Bill Clinton whines again about "bullies".

[cethklein]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/bill.clinton.mon/index.html

I can't help but sigh and shake my head when I read this stuff.

We all expect this from Hillary, who has made her career out of claiming there are always people out to get her. But Bill Clinton doing this kind of whining is kind of disheartening. Has he really fallen this far? This is a man who was once legendary for his ability to turn negatives into positives. Now he's resorting to the tired old "they're out to get us" crap his wife spews. Except now even she has backed off of this kind of whining a bit, if not completely.

How soon he forgets that it was once he who was the bully who pushed people in the party around. Bill Clinton was a lot of bad things, but one thing I NEVER thought of him as was a whiner. He always left that to Hillary. I hope he realizes that by insulting many members of the Democratic party that he's only hurting his wife's chances of becoming anything if she doesn't win the nomination. If I were a Hillary supporter, I'd be furious. And here I thought Michelle Obama was a liability. But as usual Hillary will "stand by her man" while he drags her into the mud....again, just like he's done more than once during this campaign. Hillary is at least maknig a passive effort to mend fences, and here's her husband knocking them down again.

Of course some think he does this on purpose. I'm not ready to go along with that but the evidence is mounting that maybe it's true.

[mscelina]

*sigh*

I can't understand where Bill lost his political acumen. *glares at Takvah* NO Monica Lewinsky jokes, I beg you.

Anyhoo, he's got to know that this can only reflect badly on both he and Hillary. He HAS to. Ultimately, it boils down to this: Bill's role until the convention should be restricted to standing one step behind his wife's right shoulder, smiling politely, applauding, and occasionally waving. Fake hoarseness and decline all comments due to his 'sore throat.' Run--flee actually---from anyone with press credentials so that this campaign focuses quite properly on HILLARY and not BILL.

Wouldn't that be lovely?

[blacbird]

"Conventional wisdom" going into the campaign was that Bill would be a huge, probably insurmountable, campaign asset. Greatly to her grief, Hillary believed that herself and clearly relied on it. It turned out to be a horrible error. He's been a disaster. Now he's deteriorated to being pathetic.

caw

[robeiae]

Bill thinks he's still Bill. He thinks people are automatically swayed by whatever he says. And he thinks he can always find someone else to blame for anything. He hasn't changed at all. People are just less likely to buy what he's selling, particularly when his usual customers have their eyes on something else.


Too metaphoric?

[cethklein]

I think what bothers me most is that Bill has seemed to WANT the campaign to focus on HIM. I've often felt he feels like HE'S the one running for president. In a way I feel sorry for Hillary, but then I remember, she's supposedly a "strong woman" so she's obviously alowing this to happen.

What's sad is that he's tarnished his own legacy. Just at a time when people were finally starting to talk about his successes and NOT Monica as much, he pulls this crap. This campaign should have been a boon to his legacy but he pissed that away. He finally had a chance to flex his political muscles and tout his successes without the stigma of Lewinsky, Flowers, Gracen et. al. as well as push his wife into the White House. But alas it was not to be.

Oh well.

[blacbird]

I think what bothers me most is that Bill has seemed to WANT the campaign to focus on HIM.

When has Bill Clinton not wanted everything to focus on HIM? Bill Clinton's role in a Hillary Clinton administration has been a subject of discussion since before she actually declared her candidacy. It's a question she's never faced up to, and one that has caused a fair number of Democrats to hesitate in their support of her. Regrettably, Bill has done everything he can to promulgate the negative stereotype a lot of people fear.

caw

[Jcomp]

This is what happens to your popularity when the Arsenio Hall show isn't around to let you play the saxophone on national TV...

[NikeeGoddess]

Bill has seemed to WANT the campaign to focus on HIM.MEN!!! you guys are all alike.
<<<the NikeeGoddess just shakes her head>>>

anyhoo, for what it's worth what he says is true. it's just that somebody else should be saying it sound it doesn't come out like whining.

[blacbird]

MEN!!! you guys are all alike.
<<<the NikeeGoddess just shakes her head>>>

anyhoo, for what it's worth what he says is true. it's just that somebody else should be saying it sound it doesn't come out like whining.

You're saying it. It still comes out like whining.

caw

[rugcat]

It is disappointing, indeed.

[whistlelock]

Presidents- ex or otherwise- want to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.

[chartreuse]

Yeah...I heard a clip of him whining a day or two ago about it being a "conspiracy" to not report his wife's successes in the primaries or some nonsense like that.

