[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
No, it would not take a “miracle” for the person leading in pledged delegates, the popular vote, and total states won to carry the nomination. Most people would see it as a foregone conclusion. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
It is just about impossible for Obama to win without Superdelegates. CNN and other pundits/experts have shown this by mathematial models. Obama simply can not win with just “pledged” delegates. Both need Superdelegates, just Hillary needs a lot more.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
It is just about impossible for Obama to win without Superdelegates. CNN and other pundits/experts have shown this by mathematial models. Obama simply can not win with just “pledged” delegates. Both need Superdelegates, just Hillary needs a lot more.
[/QUOTE]
What’s your point?
[QUOTE=jayjay]
His involvement was perhaps not lying about his involvement?
[/QUOTE]
Ah, I see. Yup, that gives him more foreign policy experience.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
I had no problem with HRC’s red phone ad or Obama’s flyers criticizing HRC’s past position on NAFTA. It is a political contest so attacking your opponent’s perceived weakness is fair game, but the Clintons chose to use a smear against Obama, a fellow Democrat. Bill Clinton has implied that Obama doesn’t love his country, feeding into right wing feigned histrionics. In contrast to Obama’s dubious patriotism, the Clintons emphasize and praise John McCain’s nationalism and political experience. Frankly, I don’t believe the Rev. Wright tapes are the result of clever investigative journalism by Fox News. It is too coincidental that those tapes surfaced on the heels of Geraldine Ferraro’s racist comments. I believe the Clintons leaked those clips of Rev Wright to Fox News. Bill Clinton knows Rev Wright, maybe not intimately, but Clinton did invite the Rev Wright to the White House. Undoubtedly, Bill Clinton – as the first black president - is aware of the tone and style used by Trinity Church pastors. Furthermore, it is curious that HRC turned down both CNN and MSNBC invites, choosing, instead, to give an exclusive interview to Fox News. Maybe this is the deal she made with Murdoch.
Fostering underlying racism, blind patriotism, and prejudicial stereotypes is distasteful. The criticism and campaign tactics waged against Obama by the Clintons are definitely a smear. Sadly, it is the media that play the most important role in stoking racial misunderstanding.
I actually think this strategy worked and HRC may get this nomination. We live in a social climate that encourages winning at all costs. The Clintons only confirm this notion.
[/QUOTE]
The McCain campaign was found to have put out a video clip of Wright and Obama in some sort of montage package; I think it was them in the first place, personally.
But the idea that it was the Clintons playing the race card is, IMO, yet another example of smearing them as race-playing closet bigots or race-playing politicos if nothing else, not to mention smearing them as racists which isn’t too far removed from the accusations (as Ferraro correctly pointed out; every time something goes down, the Obama campaign accuses of racism). Similarly, Bill Clinton says it would be great if we could have a campaign between two candidates that love their country and he’s smeared as questioning Obama’s patriotism. I just don’t buy it. This tactic of playing the victim is pernicious, in my view. What anyone had in their mind is not something we can know, but it seems to me the Obama campaign is pretty cynical about pushing this racist narrative, as was apparently proven by an internal memo to that effect.
I agree that the media is largely responsible for stoking it.
Maybe HRC went to Fox seeing as how it’s a running joke already how she gets disproportionately grilled at the debates hosted by the other channels as mocked on SNL.
Meanwhile, if Obama had done Fox there’d be crowing about his ‘bipartisanship’ and reaching out to ‘the other side.’ :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
What’s your point?
[/QUOTE]
What’s yours? 
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Furthermore, he hasn’t won the big states, just more of the smaller ones that won’t even be in play.
[/quote]
He won Alaska and Texas. They’re the two biggest. 
Seriously, though, you have to get into some pretty convoluted ways of measuring things to come up with a system where Hillary is ahead. He has won small states that may or may not be “in play” for the general… but they are definitely “in play” for the primary. Obama’s campaign has outmaneuvered Hillary’s time and time again.
Judges, let’s take a look: “Presumptive nominee” is worth… ah, zero delegates.
