And on the bright side, if Obama gets half the pledged delegates available, plus one more super every day, we can… well, hell, I dunno what we’re going to do. Seems like this has been our main topic of conversation since February. :smack:
I know, Obama is sick of it too it seems. He’s already begining his GE strategy judging by his last several days campaigning.
I think his chances are good in the GE you?
As much as I hate to say it, I think it’s going to come down to how many people (electorates, whatever…) are sick of the current admin versus how many people won’t vote for a black man.
I sympathize, but there’s rhyme to the reason. There was a point in time — before West Virginia — when she could have suspended her campaign and generated goodwill as well as political capital, because she would still have won WV, KY, and PR (maybe by lesser margins, but still) making her look very good as a veep selection, which she then could have graciously declined if she wanted something more. But now it’s too late. She has committed herself, and there’s no backing out until June. So the supers are forced to wait.
I just think it is in the Clinton nature to fight even imaginary enemies, and if necessary to create them if they aren’t there. Just like Bill was lamenting the other day about oh why are they asking her to step down before the people have even voted, when in fact no one has done so. Even President Carter said she should wait until June 4. They make up this shit and then attack it.
Another interesting thing I heard today is that Clinton supporters do not tend to blame Obama for her fuckups. They blame the press. They blame men. They blame African-Americans. They blame Hillary’s goofy staff. They even blame Bill. But they don’t blame Obama personally. On the other hand, Obama supporters tend to blame Hillary personally. They think she’s too smart, too politically savvy for so much of this to be accidental. That’s interesting because it means that, despite polls and how they’re worded, the Obama people would be less likely to vote for Hillary than the Hillary people would to vote for Obama. Whom they would support might be different. But once in the voting booth, people often decide from their emotions.
Peggy Noonan expertly slices ‘n’ dices Hillary for boo-hooing as a victimized woman: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121148557268715077-lMyQjAxMDI4MTIxMzQyODM1Wj.html
Don’t know if he coined it, but a friend just described a certain frustrated candidate as:
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Nial)
Quality commentary. Spot on.
It’s come to that now, has it? Taking Peggy Noonan seriously?
Any reason why we shouldn’t, excepting her questioning of Hillary of course.
I’ve never heard of Peggy Noonan before, but she does have a point. The way you deal with prejudice is by demonstrating why it is wrong, not by whining about it. Which even when true, does virtually nothing in your favor.
Did anyone else who read the article feel that Hillary isn’t remarkable enough to have the historical honor of being the first female President?
Thatcher, Meir, and Indira Gandhi were something. Hillary, not so much.
Noonan was a speechwriter for Reagan and Bush I, and is now an author and WSJ columnist. I disagree with her on most political issues, but I think she has a certain flair as a wordsmith.
Guido Fawkes, scourge of the British Parliament, is reporting that Hilary is preparing a concession speech. No further details.
ACK! Your link–that . . . THING was there–
It’s following you :eek:
Perhaps it is to be the new RicRoll.
Obama picked up 2 superdelegates overnight: Oregon Democratic Chair Meredith Wood Smith, and Colorado Democratic Chair Pat Waak.
He is now 46 delegates from the (original) winning number. Hillary is coming on strong, though, with 0 overnight delegates and only 245 needed to win.
Nah. I read her book, [del]Start the Revolution Without Me[/del], er, What I Saw at the Revolution, many years ago, concluded that she wasn’t really all that bright, and have yet to see evidence to the contrary.
Agreed. Come on, folks - Noonan’s no stranger to politics, but most of her views get dismissed here as obvious crap.
Perhaps that’s because Noonan mentioned none of Hillary’s accomplishments and focused only on her “whining.” And for that matter, she didn’t really discuss much of what those three women accomplished, much less getting elected - maybe I skimmed the column too fast, but I don’t think Noonan talked about the remarkable Ms. Gandhi’s handling of The Emergency, for example.
I’ve got no end of disagreements with Clinton and with the way she’s conducted her campaign, but this is simply unfair. She might not be a Presidential candidate if she’d never met Bill Clinton, but she’s not just riding his coattails either. She strikes me as being very smart and well-informed even if I don’t agree with her political attitude and her answers to a number of problems.
Agree completely.
Of course, plenty of not very remarkable people have become president. It’s progress when a not remarkable enough woman can have a shot as well.
She is very smart and well informed. What is stopping her from being remarkable is that she is too scared to stop doing things politically. Remarkable and political don’t mix because all the really good ideas are considered too politically risky to say out loud.
Convincing Congress about your great ideas in secret won’t cut it. The people need to be convinced. That is how you run a democracy.
I’m actually a little upset that Hillary decided to play it safe in the primary. I’m also happy that she lost in part because of it. If you just watch her back in 1995* (I guess before serving in the U.S. Senate ate her soul) you can see a really smart, strong, and rational candidate. Too bad that Hillary didn’t show up in 2008.
*This is a speech she gave on womans rights to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women.
Whatchu talkin’ 'bout, Willis? She is Bill Clinton’s wife, for Pete’s sake.*
- And this, from somebody who had to be pried away (well, pushed) from supporting Clinton.