10 blowouts in a row and he's eating into her base. I just can't see how you don't see the writing on the wall.

 

If the situation were reversed, do you believe Obama would drop from the race?

If the situation were reversed, do you believe Obama would drop from the race?

 

Maybe, maybe not, but I wouldn't think that he had a chance at actually winning.

I am going to predict that the Clintons go scorched earth between now and March 4th. Apparently they are saying that negative advertising worked in WI? Not sure of that logic, but ok. They are going to get down and dirty and out right nasty. If they cant win, they will drag him down just to prove she was more "electable".

If the situation were reversed, do you believe Obama would drop from the race?

Perhaps but I wouldn't *STILL* be convinced that he'd win.

Camp Clinton for sure would be pushing Obama to get out, and so would the MSM.

 

And despite all of the "good news" for Obama, I'm *STILL* convinced Hillarity will win. It's all about strong arming the superdelegates, and making sure the backroom deal for MI and FL "to have a voice"...

 

It's getting more difficult for Hillarity now. If Obama wins BOTH Texas and Ohio, then I will finally say that Hillarity is done.

 

The Supers aren't stupid. They realize that a backroom deal giving either candidate the Presidency over a clear "people's choice" favorite would just hand the election to McCain. If the Clintons lose this race, then they have no power and no way to get revenge. I really don't see how they can strong-arm the delegates.

The Supers aren't stupid. They realize that a backroom deal giving either candidate the Presidency over a clear "people's choice" favorite would just hand the election to McCain. If the Clintons lose this race, then they have no power and no way to get revenge. I really don't see how they can strong-arm the delegates.

The Clintons don't give a damn about ANYTHING except themselves. And they will do what it takes to get what they want, the rest of the political world be damned. I still fail to understand why that's such a foreign concept. The bottom line is that the superdelegates are generally old party establishment, and the Clintons will strong arm these people. The superdelegate concept is there for NO other reason then to override the "people's choice" when the party deems it necessary. Guess what? The party just might deem it necessary.

DelegateHub.com

The Clinton campaign has launched a website to change the rules of nomination.

The Clintons don't give a damn about ANYTHING except themselves. And they will do what it takes to get what they want, the rest of the political world be damned. I still fail to understand why that's such a foreign concept. The bottom line is that the superdelegates are generally old party establishment, and the Clintons will strong arm these people. The superdelegate concept is there for NO other reason then to override the "people's choice" when the party deems it necessary. Guess what? The party just might deem it necessary.

 

It's not a foreign concept -- I understand they'll do whatever they can to TRY to strongarm the Supers. I'm questioning what leverage they have to actually do it. They aren't party leaders, and if they lose this election, they'll be pushed to the side. You haven't explained how they're going to strongarm anyone.

The Clintons don't give a damn about ANYTHING except themselves.

 

Thank God all the other candidates are only out for other people. Look at the Tsunami relief efforts. You had President Bush tirelessly working for those victims and Clinton tirelessly working on the same project, but for himself, and how it will help him get back into the Oval Office, even if it would be Hillary officially elected.

 

McCain '08

The Clintons don't give a damn about ANYTHING except themselves. And they will do what it takes to get what they want, the rest of the political world be damned. I still fail to understand why that's such a foreign concept. The bottom line is that the superdelegates are generally old party establishment, and the Clintons will strong arm these people. The superdelegate concept is there for NO other reason then to override the "people's choice" when the party deems it necessary. Guess what? The party just might deem it necessary.

When your opponent is blowing you out state after state, you are losing the popular vote, you are losing in pledged delegates, you are losing in national polls, and you are losing in head to head matchups against McCain then please explain to me how you can strongarm anyone. I fail to see how the party could feasibly overturn all of this and give the win to Clinton. It would destroy the party ajd everyone knows that.

 

Barring something from left field (i.e., Obama is revealed to be a child pornographer) then I can't see her winning. None of her tactics are working anymore.

