12:42:06 PM | My point is that her supporters, and they are men, women, young, old, white and black, have been deeply offended at what they have seen in the national media.
Hillary got over 5 years of positive, free press from the majority of the media leading up to this primary season. The media-push anointing her as the Democratic front-runner began in 2002, and continued unabated until her poor showing in the Iowa caucus. It's not a credible argument to make that Hillary's recent press (last 2 months) has been unfairly negative, given the overwhelmingly positive press she has received for 5 years. No one in the media or the Democratic party promoted any other candidate in positive terms for even a fraction as long as Hillary was constantly promoted.
The fact of the matter is that Hillary's campaign (for the reasons ennumerated on this thread and other reasons) failed to capitalize on the media buzz, name recognition, and political networking advantages that she had coming into the race. She is a very poor campaigner at the national level.
As for anyone being offended by what ANY of these candidates is enduring, it's best for every interested and informed voter to develop an extremely thick skin. Being "offended" is not going to compensate for the deficits of your candidate of choice. Hillary is done as far as this process is concerned. Her legacy will be determined by how gracefully (or not) she exits this race.
Obama and McCain are going to duke it out for the most powerful job on the planet. That's the reality of things. Both of them are going to be vilified, savaged, criticized and lampooned. As voters, our job is to stay on top of the issues and make the best choice we can. Being "offended" doesn't help anyone to cast the best vote for President. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 1:31:06 PM |
The fact of the matter is that Hillary's campaign (for the reasons ennumerated on this thread and other reasons) failed to capitalize on the media buzz, name recognition, and political networking advantages that she had coming into the race.
With all due respect to my liege, Spitfire, I would submit that -- quite to the contrary -- she DID capitalize on the media buzz, name recognition, and political networking advantages (ESPECIALLY the latter two) that she had coming into the race. In fact, I would argue, that she would have been vanquished long ago if she hadn't done those things and the fact that we are presently going through all of these unprecedented political maneuverings and machinations is a testament to how well she has played them to her advantage. I just believe that -- in this contest -- even with the very strong jockey that she had in Bill, she has found herself unable to defeat the stronger horse she ran against in Obama. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 2:24:38 PM | Man...do I need to take a vacation day to keep up with you people? lol
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
I think my position would remain the same. Honestly. Yes we voters are the ones punished, but what will happen from that is that people are going to get pissed off enough to do something about it and put these elected officials and whoever else did this to the election in their place...and it will not happen again. I don't mind taking one for the team on this. We look like fools.
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
Yes you may call me anything you like....as long as it's not Simmlary. :) I'll try to read that later, I am interested to see what it says. I'm really rushed today--got to go watch my boys play ball  My all time fave thing. I hope by the time I get back this monster hasn't grown to 100 pages so I do have time to read everyone's thoughts. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 2:41:47 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.
Believe me, I know what media spin is, I've had a ton of personal experience with spin. The only interpretations that of the information that would lead any sane person to believe that Hillary is not desperately behind come from her own camp, bloggers with close ties to her, and people who have some sort of irrational personal investment with her. I hold that view because I can add, subtract, multiply and divide, not because of any spin that I'm too obtuse to be aware of. It's purely mathematical at this point.
To review the information in layman's terms;
Obama 1661 delegates
317 superdelegates
1978 total delegates
Hillary 1499 delegates
281 superdelegates
1780 total delegates
Needed to win 2026
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/
He only needs 48 more to win. With the 86 pledged delegates up for grabs in the remaining contests and a 199 superdalegates left to commit, Hillary could win the remaining primaries by a HUGE margin and still not catch up.
Obama is getting superdelegate committments every single day now, he has them committing to him at a steady stream every single day to keep the momentum going
Slate has pegged her mathematical chances of winning at 0.5%
http://www.slate.com/id/2191998/
Oops, as I was writing this, some more news came in
Obama, who has increasingly turned his attention to a general election showdown against Republican John McCain
as he appears poised to capture the Democratic White House nod, got endorsements from three more superdelegates. Their backing is essential because they are free to vote as they chose in the party's nominating convention in August.
