Say it, say it...interesting

[Care4all]

Yes. I think if the tables were turned, it would be the same situation - some Dems would be calling for Obama to step down. As much as the Democratic Party can't afford to alienate the African American community, it also can't afford to alienate women. In such a case, it will always rely on any objective metric it can to plausibly wash their hands of the situation (here the popular vote and the pledged delegates). That poses the least potential of alienating its core consituencies (of which women are one). I think if it were Bill Clinton instead of Hillary Clinton, there would have been stronger calls for him to step down some time ago.

P.S. It is only close if you ignore the practicalities. Otherwise, it isn't really that close. Close would entail her having a chance at catching him in the popular vote.

Reilly, IT IS A CLOSE RACE, if it were not a close race, then Obama would have ALREADY won the amount of superdelegates needed to win the nomination....

you are discounting how close this race is, and leaving out a specific part of it, the superdelegates WHO are NOT obligated to vote with their state, otherwise there would be NO REASON, WHAT SO EVER....to have super delegates verses delegates.

And if it goes to the convention, which i believe it will NOT, because after the LAST primary is done and the last person to vote, votes....the super delegates will make up their minds, then at the convention if one is not chosen yet, even the delgates from the different states ARE NOT OBLIGATED to vote with what the people of their state voted....they can change their vote thru the voting process of the convention if it were a tie....so the rules are very complicated...

Read this:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/f4225987fd9e438ef7_fqm6bev2k.pdf

And yes, she needs to gracefully bow out, but she does not deserve being forced out, she ran a very good, strong race....and her supporters need to be weened* in to the Obama camp, gingerly...and forcing her out without allowing this to happen will hurt the democratic party, and the MEDIA is pushing such imho.

jd

 

[midcan5]

"So Obama is right that Rev. Wright was invited to the White House during a Clinton crisis. And some could certainly argue that the Rev. Wright being there that day lends credence to Obama’s point that Wright was not some fringe, rogue preacher as he has been portrayed."

I'm missing the negativity of that statement, but I have to say Clinton's use of 'whites' this past week is extremely negative. Kinda unreal today. So all those who are offended by the original post, is that ok or are you simply engaging in candidate blindness. Blindness is ok but recognize it.

 

[Care4all]

"So Obama is right that Rev. Wright was invited to the White House during a Clinton crisis. And some could certainly argue that the Rev. Wright being there that day lends credence to Obama’s point that Wright was not some fringe, rogue preacher as he has been portrayed."

I'm missing the negativity of that statement, but I have to say Clinton's use of 'whites' this past week is extremely negative. Kinda unreal today. So all those who are offended by the original post, is that ok or are you simply engaging in candidate blindness. Blindness is ok but recognize it.

Oh midcannnnnnn pleaseeeeeeeeee..... I can not believe you are even delving in to this crapola!

She was quoting a usa poll, Hillary did not separate the polls in to white voters and black voters for goodness sakes...polsters and the media did....what is WRONG with you Obama supporters? Obama is decent, but YOU GUYS are really showing your colors....buying in to this racist SHIT hook, line and sinker....just to SMEAR your opponent....all garbage. What she was talking about was a fact....she does have the white, non college degreed worker's vote....Obama has the Black vote....SO WHAT midcan? so what? She will draw more of the category she describes and it is obvious via polling that Obama will carry the black vote....MORESO
Obama got 92% of the Black vote in North Carolina, is THAT racist....talking about that....????

What is going on with you guys, gees louise midcan.....and these things do matter in the race and are not off limits to discuss? Why should they be mooted midcan?

I have never known you to have tunnel vision, but there is not an Obama fan out there that doesn;t seem to have it in my humble opinion, and YOU are the ones HURTING the Democratic Party making this all about race, when IT IS NOT, it is about someone who is MORE QUALIFIED than the other, imo...which is what a presidential race should be all about....but nooooooooooo, not to the Obama crowd...YOU ARE MAKING it all about race, you are, yes YOU ARE....and you are chasing good democrats away.