Yep. They sure are… big. Next point, please.
Incorrect.
I was under the impression that the only organization awarding meaningful credentials was the DNCC Credentials Committee.
She may, but I’m not rushing to get her to go away. I would certainly prefer for her to think about how the tone of this primary campaign is affecting the Democratic nominee’s chances in the general, but at this point I think asking her to consider anything other than Her Victory is futile.
Again: maybe so. But that doesn’t mean she’ll close the gap with Obama.
No, he didn’t land a knockout blow. But Hillary’s delegate lead in Rhode Island was nullified by Obama’s lead in Texas, and his wins in Vermont and Wyoming nullify her win in Ohio. He actually increased his lead over the course of March. In racing, that’s called “pulling away”. Texas and Ohio were both billed as “must-win” states for her, and she didn’t win them both.
She tied.
I don’t want the voting to stop, but I wouldn’t mind if this were over. Of course, you don’t have to turn the clock back very far at all to find a day when Hillary believed that a lead of a hundred or so delegates would seal her victory. Everyone knew that her early strategy was to build a credible lead – at the time, a hundred votes would have done it – then turn the screws, get a bunch of supers to declare for her, and force the other candidate out “for the good of the party.” Notice the heavy coverage of delegate totals (vice pledged delegate counts) in the early states to see how the narrative was being written.
I will never count a Clinton out until I can look down from a safe distance, plainly see both hands, and get a good look up both sleeves. They do have a talent for coming back. But here’s the score:
Obama’s strategy at this point is simple: continue to get out the vote, and don’t lose. If you imagine Hillary can show up to Denver with fewer delegates than Obama and win the nomination without becoming a radioactive candidate for the party, you’re dreaming.
Hillary’s strategy, on the other hand, has to focus on beating the game: she needs to get ahead in numbers, she needs to find a way to rewrite the MI and FL rules, she needs to stop hemorrhaging superdelegates, she needs to keep the party leadership from aligning against her and muscling her out (I don’t want to see it either, but if she keeps tearing down Obama it could happen)… she needs to squeeze every advantage she can get from the rules. Like I said, I’m not counting her out, but among other foul-ups, her campaign has failed to name a full slate of delegates for Pennsylvania; that’s like starting a chess match already down a piece. Experienced players may do that when they feel they have a great advantage… but she doesn’t. If she’s going to win she can’t make any more amateur procedural mistakes, or get caught in any more silly off-the-cuff lies, or make panicky personnel changes, or be the second one to make a speech on any issue.
She needs to step up, be the first to the microphone with serious policy proposals, and beat Obama in every single aspect of the contest that remains. I don’t think she’s got it in her.
[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
Perhaps, but […] I’m not convinced that there isn’t something more up her sleeve.
[…]
I think, seriously, that the other shoe has yet to drop from her craggly talon.
[/QUOTE]
There are three positions she could be in right now (really, that any campaign is ever in):
(A) She has an attack ready and is using it.
(B) She has an attack ready but is not using it… yet.
(C) She has no more attacks.
(A) can only be true for a few news cycles before it either loops back to (B) and the next attack is readied, or it finally drops to the lowest energy state: (C). Once a traditional campaign* hits (C) they have to bluff for the duration. You’re saying that her apparent confidence coupled with her relative ineffectiveness argues for (B) -> (A). I argue that politicians are bullshitters, none better than the Clintons, and that the confidence is really bluster and bluff. She’s sitting at (C).
If you assume she does have something, and that she is willing to use it, then to what do you attribute her hesitation?
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
It is just about impossible for Obama to win without Superdelegates. CNN and other pundits/experts have shown this by mathematial models.
[/quote]
I would not consider simple addition and subtraction “mathematical models”.
What you’re basically saying here is that of the roughly 3,250 pledged delegates available, Obama should have to win more than 62 percent of them in order for him to claim the nomination legitimately. (Assuming 3,250 pledged and 800 supers, that gives a total of 4050, half of which is 2025. 2025/3250 = .62)
So, is your point really that Obama should have to win more than three fifths of the pledged delegates so that the discussion about him needing superdelegate support to win the nomination can stop?