Who can even hear him use that word and not think of Hillary complaining about the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" against her husband during the whole Monica thing?

I'm definitely getting sick of those two....

[Takvah]

Actually, if you're talking about his assessment that the media has been all over his old lady... I agree with the guy. I have never seen such a concerted effort by the media. The truly hilarious part is that idiots like Chris Matthews (one of the biggest... GET OUT cheerleaders) is saying that he doesn't know who has been saying Hillary should quit. If there is one thing Bill knows, it's liars... and the media are a pack of em... and they've been in the tank for Obama since February. I think they've been very unfair. They're like a pack of zombies, screaming... "Brains!" ... only it's Hillary's political soul that they're looking to devour. It's scurrilous and an abuse of the 4th estate. For eight years these morons have been "rope-a-doped" by a supposed imbecile and when they get their groove back *snickers*, it's just in time to take out their former royalty... the Clintons.

After this primary season... it's Monica who? :D

[blacbird]

Hey, Tak, you ever hear the one about the heat and the kitchen?

caw

[NikeeGoddess]

ever hear the one about the heat and the kitchen?
obama has - that's why he refused to do another debate after pennsylvania. too hot for him.

[johnnysannie]

obama has - that's why he refused to do another debate after pennsylvania. too hot for him.

Nope, he's remembering the one where you quit while you're ahead. Which he is and will remain.

Moot point; a debate won't save the election for Hillary at this point and neither will either Florida or Michigan.

[Takvah]

Hey, Tak, you ever hear the one about the heat and the kitchen?

caw

I'm sorry... I'm still trying to digest the one about American troops liberating Auschwitz. Oh and the fallen heroes that were present at an Obama rally. And then I'm all confused as to whether we were engaged in somber remembrance of those felled on the field of battle ... or those that are still living and have served. The Obama, he confuses me as much as he confuses himself. What, no cry of BULLSHIT from the media about Obama making up stories about his "uncle"? Hmmmm... sounds like Bosnia and snipers to me... and isn't it funny how Barry wants to be engaged in the association game when it comes to HEROES THAT HAVE SERVED... but it's all poor form when it's pastors and domestic terrorists. BOOHOO! Heat in the kitchen... I can take it... dunno if your candidate can.

[blacbird]

I've done the current delegate math again, Tak, and I guarantee you won't like it. Starts with: Obama scored 10 SuperDuper commitments over the weekend, Clinton scored one. But I'm trying to be a writer tonight (God knows that's a stretch for me), and I have some comments about the two candidates and their campaign performances that I strive to make reallllllllllly objective. I'll post these later, either tonight or tomorrow morning, when I get them where I want them to be. I challenge you (and a couple of other people who follow these discussions) to assess them with some degree of similar objectivity. I'll start a new thread when they are ready.

caw

[Takvah]

I've done the current delegate math again, Tak, and I guarantee you won't like it. Starts with: Obama scored 10 SuperDuper commitments over the weekend, Clinton scored one. But I'm trying to be a writer tonight (God knows that's a stretch for me), and I have some comments about the two candidates and their campaign performances that I strive to make reallllllllllly objective. I'll post these later, either tonight or tomorrow morning, when I get them where I want them to be. I challenge you (and a couple of other people who follow these discussions) to assess them with some degree of similar objectivity. I'll start a new thread when they are ready.

caw


Barry has this in the bag. I really don't care who it is that McCain faces. I think Hillary is the far more qualified candidate, would make a tougher president and is surely the more rounded of the two... but the Dems are entitled to select whomever they like. Frankly, I think this guy's goose is already cooked but that's all moot. I thought we were discussing Clinton being a whiner... which I think is a little heavy handed given that he's right... the media has savaged Hillary and as much as demanded she concede. On the opposite side you have Barry making all kinds of gaffes with nary a word. Barry off the cuff makes G.W. look like a sage.

[blacbird]

I thought we were discussing Clinton being a whiner... which I think is a little heavy handed given that he's right... the media has savaged Hillary and as much as demanded she concede.

Provide me one quote from any credible media reporter that has demanded Hillary Clinton concede. A few politicos have said she should (which isn't exactly demanding that she should), but what the reporters have done is simply ask the question: What is her justification to continue at this point, given the delegate count situation? Which is nothing more than some of her own major supporters, notably Diane Feinstein, have done. That is not, but any imaginable stretch of rhetoric, equivalent to "demanding" that she concede. In fact, it's a purely fair question.