And YOU know me well enough to know that I have never been a racist...NEVER...yet you continue to play that card like it is a violin, and JUST FOR THE WIN. Reminds of the republicans....i guess you all learned the political game well... And you say it is the hillary camp? bulloney midcan, bulloney.

Care
....?

 

[ReillyT]

Oh midcannnnnnn pleaseeeeeeeeee..... I can not believe you are even delving in to this crapola!

She was quoting a usa poll, Hillary did not separate the polls in to white voters and black voters for goodness sakes...polsters and the media did....what is WRONG with you Obama supporters? Obama is decent, but YOU GUYS are really showing your colors....buying in to this racist SHIT hook, line and sinker....just to SMEAR your opponent....all garbage. What she was talking about was a fact....she does have the white, non college degreed worker's vote....Obama has the Black vote....SO WHAT midcan? so what? She will draw more of the category she describes and it is obvious via polling that Obama will carry the black vote....MORESO
Obama got 92% of the Black vote in North Carolina, is THAT racist....talking about that....????

What is going on with you guys, gees louise midcan.....and these things do matter in the race and are not off limits to discuss? Why should they be mooted midcan?

I have never known you to have tunnel vision, but there is not an Obama fan out there that doesn;t seem to have it in my humble opinion, and YOU are the ones HURTING the Democratic Party making this all about race, when IT IS NOT, it is about someone who is MORE QUALIFIED than the other, imo...which is what a presidential race should be all about....but nooooooooooo, not to the Obama crowd...YOU ARE MAKING it all about race, you are, yes YOU ARE....and you are chasing good democrats away.

And YOU know me well enough to know that I have never been a racist...NEVER...yet you continue to play that card like it is a violin, and JUST FOR THE WIN. Reminds of the republicans....i guess you all learned the political game well... And you say it is the hillary camp? bulloney midcan, bulloney.

Care
....?

Whoa... take it easy Care. Not all Obama supporters are out to smear Clinton. Many of just think that it is time for her to leave the race. As for it being close, "close" is a relative term. Down by 6 points in a basketball game is close, unless there are only a couple of seconds on the clock, in which case it isn't close enough. Clinton is close in delegates, but since the superdelegates by and large are making it clear that they are not going against the will of the voters, and he has won the greater number of pledged delegates and the popular vote, it isn't nearly as close as the total delegate count would suggest. This isn't taking anything away from Clinton, but at some point the continued campaigning hurts the party, or at least its presumptive nominee.

 

[jillian]

Whoa... take it easy Care. Not all Obama supporters are out to smear Clinton. Many of just think that it is time for her to leave the race. As for it being close, "close" is a relative term. Down by 6 points in a basketball game is close, unless there are only a couple of seconds on the clock, in which case it isn't close enough. Clinton is close in delegates, but since the superdelegates by and large are making it clear that they are not going against the will of the voters, and he has won the greater number of pledged delegates and the popular vote, it isn't nearly as close as the total delegate count would suggest. This isn't taking anything away from Clinton, but at some point the continued campaigning hurts the party, or at least its presumptive nominee.

OK.. here's my problem. People keep saying that the super delegates aren't going to go against the will of the voters. But yet, they aren't being forced to vote the way their districts voted. For example, off the top of my head, Massachusetts went to Hillary. Ted Kennedy is voting against his district. So the argument that they aren't going against the will of their voters isn't entirely correct.

I understand Care's frustration. I'm a bit more sanguin about it, but it's been annoying to see inconsistencies like that.... particularly when one thinks it might cost the dems the election.

 

[Ravi]

"So Obama is right that Rev. Wright was invited to the White House during a Clinton crisis. And some could certainly argue that the Rev. Wright being there that day lends credence to Obama’s point that Wright was not some fringe, rogue preacher as he has been portrayed."

I'm missing the negativity of that statement, but I have to say Clinton's use of 'whites' this past week is extremely negative. Kinda unreal today. So all those who are offended by the original post, is that ok or are you simply engaging in candidate blindness. Blindness is ok but recognize it.

How was what she said racist?

