Oh, really? Then what does it say when a candidate is too dumb to even do that, and they lose piles of delegates as a result?
Obviously choices of how to deploy campaign resources are still quite important in the Dems’ system (seeing how Hillary went net -123 pledged delegates in the two weeks after Super Tuesday), and Hillary blew that test big time - a test that you say is harder to blow than a WTA system.
How much time do they spend campaigning in Fresno?
No, I wouldn’t.
But again, success in the EC correlates very strongly with success in the popular vote. And success in the popular vote is what the Dem primary system rewards, for the most part.
So, what’s the logic or evidence that winning a WTA primary system is conducive to winning the Presidency?
And there’s still the outstanding problem that if the Dem system had WTA states and districts, both candidates would have surely approached the primary season quite differently. Is it to Hillary’s credit that she pursued an approach in the primaries that would have enabled her to win under a scoring system that was not in use? Of course not. To have done so deliberately would have been absolutely idiotic.
She’s having as good a superdelegate week as Obama, then.
I think it is not uncharacteristic of Bill to do this at all. He and Hillary had been doing this all along. Don’t you ever remember how the Clintons ran the white house last time? The Clintons are famous for lying when both they and you know they are lying. It’s similar to what Bush has done, only under much smaller consequences. It’s some weird combination of Hubris and Chutzpah that expects the very least of the American people. It’s blatant, lying. However, it’s not lying about a hidden truth, it’s lying about something that is clearly already been proven true.
Here’s the Clinton MO, in case you haven’t figured it out yet…
Lie if you need to
Got Caught? Lie some more to get around it
Is it not going away? Blame some other entity
(Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, the Media, etc…)
Play the victim card.
It’s a very cynical approach, but it works, because to really catch them, you have to be very nit-picky and it’s always very murky in those waters. The truth is very difficult to ascertain in many of their situations, and only comes out to bite them when you have some kind of hard proof (Hillary’s Tuzla meet and greet) Whether or not they genuinely want the power of the Presidency for altruistic means I’m not sure. I would at the very least hope so. But it is abundantly clear that they have no qualms about being untruthful to get there.
If you are running for President in the future, I’d say this. Beware of Videocameras. Because if they aren’t around, you can do whatever the hell you want to. But when they are around, you’re stuck with a strict interpretation of events. You can even lie on camera, just don’t lie about something that can be spliced with your incorrect account.
Bill Clinton doesn’t give a damn about YouTube. He’s going to come across as good as possible with his Charisma. The Clintons care about putting their message across, and what they’ll put out there is the message that helps them the most given their situation, true or not.
I’m not saying this is a terrible thing, mind you, just that this is how they operate. Again, the only thing that matters to me is if they have altruistic motives for power. If not, then it’s reprehensible, if so, then it might be worth the lack of outward integrity.
Anyway, what the hell is going on with the campaigns lately? Hillary seems to have put the kitchen sink back in the counter, and the media is tearing her a new one every single day. I really hope Obama wins PA so we can be done with this, but it’s interesting how this is progressing.
Hillary has gained a few more supers it seems. I wouldn’t expect many more to follow. She probably had to make a lot of promises to get those superdelegates and I doubt she can get many more to follow.
Merkwurdigliebe, while I appreciate your passion, I don’t think Bill Clinton’s fuck-up in bringing up the Bosnia lie can be laid at the collective Clinton feet. Hillary has told him to put a sock in it.
It says that Hillary was too dumb to have a Plan B. I absolutely agree she blew that test big-time, and that any reasonable assessment of both campaigns leads to the conclusion that Obama’s has been managed an order of magnitude better than Clinton’s.
I agree with all of this, except for one thing: your earlier post strongly implies that the Plan B she didn’t have should have been part of her Plan A in the first place.
I’ve seen a lot more Obama signs than Hillary signs, but I live and work in Lancaster city itself and haven’t been out in the county much at all. I think Obama’s going to do well in southcentral PA (Lancaster, York, Reading…all of our mayors have endorsed Obama), but probably not Harrisburg itself so much because both Fast Eddie and the mayor of Harrisburg have endorsed Clinton. And “do well” doesn’t necessarily mean carry all or most of the counties down here, but rather hold his own numbers against the Clinton surge.
Have you heard about Obama’s stand in Philadelphia against paying “street money” to the ward heelers? I applaud this, even if it does lose him votes in Philly. You can’t claim your campaign is about change and then do things the way the corrupt political machines have forever.
Why didn’t anyone say back then that Senator Kerry’s 2004 use of street money showed a lack of character? I don’t recall a single denouncement on the subject here on the SDMB.
Kerry was never running on a change platform or “a different kind of politics”.
Personally, I think the funniest thing this primary season is the cynics coming out in force to try to stop Obama from proving that you CAN get elected without buying into the corruption and dirty traditions.
Because it was status quo. He did what every candidate before him has done, Obama is clearly different. This theme has been effective for him as well. If the USA can elect a man like Barack Obama then we have clearly turned the corner in the country - if we cannot, then that is what we show the nations of the world, and what we show unto ourselves - that we are not ready for change here in the US of A.
Staus quo or not, the question is: “Does paying ‘street money’ indicate a lack of character?” If it does, then what does it matter whether it was status quo or not?
Very fair.
I had heard of it in connection with more general quasi-dirty “get out the vote” tactics, and I don’t recall ever having a debate here that focused specifically on that issue. I had NEVER seen it so blatantly discussed in mainstream press before, and that certainly adds credence to your saying you’d never heard of it before.