So, should they be fair, and ask the same question of Obama? That would be idiotic. He's winning. Last night, the Philadephia Phillies baseball team took a 20-4 lead into the ninth inning against the Colorado Rockies. Should somebody have demanded the Phillies concede? Wake up. Reality has arrived at your doorstep. Take a good look in the morning. Oh, by the way, the Rockies got a run in the top of the ninth, so they lost only 20-5. Yay. I'm sure they celebrated.

Years ago, I was a reporter. I guarantee you, if the situation were reversed, and Clinton had this insurmountable edge on Obama for the nomination, the very same question would be asked of him.

She's whining. Her hubby is whining. Her supporters are whining. Every one of them went into this campaign expecting a coronation march. Didn't work out that way, and they can't handle it. It's the worst evocation of the "sore loser" syndrome. It demeans her and her effort, and somebody needs to take her aside and, in no uncertain terms, tell her so. It's pathetic.

She lost this close contest because her own efforts were inadequate to compete with the efforts of a better campaigner. That's it. Nothing more complicated than that. You can despise Obama as much as you wish, I don't give a schidt. But I defy you to deny that she ran a losing campaign, lost on nothing more than her own inadquacies as a candidate.

caw

[NikeeGoddess]

Nope, he's remembering the one where you quit while you're ahead.right. he was sweatin' so bad after that last PA debate. i think he threw that shirt out. the armpits were permanently stained.

but what the reporters have done is simply ask the question: What is her justification to continue at this point, given the delegate count situation? this is just a passive aggressive way of suggesting she concede.

She lost this close contest because her own efforts were inadequate to compete with the efforts of a better campaigner. That's it. Nothing more complicated than that.the problem hillary supporters have with this argument is that being a better campaigner doesn't equate with the idea that you are a better candidate. i'm sure obama could sell a whole lot of used cars too.

[blacbird]

the problem hillary supporters have with this argument is that being a better campaigner doesn't equate with the idea that you are a better candidate. i'm sure obama could sell a whole lot of used cars too.

The very reason we have political campaigns is to get a good look at which candidate can best stand the heat over a stretch of time. Kind of a major attribute we expect a POTUS to have, isn't it? By any measurement, Obama has been the better candidate, so far. Will that translate into being a better President? Frankly, it's an impossible thing to viably predict, one way or the other. We'll see, as the campaign continues. Regardless, the way Hillary and Bill are currently behaving makes me increasingly happy they are not going to be inhabitants of the White House for the next four years. Somebody really needs to explain this to Hillary (I think Bill is beyond explaining to at this point). If you admire Hillary Clinton (and in many ways I still do), and admire what she has accomplished (and I very much do), you need to understand how self-damaging she is currently being.

It doesn't matter dog-drool in a strong north wind now whether she stays in the campaign or not. She was asked what her rationale for doing so was, and her response was: Oh, something could happen, something . . . something like . . . AN ASSASSINATION! Yeah, something like that could happen, you never know!

Pathetic. Demeaning. By any standard of judgment.

At this point, if something as dire as that should happen, I'm all for drafting Al Gore or John Edwards for the Democratic Nomination. That wasn't true, even a week ago.

I do not think, anymore, that Hillary Clinton should be the President of the United States. Ever. That's a new position for me, one that didn't exist until last Friday. And for anyone not old enough to have personal experience of the trauma the Robert Kennedy assassination had for Americans in 1968, I don't think you can truly understand that event. The really sad part of it is that Hillary Clinton is old enough to have had that experience, and it doesn't now seem to matter to her.

caw

[blacbird]

this is just a passive aggressive way of suggesting she concede.

I missed this. It's the purest refined thrice-distilled bulllschidt. You left out the part I mentioned, immediately following, about Diane Feinstein asking her the same question. That was a passive-aggressive way of suggesting she concede, too?

caw

[cethklein]

MEN!!! you guys are all alike.
<<<the NikeeGoddess just shakes her head>>>

anyhoo, for what it's worth what he says is true. it's just that somebody else should be saying it sound it doesn't come out like whining.

For someone who claims to be such a raving femenist, I'd think you'd be a bit more upset by all of this. This man is pretty much nailing the lid on her campaign's coffin. And no, it would come off as whining if anyone said it. Hillary has claimed she's a "strong woman" so anyone one of her top campaign people kicking and screaming over paranoia about sexim makes her look weak. A strong woman shouldn't have to worry abut sexism because she'd be able to overcome it. Other great female leaders did, why can't Hillary. Any time people whine about being bullied, they make it hard for them to call themselves "strong".