 

[Care4all]

Whoa... take it easy Care. Not all Obama supporters are out to smear Clinton. Many of just think that it is time for her to leave the race. As for it being close, "close" is a relative term. Down by 6 points in a basketball game is close, unless there are only a couple of seconds on the clock, in which case it isn't close enough. Clinton is close in delegates, but since the superdelegates by and large are making it clear that they are not going against the will of the voters, and he has won the greater number of pledged delegates and the popular vote, it isn't nearly as close as the total delegate count would suggest. This isn't taking anything away from Clinton, but at some point the continued campaigning hurts the party, or at least its presumptive nominee.

As Jillian said Reilly....the Obama camp has been pushing that the super D's must go with the vote of the people within their state and ALL that garbage....

but Clinton won pennsylvania and other states where those super delegates have not committed to her yet...they are holding back and may go against the will of their voters and go with Obama....so where the heck are the holier than thou Obama fans that were squealing bloody murder about the super delegates going with the will of the people?

hypocrites....period.

And look at senator Kerry and senator Kennedy....THEY are NOT going with how their state voted for goodness sakes...it went near 70% to Clinton in the primaries?

So, again, can you explain the Obama side for me on this issue to where it does not spell hypocrisy?

And Reilly, I am not singling you out, you are actually pretty moderate on this issue....I guess I just need some help in understanding these Obamaites that are pushing racism and are being hypocrites regarding the super delegates...

care

 

[ReillyT]

As Jillian said Reilly....the Obama camp has been pushing that the super D's must go with the vote of the people within their state and ALL that garbage....

but Clinton won pennsylvania and other states where those super delegates have not committed to her yet...they are holding back and may go against the will of their voters and go with Obama....so where the heck are the holier than thou Obama fans that were squealing bloody murder about the super delegates going with the will of the people?

hypocrites....period.

And look at senator Kerry and senator Kennedy....THEY are NOT going with how their state voted for goodness sakes...it went near 70% to Clinton in the primaries?

So, again, can you explain the Obama side for me on this issue to where it does not spell hypocrisy?

And Reilly, I am not singling you out, you are actually pretty moderate on this issue....I guess I just need some help in understanding these Obamaites that are pushing racism and are being hypocrites regarding the super delegates...

care

I guess it partly depends on whom you are speaking about with respect to this issue. I think nearly all the Obama supporters would say that whoever gets the majority of the pledged delegates, and the superdelegates according to the outcome of their states, should win. That is only because Obama wins in this scenario. In fact, lots of superdelegates will go against the will of their states, and Clinton will lose most of these. There is a bit of hypocrisy here, but Obama supporters would say that if superdelegates all acted consistently, that would be fine - because Obama then wins.

However, I think this misses the point. It has little to do with superdelegates voting according to the outcome of their states. It has everything to do with who the candidates are and the history of the democratic party. The simple truth is that there is no more defining issue for the democratic party for the last 45 years than civil rights. It is greatest legacy of the party since Kennedy. Short of some super scandal, the superdelegates as a whole will not act against the will of the pledged delegates and popular vote to deny the nomination to an African American. It would appear to stand against everything the democratic party has fought for for nearly 50 years. I think if they did this, the effect would be demoralizing and just short of catastrophic.

I think the same would be true if Clinton were on top. The rights of women are almost as strong a factor in recent democratic party history as the rights of minorities. The party wouldn't deny the nomination to a woman either.

The key is that either of these two must have some objective measure by which to say they are the winner, and relieve the superdelegates of actually determining who they think the better candidate is. Obama has all the objective measures, so he will take the nomination. That is why it isn't really that close.

 

[midcan5]

I don't have a problem with Hillary being criticized by Obama supporters. I'm just sick of this garbage that Midcan keeps posting because it isn't true.

Show me the untruth. The words that come from the party reflect on her and if they are wrong she needs to say so.

How was what she said racist?

Because it engages in the politics of division, are there no black working people who voted for her, are they so small a number that winning the white vote matters more than appealing to all democrats. And everyone should matter not just the white votes, that's what the democratic party has always been about.

 

[jillian]

Show me the untruth. The words that come from the party reflect on her and if they are wrong she needs to say so.