Let the fun begin...

New Pro-Clinton 527 to Ding Obama in Ohio

ABC News has learned that a group of Democratic politicos have set up a new independent 527 organization called the American Leadership Project (ALP) with the express purpose of helping Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, beat Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in Ohio, and possibly Texas and Pennsylvania as well.

 

Free from campaign finance rules, ALP will not be legally permitted to coordinate with the Clinton campaign, but it is clearly intended to help her.

 

The group is targeting through TV ads, mail, and phone communications white women under 50 in the Ohio area -- specifically Cleveland, Columbus, Youngstown, Charleston (WV), Wheeling- Steubenville, Zanesville, and Parkersburg (WV).

When your opponent is blowing you out state after state, you are losing the popular vote, you are losing in pledged delegates, you are losing in national polls, and you are losing in head to head matchups against McCain then please explain to me how you can strongarm anyone. I fail to see how the party could feasibly overturn all of this and give the win to Clinton. It would destroy the party ajd everyone knows that.

 

Barring something from left field (i.e., Obama is revealed to be a child pornographer) then I can't see her winning. None of her tactics are working anymore.

 

Until it is mathamatically over, she should stay and battle. That is what we want our President to do and it is what we should expect from candidates. Perhaps Obama would have packed it in if he was in her shoes, but I doubt it.

Let the nastiness begin...

Clinton surrogate gets out right NASTY!

 

Taking off the gloves, he said, “Barack Obama is no Muhammad Ali. He took a walk every time there was a tough vote in the Illinois State Senate. He took a walk more than a 130 times. That's what a shadow boxer does. All the right moves. All the right combinations. All the right footwork. But he never steps into the ring.”

 

But it was Obama supporters for whom Buffenbarger saved his most vitriolic contempt, and he proved that the Democratic Party’s coalition is nothing if not fragile. Channeling Howard Beale from the movie "Network," he yelled into the microphone, “Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter.”

Edited February 20, 200818 yr by Athomeboy_2000

Obama surrogate gets nasty

 

I didn't necessarily dislike her before this election cycle but the more I see and hear from Hillary and her campaign the more I cannot tolerate the thought of her being in the White House.

 

These are the words and thoughts that pop into my mind when I think of the Clinton campaign:

 

Ruthless

Phony

Calculating

Polarizing

Carpetbagger

Win at all cost

Oligarchy

Status Quo

Lobbyists

Misrepresent

Smear

Rove-like

 

If she becomes the nominee I will not vote for her in the general and I will not donate or volunteer for the Dems the rest of the year.

Obama surrogate gets nasty

wow. that's a stretch.

Until it is mathamatically over, she should stay and battle. That is what we want our President to do and it is what we should expect from candidates. Perhaps Obama would have packed it in if he was in her shoes, but I doubt it.

That wasn't my argument. I was debating Kap regarding his thought process that she will still be the nominee because she'd strongarm the superdelegates. I just don't see how she is still the front runner like he is implying.

wow. that's a stretch.

 

 

As was the $500 unpaid rent

“Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter.”

 

He seems to be doing well against the Clinton attack machine. In fact he practically had more votes in Wisconsin than Hillarity and the '100 years war advocate' combined.

I love Fox News

That wasn't my argument. I was debating Kap regarding his thought process that she will still be the nominee because she'd strongarm the superdelegates. I just don't see how she is still the front runner like he is implying.

 

I do not wish to put words in Kap's mouth, but I believe what he is implying, and has for weeks, is even as the under dog, she has the inside track to still be the nominee. Primaries are a relatively new way for parties to select their candidate. Historically the party heavyweights got together and selected a nominee at their convention. There are still remnants of that system in place. Primaries are not mentioned in the Constitution, not part of our Bill of Rights.

 

So what Kap is saying, is not too far fetched and anyone familiar with "party politics" and especially "machine politics" knows is sometimes the public doesn't get what they want, they get what the true stakeholders want. In this case the stakeholders are the superdelegates who are the biggest contributors, elected officials of that party, country chairpersons, etc.