[Takvah]

Does Keith Olbermann suggesting that somebody should beat Hillary into submission count as demanding?

Howard Fineman suggested that some unnamed super superdelegate was going to have to find a way to persuade her, and Olbermann answered: "Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

This is just indicative of the sentiment. The more plaintive the cries the less "suggestive" and the more "demanding" the assertions become. You can pretend that the media hasn't been saying, "Get out!" but it's just not honest.

[NikeeGoddess]

And for anyone not old enough to have personal experience of the trauma the Robert Kennedy assassination had for Americans in 1968, I don't think you can truly understand that event.you're making an assumption. i'm a young baby boomer.

For someone who claims to be such a raving femenistshow me where i ever made that claim. you must be talking about IG, the other goddess (who must be on vacation).

about Diane Feinstein asking her the same question. That was a passive-aggressive way of suggesting she concede, too?yes it is. what's your point?

A strong woman shouldn't have to worry abut sexism because she'd be able to overcome it.that's ridiculous. if the media is against you and you can't control the media, then neither complaining (comes out as whining) or ignoring (accepting their behavior) them works against you.

[cethklein]

that's ridiculous. if the media is against you and you can't control the media, then neither complaining (comes out as whining) or ignoring (accepting their behavior) them works against you.

The media isn't against hillary any more than it was against Obama during Rev. Wright-gate.

Also, I didn't hear Hillary complaining when the media was blowing smoke up her ass at the start of the campaign. She has NO problem with media bias so long as it isn't directed at her. This isn't "coming of as whining" it IS whining. The Clintons were used to being media darlnigs and now the tables turned. Before Iowa, all the media talked about was how Hillary was the presumptive nominee. I didn't hear her complain then. If she's so "strong" why doesn't she reign in her husband? If she can't even control him, how can she expect to force the hands of anyone else?

Hillary is everything femenists oppose, a submissive woman who just allows things to happen around her without doing anything about it.

Any media bia there is against her (which there isn't as much as people think), it's her own fault because she is the one who USED to have them wrapped around her finger.

Yet the "strong woman" will continue to sit and let her husband make an ass of her campaign like he did in South Carolina. She'll lay back and let him walk all over her, just like when he was president.

This is jsut as stupid as people claiming the media is biased against Obama due to his race or biased against McCain because of his age. And lest I remind you, most of the people on tv callnig for her to drop out aren't the media pundits themselves, it's their guests, many of whome are Democratic party members, including former allies of hers.

but as always Clinton and her zealots will do what they always do, they'll blame someone else. After all, it CAN'T be HER fault her campaign failed, right? It's ALWAYS someone else's fault. Just like when Bill cheated on her, it wasn't his fault, it was the "vast right-wing conspirasy". We all know how right she was then, don't we?

[rugcat]

If she's so "strong" why doesn't she reign in her husband? If she can't even control him, how can she expect to force the hands of anyone else?First, what makes you so sure he's out there as a loose cannon? He may well have talked over every one of his actions with Hillary and her advisers. Even his worst critics acknowledge he's a brilliant politician -- although that seems to be in doubt of late.

But Hillary has come back from the near dead to make it a very close race indeed. The media may make it out that Bill has made one gaffe after another and hurt her chances, but she keeps winning primaries. Are you sure she would have done as well if he had simply kept quiet?

And if he is on his own, how would you suggest she control him if he doesn't wish to be controlled? Somehow limit his access to the press, when every station and paper hang on his every word? Denounce him publicly? Divorce him? That would be the end of her candidacy, period.

[johnnysannie]

[QUOTE=NikeeGoddess;2393830]you're making an assumption. i'm a young baby boomer.

QUOTE]

Then you must be born no later than '64. That makes you about 44 years old. I'm a boomer too - born in 1961 and only old folks think I'm young now;)

Age is relative but to the twenty somethings and the thirty somethings, I'm "old".

[blacbird]

First, what makes you so sure he's out there as a loose cannon? He may well have talked over every one of his actions with Hillary and her advisers.

That would make it better?

But Hillary has come back from the near dead to make it a very close race indeed.

At what point was she "near dead"? This has been a close race since Iowa. She's only become "near dead" since the Indiana and NC primaries in early May, which put her in dire straights in the delegate chase.

but she keeps winning primaries.

You need to take a look back at the primary schedule. The latter part of it held a number of states highly favorable to Clinton (e.g., WV, KY, PA), and they were sitting there all along. No great surprises in any of them. Obama's campaign staff had this figured out from the get-go, and knew he needed to capitalize on earlier states that were more favorable to him, notably that stretch in February. Clinton's campaign staff seemed either ignorant of or oblivious to these scheduling realities, and that contrast is but one of many that show clearly how much better the Obama campaign performed.