Heading into Sunday's primary in Puerto Rico, the first-term senator has a nearly insurmountable lead in delegates to the party's national nominating convention, and is now 45 short of the 2,026 needed to capture the party's White House nod.
http://www.pr-inside.com/obama-picks-up-new-superdelegate-support-r612955.htm
Only 45 to go. I can't believe that any logical person who knows the process can't see how she's not desperately behind. It's not spin, it's mathematics.
Tick, tick, tick.
The reason she's been asked to bow out is (in my opinion) to unify the party to take on the Republicans. It has nothing to do with her sex, and it's not really all that unprecedented a tactic (as the Clinton media would have you believe).
Yet the Clinton campaign in 1992 used some of the same tactics that Mrs. Clinton and her supporters now decry, like declaring the nomination secure early and encouraging party leaders and the news media to climb on board.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/us/politics/27checkpoint.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 5:21:04 PM |
Only 45 to go. I can't believe that any logical person who knows the process can't see how she's not desperately behind. It's not spin, it's mathematics.
The main reason is that the DNC rules committee in the May 31st meeting is likely to restore at least half and possibly all the delegates to MI and FL. This will mean Obama will be further away from the delegate number to get the nomination and also cut into his lead over Clinton since she won those states big.
Another key fact is this: when those states have some or all of their delegates restored then the popular vote totals in those states will also be counted. In that case Clinton will have the lead in the popular vote, and that lead is likely to increase when Puerto Rico votes.
When that happens the conclusion will be: more than 50% of the democratic voters DO NOT want Obama to be the democratic nominee.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 5:49:15 PM |
The main reason is that the DNC rules committee in the May 31st meeting is likely to restore at least half and possibly all the delegates to MI and FL.
So you're saying that the only possibility for Hillary to win (and it's still a slim one at that) is if she gets the Democrats to change the rules that she agreed to abide by. That's ethical. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 6:32:13 PM | | I don't know what she's going to do if she gets exactly what she wants and finds out she still lost the nomination....what could be next? What will Wile E. Coyote, genius have up her sleeve then? | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 6:43:44 PM | | what I find hard to believe is that she has the gall to whine and ask for them when they were expressly told not to be on the ballot. Obama complied. She did not. So how would be rewarding her be doing the right thing when she wasn't supposed to be on it to begin with?? | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 6:51:22 PM | If she gets what she wants (a liklihood, since it's the only way to make her stop whining, and crying that she's been treated unfairly) she'll probably still end up losing. At that point she'll rip herself in two, just like Rumplestiltskin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MArd22COS8U
Remember when she was all**** and telling Obama "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen?" Well, maybe it's time Hillary got out of the kitchen.
I wonder what the "sexism" crowd would have said if Obama had dared make that remark to her. They would have been trembling with rage. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 6:54:52 PM |
just to be a stickler for terminology Bangladesh is a south asian country that borders India. I believe they also speak one of the many dialects common to India.
Um, ok. And this means what?
All I said was that Cindy flew Bridget back from Bangladesh after visiting her during a mission to one of Mother Teresa's orphanages. She then adopted her, and a good friend of hers adopted the other baby that Cindy brought back.
How is any of that factually inaccurate?
Bridget is black, she is not Asian. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 7:07:27 PM | VioletSkye
They know it's wrong....and it's even sadder to see Clinton supporters try to argue the case on television. It's almost like they're trying to convince themselves that it's fair. Then they're so desperate that they have the nerve to ask for all of the delegates in a state where no one but Hillary campaigned. The hypocracy of it all. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 7:17:25 PM | The Hillary world view is basically that "the ends justify the means". Unfortunately, the ends for which she's clawing and grabbing in this nomination fight only involve the attainment of more power. All other competing interests are expendable to her.
she DID capitalize on the media buzz, name recognition, and political networking advantages (ESPECIALLY the latter two) that she had coming into the race.
If that were the case, Hillary would have set up a better grassroots organization (especially in the caucus states), and would have instituted a more effective Internet fund-raising structure like Howard Dean did in 2004 and as Obama is doing now. Hillary had 5 years to get her fund-raising apparatus up and running and her campaign is now still dead-broke.