Because it engages in the politics of division, are there no black working people who voted for her, are they so small a number that winning the white vote matters more than appealing to all democrats. And everyone should matter not just the white votes, that's what the democratic party has always been about.

So the votes of half of the democratic party don't matter?

Is that where we are?

1. Obama has about 90% of the black vote.
2. Hillary has the vote of older women (though not at the same rates)
3. Obama has the votes of white, college educated dems.
4. Hillary has the vote of white non college educated, working class whites.

I'm still trying to figure out how pointing that out is racist or divisive?

Should Hillary, with half the democratic vote, and with wins in all the BIG BLUE STATES that matter for the general election, have laid downa and died for Obama's coronation?

Damn... you're making me dislike him and I'm going to (at least as of right now) vote for him if he gets the nod. Now THAT'S the politics of division....

 

[ReillyT]

Damn... you're making me dislike him and I'm going to (at least as of right now) vote for him if he gets the nod. Now THAT'S the politics of division....

Please take a deep breath. There is no reason to do anything crazy. Don't blame Obama for Midcan.

 

[jillian]

Please take a deep breath. There is no reason to do anything crazy. Don't blame Obama for Midcan.

lol... fair enough!

tried to rep you for that, but it's not letting me yet.

 

[Ravi]

Please take a deep breath. There is no reason to do anything crazy. Don't blame Obama for Midcan.

I keep telling myself that.

 

[Gunny]

As Jillian said Reilly....the Obama camp has been pushing that the super D's must go with the vote of the people within their state and ALL that garbage....

but Clinton won pennsylvania and other states where those super delegates have not committed to her yet...they are holding back and may go against the will of their voters and go with Obama....so where the heck are the holier than thou Obama fans that were squealing bloody murder about the super delegates going with the will of the people?

hypocrites....period.

And look at senator Kerry and senator Kennedy....THEY are NOT going with how their state voted for goodness sakes...it went near 70% to Clinton in the primaries?

So, again, can you explain the Obama side for me on this issue to where it does not spell hypocrisy?

And Reilly, I am not singling you out, you are actually pretty moderate on this issue....I guess I just need some help in understanding these Obamaites that are pushing racism and are being hypocrites regarding the super delegates...

care

Then there's FL and Michigan ... and the fact that Obama supporters were allowed to legally steal delegates here by caucusing after the people that have jobs voted and went home.

 

[midcan5]

Damn... you're making me dislike him and I'm going to (at least as of right now) vote for him if he gets the nod. Now THAT'S the politics of division....

I would hope that what I write or post has no affect on your decision.

It is racist in America to embroil color into a party's election during a time that is supposed to be color blind. Are we? Of course not, but do we aspire to that ideal. I hope so. And should a candidate bring it up in that manner - in my opinion, hell, no. Framing an election in color tones is wrong, debate policy not the skin color of your followers.

 

[Gunny]

what the fuck ever.

You are only supporting a gullible bitch who voted for giving the pres authorization to invade iraq. I mean, why hold dems accountable when there is a chance to put a vagina in the white house? Indeed, talk about the blind team sport bandwagon of bushites...

Which Democrat that held a seat in 2003 did not? Obama wasn't even there, so his ranting about "he was against it" is fine, but had he not voted the party line he'd have a tick mark by his name. Do you think he would honestly be the darling of the party with a few of those tickmarks?

No. Just like he will be an ineffective President. To deliver on his promises, he has to buck the status quo -- the bureaucracy not just the GOP -- and the party he currently the darling of will turn on him as fast as they did Hillary.

Why hold people accountable based on information you have now for voting based on iformation they had then? That's called Monday Morning quarteracking and it's intellectually dishonest.

 

[Gunny]

"And Mr Obama has repeatedly brought up Hillary's vote on the Iraq resolution "



the nerve of Obama to bring up a real issue.

And dishonestly twist it? Yeah, can't imagine why anyone would question THAT.

 

[Gunny]

I don't think Hillary the Hun was gullible about Iraq, I think she was wholy owned by AIPAC et al from when Bill was, and I think that there was no question about which way she would go.