The Clinton people like to whine about how Obama has done well in the caucus states, neglecting to point out that one of the reasons he's done well in those states is that Clinton chose to discount or ignore them. Obama, with his background in organizing, knew what was needed to mount effective campaigns in places like Iowa, and simply did so.

caw

[robeiae]

That would make it better?



At what point was she "near dead"? This has been a close race since Iowa. She's only become "near dead" since the Indiana and NC primaries in early May, which put her in dire straights in the delegate chase.



You need to take a look back at the primary schedule. The latter part of it held a number of states highly favorable to Clinton (e.g., WV, KY, PA), and they were sitting there all along. No great surprises in any of them. Obama's campaign staff had this figured out from the get-go, and knew he needed to capitalize on earlier states that were more favorable to him, notably that stretch in February. Clinton's campaign staff seemed either ignorant of or oblivious to these scheduling realities, and that contrast is but one of many that show clearly how much better the Obama campaign performed.

The Clinton people like to whine about how Obama has done well in the caucus states, neglecting to point out that one of the reasons he's done well in those states is that Clinton chose to discount or ignore them. Obama, with his background in organizing, knew what was needed to mount effective campaigns in places like Iowa, and simply did so.

cawSo, Clinton wins states because they were already favorable to her, but Obama wins states because he campaigns effectively? Really?

[blacbird]

So, Clinton wins states because they were already favorable to her, but Obama wins states because he campaigns effectively? Really?

Not what I said, if you read it again. Much like the general election, once this race got tight, some states were pretty much slam-dunks for Clinton, some for Obama. Where Obama did better than Clinton, either by "winning" the primary, or by outperforming expectations and coming close, that is hard to attribute to anything other than effective campaigning. Unless it perhaps reflects some bad campaigning on the Clintons' part. Obama has had numerous more outcomes like that than Clinton has, and that's where the race has been decided. Remember, too, that Clinton "wins" in some states have in real terms been losses (Texas, Indiana, Nevada, even California), with her gaining little, if any, in the delegate race. Add to those a handful of straight-up Obama upsets (starting with Iowa, and including Wisconsin), and a some places where he won bigger than expected (the Carolinas, in particular), and you have the recipe for his success. Outside of New Hampshire, which now seems amazingly meaningless, Clinton has to stretch to find many such surprises.

caw

[robeiae]

Not what I said, if you read it again.I think it reflects pretty much exactly what you said: Clinton's campaign was poorly run, Obama's was well run. So, Clinton's wins were in States she had all along.

What you said, again:

"You need to take a look back at the primary schedule. The latter part of it held a number of states highly favorable to Clinton (e.g., WV, KY, PA), and they were sitting there all along. No great surprises in any of them. Obama's campaign staff had this figured out from the get-go, and knew he needed to capitalize on earlier states that were more favorable to him, notably that stretch in February. Clinton's campaign staff seemed either ignorant of or oblivious to these scheduling realities, and that contrast is but one of many that show clearly how much better the Obama campaign performed.

The Clinton people like to whine about how Obama has done well in the caucus states, neglecting to point out that one of the reasons he's done well in those states is that Clinton chose to discount or ignore them. Obama, with his background in organizing, knew what was needed to mount effective campaigns in places like Iowa, and simply did so."

Now, I'm not saying there's nothing here. I think there clearly is. But you are intentionally minimizing Obama's pathetic performance in the Clinton "slam-dunks." You chalk that up to cleverness on the part of Obama, but realize that if he was such a great organizer and campaigner, he should have had the capability to lessen the blow-outs. Because you know, it's the blow-outs that keep Clinton going. When have you seen a presumptive nominee get smacked like Obama was in WVA and Kentucky by greater than two to one margins?