[QUOTE=Jurph]
He won Alaska and Texas. They’re the two biggest. Seriously, though, you have to get into some pretty convoluted ways of measuring things to come up with a system where Hillary is ahead. He has won small states that may or may not be “in play” for the general… but they are definitely “in play” for the primary. Obama’s campaign has outmaneuvered Hillary’s time and time again.
Judges, let’s take a look: “Presumptive nominee” is worth… ah, zero delegates.
Yep. They sure are… big. Next point, please.
Incorrect.
I was under the impression that the only organization awarding meaningful credentials was the DNCC Credentials Committee.
She may, but I’m not rushing to get her to go away. I would certainly prefer for her to think about how the tone of this primary campaign is affecting the Democratic nominee’s chances in the general, but at this point I think asking her to consider anything other than Her Victory is futile.
Again: maybe so. But that doesn’t mean she’ll close the gap with Obama.
No, he didn’t land a knockout blow. But Hillary’s delegate lead in Rhode Island was nullified by Obama’s lead in Texas, and his wins in Vermont and Wyoming nullify her win in Ohio. He actually increased his lead over the course of March. In racing, that’s called “pulling away”. Texas and Ohio were both billed as “must-win” states for her, and she didn’t win them both.
She tied.
I don’t want the voting to stop, but I wouldn’t mind if this were over. Of course, you don’t have to turn the clock back very far at all to find a day when Hillary believed that a lead of a hundred or so delegates would seal her victory. Everyone knew that her early strategy was to build a credible lead – at the time, a hundred votes would have done it – then turn the screws, get a bunch of supers to declare for her, and force the other candidate out “for the good of the party.” Notice the heavy coverage of delegate totals (vice pledged delegate counts) in the early states to see how the narrative was being written.
I will never count a Clinton out until I can look down from a safe distance, plainly see both hands, and get a good look up both sleeves. They do have a talent for coming back. But here’s the score:
Obama’s strategy at this point is simple: continue to get out the vote, and don’t lose. If you imagine Hillary can show up to Denver with fewer delegates than Obama and win the nomination without becoming a radioactive candidate for the party, you’re dreaming.
Hillary’s strategy, on the other hand, has to focus on beating the game: she needs to get ahead in numbers, she needs to find a way to rewrite the MI and FL rules, she needs to stop hemorrhaging superdelegates, she needs to keep the party leadership from aligning against her and muscling her out (I don’t want to see it either, but if she keeps tearing down Obama it could happen)… she needs to squeeze every advantage she can get from the rules. Like I said, I’m not counting her out, but among other foul-ups, her campaign has failed to name a full slate of delegates for Pennsylvania; that’s like starting a chess match already down a piece. Experienced players may do that when they feel they have a great advantage… but she doesn’t. If she’s going to win she can’t make any more amateur procedural mistakes, or get caught in any more silly off-the-cuff lies, or make panicky personnel changes, or be the second one to make a speech on any issue.
She needs to step up, be the first to the microphone with serious policy proposals, and beat Obama in every single aspect of the contest that remains. I don’t think she’s got it in her.
[/QUOTE]
Wow, so many point by point responses. I guess I’ll go in order:
Obama’s campaign has never outmaneuvered Hillary in convincingly winning (actually, winning at ALL – and I’m talking popular, not delegate count) the large, critical states that are needed in the general election and many of the ones he has won won’t be up for the taking in the general anyway so who cares; it also won’t get him the nomination by achieving the minimum number of delegates.
Yup, they sure are big. You dismiss that, but it’s a critical part of her argument to the supers and it is a valid argument. It can’t simply be wished away. Obama has not proven he can win the big states and there’s a larger percentage of her voters that will go to McCain in the general than the other way around.
Not incorrect, I’m talking popular at the time of the convention, not delegates now or then.
Funny, but I’m obviously speaking of her credentials in terms of her superior experience that will also be part of her argument to supers between then and now.