The tactics she's using now to justify staying in the race are perhaps being helped by her name recognition (the party faithful don't want to unnecessarily embarrass her). But those tactics have completely dissipated her media buzz and are causing her old party allies to abandon ship. She's a pariah now. A leper.
Hillary is not capitalizing on her political strengths. She's losing strength. She's also undermining whatever effectiveness she could have upon her return to the Senate. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 8:27:09 PM |
If that were the case, Hillary would have set up a better grassroots organization (especially in the caucus states), and would have instituted a more effective Internet fund-raising structure like Howard Dean did in 2004 and as Obama is doing now.
I'm not saying that capitalization would have meant that she would've put together the more successful of two strategies. Rather, I am saying that -- had her name been "Hillary Clark" or "Hillary Walker," and she could not avail herself to Bill's allies, then she would've been dropping out long before Edwards. She would've had NO media buzz, NO record-breaking fundraising events, NO Bill-loyal superdelegates in her corner at the start of the contest, and NO legacy loyalties from those holding affinity to Bill. In short, it is only her capitalization on her surname, the political connections forged by Bill, and the "presumptive nominee" status conferred on her by the media over five years ago, that has permitted her to cruise as long as she has. But her boat is now taking on water even faster that the venerable Bill Clinton can help her purge it. No one else in the Democratic party BUT Bill Clinton could even get this "seat the delegates/count the popular vote" argument on the table for consideration.
Nay, she HAS indeed capitalized a great deal. It just will not be enough.  | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 8:27:48 PM | Fly, there are a wide variety of skin colors of people from the Indian subcontinent. I haven't seen her so she might be of African ancestry. If she is from Bangladesh my guess is it's more likely she is of south asian ancestry.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 8:30:48 PM | Violet, the DNC made no such request. They only required that the candidates not campaign in those states.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 8:46:54 PM | fridayboo, in no other election would it be considered fair that two entire states not be allowed to vote.
In the 2000 election it was a mere few thousand votes that were uncounted in Florida that led to a court case going all the way to the Supreme Court.
Senator Arlen Spector who is the minority leader (Republican) of the Senate Judiciary Committee is threatening a congressional investigation if those states right to vote is not restored.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Specter Demands Sanity Check on Obama's Hypocrisy
By Peter J. Wirs
"The Democrats begrudge the 2000 Bush-Gore Florida recount. They blithely complain when Republicans seek valid measures preventing voter fraud. Why then, are the Democrats suddenly blind, deaf, and dumb when Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee openly avow to disenfranchise voters 1,749,920 in Florida and 594,398 in Michigan? Not only are Obama and the DNC perpetrating a "hi-tech" lynching, but it is blatantly unconstitutional and may even be criminal."
...
"Several prominent civil rights attorneys, obviously speaking off the record being mindful they’re outsiders, nonetheless told us that the without question, Democrats must fully seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. (Their response was as if we were asking a "no-brainer" akin to whether kids be eating their vegetables). The universal consensus that the possibility of embroiling the Democratic presidential nominee in criminal proceedings in the midst of a campaign unquestionably should not be a risk worth entertaining."
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/PeterJWirs/2008/05/28/specter_demands_sanity_check_on_obamas_hypocrisy
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 8:55:36 PM |
Senator Arlen Spector who is the minority leader (Republican) of the Senate Judiciary Committee is threatening a congressional investigation if those states right to vote is not restored.
I'm glad he can take the time off from using all of his resources to get to the bottom of the New England Patriots' "Spygate" to shine the spotlight on the incompetence of the opposition party. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 8:59:22 PM |
I'm glad he can take the time off from using all of his resources to get to the bottom of the New England Patriots' "Spygate" to shine the spotlight on the incompetence of the opposition party.
Hey, Bud, for one of us who lives in a town beaten by those Patriots in a Super Bowl when this "spying" was going, this definitely is deserving of a Congressional investigation.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 9:01:00 PM | Barack Obama, top crony of arch political corrupter Antoin Rezko, previously won his elections by getting his opponents thrown out. Now they have sunk to another level: they get the voters who oppose him thrown out.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/28/2008 9:03:20 PM | 
I completely spaced the "Philly" part of your screen name! | |
|
|
| Page 72 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 