But from my point of view, I see her as pol first, last, and middle, and being a certain gender has nothing to do with it, she would take out anything and anyone if she thought they were in her way.

I am just glad for some of us that she was skint of that veneer she carried, and has been shown up for the racist she is, cannot help being.

I do get a laugh about her calling Obama the elitist..... back in the day when ms. Rodham went to Wellesley it wasn't about a scholarship, or anything, her family wrote a check for tuition and all that. They were Republicans, she was a sorority girl Goldwater Girl (back then sororities didn't take scholarship types), but Obama is the elitist?:

Hillary Clinton and Her Martin Luther King Jr Problem
By JT Thompson | The Hillary Project
WASHINGTON -- While Hillary Rodham Clinton came out second best to Barack Obama in their long-range oratorical duel at Selma, Ala., the real problem with her visit there a week ago concerned her March 4 speech's claim of her attachment to Martin Luther King Jr. as a high school student in 1963. How, then, could she be a "Goldwater girl" in the next year's presidential election? The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton's temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy.

Barry Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 voting rights bill was not incidental to his run for the White House but an integral element of conscious departure from Republican tradition that contributed to his disastrous performance.

Of course, no political candidate should have to explain inconsistencies of her high school days. What Hillary Clinton said at Selma is significant because it betrays her campaign's panicky reaction to the unexpected rise of Sen. Obama as a serious competitor for the Democratic nomination.

The Clinton game plan for returning to the White House reflected tactics used in 2000 when she parachuted into New York to tie up campaign money, secure support from important Democrats and discourage potential opponents for the nomination. It seemed to be working on the national scene, discouraging longtime presidential aspirants. Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack dropped out, and Democrats who dared to run were being snowed under by the Clinton tide.

Clinton's plans were transformed by the advent of Obama, an African-American threatening the hard allegiance of black voters forged by Bill Clinton. On one hand, the Clinton campaign has attacked Obama and his supporters. On the other hand, she has sought to solidify her civil rights credentials.

Speaking at Selma's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march there, Sen. Clinton declared: "As a young girl [age 16], I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union."

Young Hillary Rodham answered that challenge the next year as the 17-year-old class president at Maine East High School in the Chicago suburbs. She described herself in her memoirs as "an active Young Republican" and "a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit." As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King.

Hillary headed the Young Republicans at Wellesley College as a freshman before defecting to the Democrats there. But when in 1969 at age 22 she was the first Wellesley student to deliver the commencement address, she did not place civil rights first. She talked about a demonstration in Founder's parking lot at the college that "protested against the rigid academic distribution requirement" and supported "a pass-fail system" and "a say" in "academic decision making." That was not quite Martin Luther King's agenda.

While Clinton was re-inventing her past, her campaign was shaken by the first serious, public internal Democratic criticism of the Clintons since the 1992 presidential campaign. The sharp rebuke of Hollywood producer David Geffen, the erstwhile Clinton friend now backing Obama, was approved unanimously by a campaign conference call presided over by consultant Mark Penn. Bill Clinton was not on that call. But the former president, described by Democratic sources as "incandescent" over Geffen's remarks, recommended the harsh response.

Hillary Clinton's road to the White House is not going as planned. Instead of a steady procession to coronation at the Denver convention, she is involved in a real struggle against credible opponents led by Obama. No wonder she and her handler were tempted to imply the existence long ago of a teen-ager in Chicago's suburbs who never really existed.

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index...hillary_clinton_and_her_martin_luther_king_jr

McCain will have us in on-going war because he is a spun out loonie, and she will to prove she is "man enough," sans testicles!

 

[Gunny]

contessa it's possible Shogun just doesn't know what AIPAC is....



personally i think it's a dam good point

Oh Hell ... rep for the house then. Doeton agrees with a screwball. I am shocked. SHOCKED.

 

[Gunny]

How was what she said racist?

I wasn't, but good luck explaining it to the Obama folks. Your boy told me in another thread all my facts were correct but I was wrong anyway for not reading into it with HIS crystal ball.

How can you argue with logic like THAT?