She’s not expecting to close the gap with Obama on delegates. So what? It’s been known for a while now that it was going to go to the supers. Obama can’t close the gap to 2,025 either.
She won both Ohio and Texas. I’m talking popular, again, not delegates; and that’s because the delegates aren’t going to clinch the nod for him anyway and when Denver arrives and neither has 2,025 then the delegate count will not determine the winner. It will be the supers. There’s an argument that they should/will/would vote for the one with the most delegates, but there’s an equally valid argument that they’ll go with the one with the popular vote which I expect will be HRC by then. If that’s the case, the pledged delegates are moot.
She didn’t tie, she won. Popular.
She doesn’t need to be tied or even close to Obama in pledged delegates. Neither is going to win this on pledged delegates, they’re all but moot already.
Obama’s “strategy” is get people to vote for you and don’t lose? Um. Next point, please…
I don’t imagine Hillary can show up to Denver with fewer delegates than Obama and win the nomination without becoming a radioactive candidate for the party. Hence, I’m not dreaming.
I imagine she will show up to Denver with fewer delegates than Obama and win the nomination and be a radioactive candidate for the party. So be it.
She doesn’t need to rewrite the MI and FL rules, she’s already got the popular in both those states and seeing as how neither of them is going to clinch the delegates anyway before Denver, she’ll use MI and FL’s popular vote lead as part of her rationale. It will work or it won’t, but that’s the strategy.
Being the second one to make a speech on any issue is a bad thing? That’s odd.
She has stepped up and been the first to lay out serious policy proposals time and again including her proposals on postnatal care, capping insurance at between 5 and 10%, etc. Nobody can seriously contend she isn’t more knowledgeable and well-versed at healthcare than Obama is.
She doesn’t need to beat Obama in every single aspect of the contest that remains; I think Obama will win NC and tie in Indiana and it still won’t be enough for him to win on delegates.
Delegates will then be out, won’t be obligated to be pledged any longer, and it will go the superdelegates which are mostly women, have longstanding ties to the Clintons, and the masses of them haven’t announced as of now. If they wanted to shut it down (as seems the media bent as of now) then they’d have done it already.
As for Obama, he needs to stop getting caught in more damaging off-the-cuff phrases like “typical white person”, making panicky changes to his spiritual advisors, and see if he can get his story straight on what he would/should/could/will do with regards to Trinity and make the folks in PA and elsewhere feel comfortable with the endorsements of the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers.
Oh yeah, and he needs to find a way to make his efforts to not have MI and FL counted or redone not seem like an effort to run out the clock before the tide turns and she rises (yet again).
And finally, he needs to not have another major scandal or three between now and then and do well at both of the anticipated upcoming debates.
I believe Obama’s camp will be digging through HRC’s tax records soon.
Then again, the idea of a scandal derailing a Clinton is pretty laughable.
He’s done pretty well in having dealt with his first and only major scandal ever in this entire campaign with the Wright situation, but it’s not dead, still percolating, and with his typical white person comment and follow-up questions sure to continue and also resurface at the debates next month, he’s not out of those woods yet.
Really good detailed reply on your part. I’m gonna try to summarize the responses from hereon out though cuz going down point for point is a bit much; especially since these points have already been covered upthread or in another one. Thanks for your thoughts.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
The McCain campaign was found to have put out a video clip of Wright and Obama in some sort of montage package; I think it was them in the first place, personally.
[/QUOTE]
I considered McCain’s camp, but I just don’t see McCain approving of smear tactics. What is the gain for McCain to smear Obama in the primary? Does McCain think he can beat HRC in the general but not Obama? Oddly enough, the Clintons are happy to sing McCain’s praises, which could be misunderstood as an endorsement. Nope, I believe the Clintons leaked the tapes. It is the only explanation that makes sense to me.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
But the idea that it was the Clintons playing the race card is, IMO, yet another example of smearing them as race-playing closet bigots or race-playing politicos if nothing else, not to mention smearing them as racists which isn’t too far removed from the accusations (as Ferraro correctly pointed out; every time something goes down, the Obama campaign accuses of racism).