And speaking of organizing, great organizers don't put pinhead Che Guevara worshippers in charge of their campaign offices. Between that and Obama's objection to seating Florida delegates, he's pretty much blown the state. Well-played...
Much like the general election, once this race got tight, some states were pretty much slam-dunks for Clinton, some for Obama. Where Obama did better than Clinton, either by "winning" the primary, or by outperforming expectations and coming close, that is hard to attribute to anything other than effective campaigning. Unless it perhaps reflects some bad campaigning on the Clintons' part. Obama has had numerous more outcomes like that than Clinton has, and that's where the race has been decided. Remember, too, that Clinton "wins" in some states have in real terms been losses (Texas, Indiana, Nevada, even California), with her gaining little, if any, in the delegate race. Add to those a handful of straight-up Obama upsets (starting with Iowa, and including Wisconsin), and a some places where he won bigger than expected (the Carolinas, in particular), and you have the recipe for his success. Outside of New Hampshire, which now seems amazingly meaningless, Clinton has to stretch to find many such surprises.
1) The dem system is ****ed. It's an absolute joke.
2) You place your analysis squarely on the side of Obama--for obvious reasons--and it reads exactly like that. I don't have a dog in this race, except that I can't stand Clinton, so I'll put it a little differently:

Obama's success has less to do with the specifics of his organization than with his personality. It's really very simple. He's done great because as the campaign has worn on, people have gotten more and more exposure to him. And he's made the most of that. His problems arise in areas that lack his natural support base. And he hasn't demonstrated he can do jack about that in a general election. Still, I'd agree he's run a better campaign than Clinton, overall. But again, that's mostly because he's a better person.

[odocoileus]

Base on what I've read, the Clinton campaign chose not to contest several caucus states. The had plenty of money at the beginning, so they could have put something together in every state. I see this as a question of mismanagement, not personality.

[blacbird]

Obama's success has less to do with the specifics of his organization than with his personality. It's really very simple. He's done great because as the campaign has worn on, people have gotten more and more exposure to him. And he's made the most of that.

Probably true. Which stands outside the sphere of a "better campaign" exactly how? A huge part of any political campaign is the presentation of the candidate, isn't it? Obama was able to project this positive image even in places where he never appeared in person, notably a number of the caucus states (Alaska, where I live, being a premier example). His people up here worked their butts off getting voters informed and enthused; Clinton, on the other hand, said she was going to open a campaign office in Anchorage, and never did. Guess who swept through the caucus with record numbers of supporters?

caw

[robeiae]

Probably true. Which stands outside the sphere of a "better campaign" exactly how? A huge part of any political campaign is the presentation of the candidate, isn't it? Obama was able to project this positive image even in places where he never appeared in person, notably a number of the caucus states (Alaska, where I live, being a premier example).Well, look at what each side had to work with.

As I've said before re Hillary Clinton, she is where she is primarily because of her name. She's bloody awful. But there was a general feeling out there--imo--that she would walk through the primaries, that it was her "turn." So, as I noted, there is something to the idea that she didn't do all she needed to do. Of course, there is the funding issue, as well. As Obama became an unquestionably legitimate contender (which didn't happen overnight, imo), her funding began to dry up. And her counted-on support among some did the dame thing.

Imo, this is something that reflects who Hillary Clinton is. Obama benefited mightily from it, and I think it's much less of a testament to his organization and campaigning skills than you do. I think any number of potential candidates out there--that chose not to throw their hat in the ring--could easily have found themselves in a similar place, if they were exchanged for Obama.

But I don't want to sell Obama short: he's very effective at marshaling support, as it were. Of course, he's also created a bit of personality cult, which I think is a bad thing. He's neither as deep nor as smart as many like to claim--imo, of course.

[NikeeGoddess]

when the west virginia primary came around and hillary won by such a huge margin i THOUGHT it was just that obama just gave up trying to get the votes from a state he was going to lose anyway. the exit polls proved that she got votes that people assumed would go to him... from over educated and young people. but she got them too. i assumed he just decided they weren't worth trying to get or that he was so full of himself that he assumed he would triumph. but later it was reported that he outspent her 3 to 1 in ads and such. so he did try but he failed miserably.

the shift has moved in her direction and she will slam dunk in puerto rico as well.

[blacbird]

when the west virginia primary came around and hillary won by such a huge margin i THOUGHT it was just that obama just gave up trying to get the votes from a state he was going to lose anyway. the exit polls proved that she got votes that people assumed would go to him... from over educated and young people. but she got them too. i assumed he just decided they weren't worth trying to get or that he was so full of himself that he assumed he would triumph. but later it was reported that he outspent her 3 to 1 in ads and such. so he did try but he failed miserably.

the shift has moved in her direction and she will slam dunk in puerto rico as well.