 

As many Obama supporters have made clear, they will not support the party if their guy is not the nominee. Therefor, they really are not Democrats, they are just there for Obama. How much voice should the party give non members of the party versus the party faithful who will be there campaigning for all the Dem candidates?

I do not wish to put words in Kap's mouth, but I believe what he is implying, and has for weeks, is even as the under dog, she has the inside track to still be the nominee. Primaries are a relatively new way for parties to select their candidate. Historically the party heavyweights got together and selected a nominee at their convention. There are still remnants of that system in place. Primaries are not mentioned in the Constitution, not part of our Bill of Rights.

 

So what Kap is saying, is not too far fetched and anyone familiar with "party politics" and especially "machine politics" knows is sometimes the public doesn't get what they want, they get what the true stakeholders want. In this case the stakeholders are the superdelegates who are the biggest contributors, elected officials of that party, country chairpersons, etc.

 

As many Obama supporters have made clear, they will not support the party if their guy is not the nominee. Therefor, they really are not Democrats, they are just there for Obama. How much voice should the party give non members of the party versus the party faithful who will be there campaigning for all the Dem candidates?

 

Do the Democrats want to shoot themselves in the foot and give the Republicans another two SC appointments?

 

The true stakeholders want a win in November. I don't believe that Hillary will give them that, and I think they also realize that.

Edited February 20, 200818 yr by StrangeSox

A house divided

Robert for Clinton

Teddy for Obama

 

Coincidence or well coordinated family plan?

 

I'm hoping to see Ted at the Obama rally this afternoon. He's basically touring college campuses. My son mentioned he will be at Texas State tomorrow.

I do not wish to put words in Kap's mouth, but I believe what he is implying, and has for weeks, is even as the under dog, she has the inside track to still be the nominee. Primaries are a relatively new way for parties to select their candidate. Historically the party heavyweights got together and selected a nominee at their convention. There are still remnants of that system in place. Primaries are not mentioned in the Constitution, not part of our Bill of Rights.

 

So what Kap is saying, is not too far fetched and anyone familiar with "party politics" and especially "machine politics" knows is sometimes the public doesn't get what they want, they get what the true stakeholders want. In this case the stakeholders are the superdelegates who are the biggest contributors, elected officials of that party, country chairpersons, etc.

 

As many Obama supporters have made clear, they will not support the party if their guy is not the nominee. Therefor, they really are not Democrats, they are just there for Obama. How much voice should the party give non members of the party versus the party faithful who will be there campaigning for all the Dem candidates?

I completely understand your logic but the only way I could see it work is if the last 10 races were close. She is getting her ass handed to her. It is quite obvious that a big shift of momentum is going towards Obama's camp. I just couldn't see how the superdelegates would arbitrarily all begin to shift towards Clinton for no apparent reason. It would be the demise for the Democratic party....at least in the short term. She would literally need to begin getting landslide victories on March 4th and beyond in order for that tactic to work for her and I highly doubt that will happen.

Do the Democrats want to shoot themselves in the foot and give the Republicans another two SC appointments?

 

The true stakeholders want a win in November. I don't believe that Hillary will give them that, and I think they also realize that.

 

The true stakeholders want to build the party for more than just this election. Being held hostage by supporters who claim they will not support the party if they do not get what they want is not good as well.

I completely understand your logic but the only way I could see it work is if the last 10 races were close. She is getting her ass handed to her. It is quite obvious that a big shift of momentum is going towards Obama's camp. I just couldn't see how the superdelegates would arbitrarily all begin to shift towards Clinton for no apparent reason. It would be the demise for the Democratic party....at least in the short term. She would literally need to begin getting landslide victories on March 4th and beyond in order for that tactic to work for her and I highly doubt that will happen.

 

Many are already committed to her. 80% of my local superdelegates are already pledged to her. They have been for months.