[/QUOTE]
** 9thFloor**, I don’t believe the Clintons are bigots, but I believe they will do and say anything to win, including smear a fellow Democrat. The Rev Wright is being used to stir racial fears, promote a threat to contrived patriotism and capitalize on ignorance. I don’t condone or respect these tactics. In fact, I desperately want to move away from mass media perpetual ignorance and restore a shared social value in education, truth, knowledge and understanding.
You forgot: “I will not be discriminated against because I am white.” When a person dismisses the existence of racism while belittling black accomplishment, s/he is a racist. Please spare me the spin. Ferraro made an overtly racist and offensive remark and now she is offended because people are offended. If you don’t think this Rev Wright fixation is about race, then you are being disingenuous.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Maybe HRC went to Fox seeing as how it’s a running joke already how she gets disproportionately grilled at the debates hosted by the other channels as mocked on SNL.
[/QUOTE]
Nah - Clinton is clearly courting the right wing. It is obvious. Maybe the Republicans would rather have HRC than McCain. I honestly don’t know. Maybe HRC wants McCain to win so she can run again in four years. Whatever the reason, I now view the Clintons as sell outs and certainly not progressive Democrats, not that they ever were. Clearly, the right wing, and probably most corporate/centrist Democrats, don’t want Obama to win. The power structure on Wall Street and in Congress are terrified of a populist movement.
[QUOTE=Jurph]
There are three positions she could be in right now (really, that any campaign is ever in):
(A) She has an attack ready and is using it.
(B) She has an attack ready but is not using it… yet.
(C) She has no more attacks.
(A) can only be true for a few news cycles before it either loops back to (B) and the next attack is readied, or it finally drops to the lowest energy state: (C). Once a traditional campaign* hits (C) they have to bluff for the duration. You’re saying that her apparent confidence coupled with her relative ineffectiveness argues for (B) -> (A). I argue that politicians are bullshitters, none better than the Clintons, and that the confidence is really bluster and bluff. She’s sitting at (C).
If you assume she does have something, and that she is willing to use it, then to what do you attribute her hesitation?
My apologies for butting in, I know you weren’t speaking to me but here’s my answer on why she hasn’t dropped any attacks she might have: she’s already in a comfortable lead in PA and will drop them, if they’re there, in a kitchen sink manner after the two upcoming debates so as to not give Obama time to respond with a beautiful speech.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
I considered McCain’s camp, but I just don’t see McCain approving of smear tactics. What is the gain for McCain to smear Obama in the primary? Does McCain think he can beat HRC in the general but not Obama?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. Also, I’d expect it wasn’t ordered from McCain on down; lots of these things happen by surrogates.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
** 9thFloor**, I don’t believe the Clintons are bigots, but I believe they will do and say anything to win, including smear a fellow Democrat. The Rev Wright is being used to stir racial fears, promote a threat to contrived patriotism and capitalize on ignorance. I don’t condone or respect these tactics. In fact, I desperately want to move away from mass media perpetual ignorance and restore a shared social value in education, truth, knowledge and understanding.
[/QUOTE]
She didn’t invent Wright. Obama brought him on board on his own. She said nothing about it at all until after he gave his speech and only answered a direct question about what she would have done afterwards. Every possible thing she says or does when he’s caught with his pants down his labeled a ‘smear’; in my view, trying to tar the opponent as a ‘smear’ tactic candidate is itself a smear.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
You forgot: “I will not be discriminated against because I am white.” When a person dismisses the existence of racism while belittling black accomplishment, s/he is a racist. Please spare me the spin. Ferraro made an overtly racist and offensive remark and now she is offended because people are offended. If you don’t think this Rev Wright fixation is about race, then you are being disingenuous.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t forget that, I believe she has a valid point. Being white and the existence of racism don’t grant carte blanche to being falsely accused of being a racist just because of your race and because you speak your thoughts (which were the truth, IMO). You read her analysis as belittling “black accomplishment”, but I do not. She is not a racist. That is a smear and slur. The idea that a black candidate can’t be critiqued as benefiting from his race in this day and age without that being treated as belittling “black accomplishment” (whatever that means) strikes me as the more racist position. I think African Americans are grownups and don’t need or want to be condescended to in that manner. “Black accomplishment,” indeed.