She'll win big in PR, just as she's been figuring to do since the beginning of the primary season. And it won't mean doodly, regards the delegate race. There's no "momentum" here, Nike. PR is for Clinton what SC was for Obama, only SC happened in January, PR was scheduled for late May. Every contest Clinton has "won" here lately (WV, KY, soon PR) has a corresponding counterbalance in some state for Obama that either occurred earlier (KS vs. WV) or at the same time (OR vs. WV). Hillary has needed for three-plus months now to pull off a major upset, and it just never happened. She hasn't exceeded expectations since New Hampshire; Obama has, on several occasions (CA, TX, WI, IN, NC, for examples). It's really no more complicated than that.

And nobody is more responsible for that outcome than . . . HILLARY CLINTON. Truth is, she could have won this thing. She really could have. A little better control of her campaign staff, a little less hubris about "entitlement" and "inevitability", a little more attention to those icky "small states" that had caucuses instead of primaries. A little less Bill. This is a self-inflicted defeat. That's what digs at you, isn't it?

But, go ahead. You have complete freedom here to whine as much as you like.

caw

[NikeeGoddess]

She'll win big in PR, just as she's been figuring to do since the beginning of the primary season.by my point is that obama should prove that he can beat her in these states. it only makes her arguments stronger when he can't... especially after outspending her 3 to 1 (or more as in the case of pennsylvania).

Obama has, on several occasions (CA, TX, WI, IN, NC, for examples)clinton won california http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/CA.html

[cethklein]

by my point is that obama should prove that he can beat her in these states. it only makes her arguments stronger when he can't... especially after outspending her 3 to 1 (or more as in the case of pennsylvania).

You do know PR can't vote in the general election right?

[NikeeGoddess]

i don't live in a state. we're taxed without representation as well.

[robeiae]

by my point is that obama should prove that he can beat her in these states. it only makes her arguments stronger when he can't... especially after outspending her 3 to 1 (or more as in the case of pennsylvania).
Right. He's simply not the end-all-be-all. He can't close her out.

[blacbird]

by my point is that obama should prove that he can beat her in these states. it only makes her arguments stronger when he can't... especially after outspending her 3 to 1 (or more as in the case of pennsylvania).

This argument is nonsensical. It's like saying Bill Clinton should have had to prove in 1992 that he could beat George H. W. Bush in Texas (or pick any other state that Bush 41 carried). Or saying that Hillary should have proved she could beat Obama in, say, Wisconsin or North Carolina. The individual states vary in their preferences, and, in the end, what counts is the cumulative total, like any election.

clinton won california

I'm well aware of that. My point was that she didn't "win" it by a sufficient margin to do her sufficient good in the overall delegate race. Ditto, with emphasis, for Texas, Indiana, Nevada. You just don't seem to catch on to the core of the issue here, Nikes.

So . . . as promised, the current delegate math, summarized, with six possible scenarios for the outcome of the May 31 Rules Committee fracas:

1. Rules Committee does nothing to seat any delegates from FL or MI (they don't have to do so, as I understand it). I think this scenario is unlikely, but it represents the current status quo:

Needed for nomination, 2025 delegates. Clinton needs 85% of the remaining uncommitted delegates; Obama needs 16%.

2. Rules Committee ignores party rules entirely, and seats full delegates from FL and MI, as voted in the disallowed primaries, with Obama getting zero from MI, as his name wasn't on the ballot. I think this scenario is about as likely as me climbing Mt. Everest, but it's the absolute best fantasy for Clinton:

Needed for nomination, 2187 delegates. Clinton needs 62% of the remaining uncommitted delegates; Obama needs 39%.

3. Similar to scenario 2 (and about as likely), except that Rules Committee allots the MI "uncommitted" vote proportion to Obama.

Needed for nomination, 2187 delegates. Clinton needs 75% of remaining uncommitteds; Obama needs 26%.

4. Rules Committee seats 1/2 of the FL and MI delegations (which appears to be the most they can do legally, according to their own attorneys), proportional to the primary votes, with Obama getting zero from MI (again, vanishingly unlikely).

Needed for nomination, 2106 delegates. Clinton needs 72% of remaining uncommitteds; Obama needs 29%.

5. Similar to scenario 4, except that Obama gets the proportion of MI uncommitted votes. This is a scenario that falls within the realm of possibility.

Needed for nomination, 2106 delegates. Clinton needs 80% of remaining uncommitteds; Obama needs 21%.

6. Rules Committee pulls a King Solomon, and simply splits the 1/2 delegations from FL and MI 50-50 between Clinton and Obama. This is also within the realm of possibility, although unlikely, and certainly the worst possible outcome for Clinton.

Needed for nomination, 2106 delegates. Clinton needs 85% of remaining uncommitteds; Obama needs 16%.