The Rev. Wright fixation is about race, and I didn’t say otherwise. It’s Obama’s fault, however, not HRC’s. She didn’t make him go there for 20 years.
Please do not assert that I am being disingenuous. Thanks.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
The power structure on Wall Street and in Congress are terrified of a populist movement.
[/QUOTE]
I’d agree with that. I’d add, they’re also terrified of a neophyte with the most liberal voting record in the Senate and I’d guess the Nation of Islam and New Black Panthers endorsements aren’t making them too tickled either. Damn racists! :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
In my view, the best argument for not dropping out at this point isn’t mud; it’s that letting people finish voting is a good thing. The Dems sure felt that way when it was Gore and Florida and there’d been shenanigans and confusion going on as there has been this time with MI and FL not being counted, etc.
[/quote]
Part of my answer to this ties in with your second paragraph, but I’ll cover one part now. Candidates drop out of primaries all the time. It has nothing to do with people getting a chance to finish voting and everything with moving the campaign and the party forward.
Part of the reason that you’re seeing voters turn off of the opposing is because this campaign is dragging on. It’s anecdotal, but I’ve seen a few posters on this board recently saying that Bosnia and Hillary’s redrudging of Wright in response, and the letter by Hillary supporters to Nancy Pelosi are causing them to rethink voting for Hillary should she get the nomination. I haven’t seen any reasons for the opposite (not supporting Obama), or I’d post them. That’s all within the last week. We still have presumably until June. The longer this campaign goes, and the more mud that gets dragged up, the more hard feelings are going to be created.
And as it stands right now, the percentage of supporters that won’t vote for the other candidate may not impact traditionally blue states. Obama is actually faring better against McCain in California than Hillary right now. That may change the longer this drags on, but then isn’t that illustrating my point of why it’s better to end this sooner?
Agreed that it’s hard to predict, but mine is the easier conclusion to make. Hillary’s negatives are at all time highs. Quoting the factual bits from the opinion piece.
Plus her foreign policy claims may take a further hit if this catches.
As far as the damage the Wright controversy has caused, not so much.
I can’t deny that it’s possible for Hillary to go into Denver with a lead in popular vote. Things could change after Pennsylvania, which is a likely win for Hillary. It’s still long odds though.
[QUOTE=Jurph]
He won Alaska and Texas. They’re the two biggest.
Obama’s strategy at this point is simple: continue to get out the vote, and don’t lose. If you imagine Hillary can show up to Denver with fewer delegates than Obama and win the nomination without becoming a radioactive candidate for the party, you’re dreaming.
[/QUOTE]
And both those states have less chance of voting Dem in the General election than I have. Nor did Obama “win” Texas- he did squeeze a couple more Delegates due to the Caucus, but Clinton got +101,029 or +3.5% more of the polular vote that Obama did. (That raise a good poiint- Obama-ites here are constantly whining about the Superdelegates not being “the will of the people” but Hillary got a smally but significant edge over Obama in Texas, but he still ended up with more delegates, due to the Caucuses. Should Obama cede those vote to Hillary? :dubious: )
Hillary has a chance, and that chance is that Obama can blow it. He can do something (I have no idea what) and the Dems would have to give up on him and turn to her.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
I didn’t forget that, I believe she has a valid point. Being white and the existence of racism don’t grant carte blanche to being falsely accused of being a racist just because of your race and because you speak your thoughts (which were the truth, IMO). You read her analysis as belittling “black accomplishment”, but I do not. She is not a racist. That is a smear and slur. The idea that a black candidate can’t be critiqued as benefiting from his race in this day and age without that being treated as belittling “black accomplishment” (whatever that means) strikes me as the more racist position.
[/QUOTE]
Ferraro’s remarks are racist. There is no other way to spin it, no false accusation. She essentially said that Obama’s popularity and lead in the primary is because he is black, as if being black is a great advantage. :rolleyes: Ferraro’s remark denigrates Obama’s – all African American’s - accomplishments.
I don’t believe Ferraro’s comments were unplanned. The Clintons and surrogates are smart people. Everything that has occurred in the Clinton campaign is by design.
I didn’t say you are disingenuous. I am saying that denying the Rev Wright controversy and Ferraro’s comments are about race and fueling racism is disingenuous.
Wasn’t Bill Clinton also incorrectly labeled a radical liberal? Personally, I want a liberal/progressive in the White House. I don’t think the corporate world wants a liberal, which explains the media coverage. I am tired of conservatism dominating the culture and neoconservatives pushing Democratic candidates to the right. The Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers were created as a reaction to racism. I would like to see the Clinton camp dispel racism instead of embracing it to win an election.
And for the record, Obama is my first choice, but I always planned to vote for HRC if she won the nomination. I have defended HRC on this board because she has been the recipient of vulgar, sexist remarks. Over the course of this campaign, I have lost all respect for the Clintons; they are using the same tactics against Obama that were used against them. Again, we live in a culture that encourages winning at all costs, cheat to win, lie to win, but win, win, win. There are no ethics or boundaries anymore. It is the wild-wild west. At least Obama is trying to use intellect instead of capitalizing on ignorance.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
And for the record, Obama is my first choice, but I always planned to vote for HRC if she won the nomination. I have defended HRC on this board because she has been the recipient of vulgar, sexist remarks. Over the course of this campaign, I have lost all respect for the Clintons; they are using the same tactics against Obama that were used against them. Again, we live in a culture that encourages winning at all costs, cheat to win, lie to win, but win, win, win. There are no ethics or boundaries anymore. It is the wild-wild west. At least Obama is trying to use intellect instead of capitalizing on ignorance.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed right down the line.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
And for the record, Obama is my first choice, but I always planned to vote for HRC if she won the nomination. I have defended HRC on this board because she has been the recipient of vulgar, sexist remarks. Over the course of this campaign, I have lost all respect for the Clintons; they are using the same tactics against Obama that were used against them. Again, we live in a culture that encourages winning at all costs, cheat to win, lie to win, but win, win, win. There are no ethics or boundaries anymore. It is the wild-wild west. At least Obama is trying to use intellect instead of capitalizing on ignorance.
[/QUOTE]
Disagree right down the line.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
There are no ethics or boundaries anymore. It is the wild-wild west. At least Obama is trying to use intellect instead of capitalizing on ignorance.
[/QUOTE]
As far as I’m concerned, Obama crossed that line on the multiple occasions he asserted in a speech something like, “McCain says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq.” Obama strikes me as a very bright guy, and I absolutely do not believe that he thinks that’s what McCain said. In fact, I believe Obama knows that McCain specifically disavowed just such a thing. But he couldn’t resist grabbing the political points it would make, despite it being a shitty thing to do.
Obama said something that is a falsehood for the political hay it would make. Typical politics. He is not the pure soul some here pretend he is.
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Obama said something that is a falsehood for the political hay it would make. Typical politics. He is not the pure soul some here pretend he is.
[/QUOTE]
But, it isn’t a falsehood. It is exactly what McCain said.
[QUOTE=Napier]
>most of you were probably bill clinton supporters during his presidency and as supporters you are probably oblivious to their tactics
Johnny, you got me. I was oblivious, until this last few weeks. I find a lot to like in Hillary, but lately I have seen so much more to dislike.
I still think she’d probably make a fairly good president, though not nearly as good as Obama.
But, jeez, why does she have to be so slippery, so duplicitous, so power hungry, so Machiavellian?
If she somehow winds up the nominee (and I’ll give her a 10% chance of that), I dunno, it’s going to be hard to resist voting for goddam Nader.
[/QUOTE]
Bull. The indepedent council??? spent 40 million investigating Clinton. The Repubs starting with day one investigated his entire life and that of his family,friends and pets. They showed what ruthless was.