Them's the numbers, fokes. Under no scenario does Clinton catch Obama in delegate count, without depending on a massive move by the remaining SuperDupers. Even by "winning" more than Obama of the 86 remaining pledged delegates to be had, she actually loses ground, unless she can win by more than 75% or so.

As a side note, Terry McAuliffe, one of Clinton's most senior and trusted campaign advisors (and former DNC Chairman, I believe) has told Chuck Todd of MSNBC that the nominee will be chosen by June 15. Take that to mean whatever you think it means. My thinking is that after the last two primaries this coming Tuesday, there will be a major bunch of announcements of candidate support from the remaining 190 or so SuperDupers who haven't yet expressed preferences.

caw

[blacbird]

An addendum: The most interesting, and important, thing that is likely to happen when the Dupers (and the party leaders) say "Enough, already!" will be Hillary Clinton's reaction (the second most important will be Bill's, and we have to hope the Fire Department wherever he's located is on alert). This is the moment when we'll know if she's willing to torpedo Obama in a suicide mission. I guarantee Hillary Clinton will be out of consideration for the 2012 nomination if she does that. John Hagee, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly would be more likely Dem 2012 nominees. In fact, I'd support any one of them over Hillary Clinton if she pulls such a tantrum.

Wagers, anyone?

caw

[billythrilly7th]

She will behave.

And if Obama loses, probably run.

I just look forward to seeing Bubba four years from now, four years older, four years crankier, four years tireder, trying to gear it up for another campaign.

I suspect it will be something close to when Michael Jordan was playing for the friggin Washington Wizards.

Just awful on multiple levels.

It's also possible that four years from now, she will just say "ahhhh...what do I need this crap for?" and not run.

Although that is HIGHLY doubtful.

She's Hillary Clinton.

Power above all else.


Anyhooo...I think Barack beats McCain.

FOr every "Hillary can only win this state" loss he may take, I believe there are many red states that only Barack can win.

It'll be fun.

R.I.P. Clinton Campaign '08

Better luck next time, humps.

[blacbird]

If she plays nice, and does the sensible thing and goes out vigorously campaigning for her party in the fall (she really doesn't need to be too cozy to Obama, here, because there are a lot of important Senatorial and Congressional races out there), that changes the equation, in utterly unpredictable ways, so I'm not going there at this time. But the Kennedy comment effing scared me, said something about Hillary Clinton I didn't previously believe. To wit, that she really is willing to dive off the Reichenbach Falls with Professor Moriarty, just to end his days. Methinks there are a couple of frequenters of this forum that would stand on the top of that precipice and cheer to the utmost for that to happen.

To them I say: Think Richard Nixon.

caw

[cethklein]

Originally Posted by NikeeGoddess
clinton won california

So will Obama in November.

[NikeeGoddess]

If she plays nice, and does the sensible thing and goes out vigorously campaigning for her party in the fallshe's already said no matter what the outcome at the convention that should would do anything to ensure a dem in the white house this november. i know people only absorb what they want to hear but she's been saying this for months now. let it sink in, bird.

[johnnysannie]

So will Obama in November.

From your mouth to God's ear!!!!

[blacbird]

she's already said no matter what the outcome at the convention that should would do anything to ensure a dem in the white house this november. i know people only absorb what they want to hear but she's been saying this for months now. let it sink in, bird.

You ever heard the phrase "Actions speak louder than words", Nikes? Jury's out, as far as I'm concerned. I'm on record here as previously believing, when the time came, she'd play nice. I'm less convinced now. Right now she's acting very much like a bully surprised by an unexpected beating. We'll see.

And damn soon, too.

caw

[cethklein]

she's already said no matter what the outcome at the convention that should would do anything to ensure a dem in the white house this november. i know people only absorb what they want to hear but she's been saying this for months now. let it sink in, bird.

Actions speak louder than words. She SAYS that, but we'll see if her actions match up. If she drags this out until the convention it will screw the party over big time.

[NikeeGoddess]

you got that right. obama is all about words.

[cethklein]

So no response then?

Ok.

[johnnysannie]

you got that right. obama is all about words.

An excellent asset for any politician.

His words, however, have been better than Hillary's and his accuracy ratio beats the hell out of hers (think Bosnia).

I used to think she would "play nice" too but I'm not at all sure now. At the moment, it would appear that she's on a power trip and desperate to get the nomination, using any means, fair or foul, to get it. She no longer seems to care about either the Democratic party or the nation, just Hillary, Hillary, Hillary.