Senator Clinton cancelled a rally today after the officer in her motorcade died. She said that she knew that the audience was aware of how grateful Clinton was for their presence but that it would be inappropriate for her to speak given the circumstances and thanked them for coming out.
I think that was exactly the right thing to do and commend her for it. Cancelling a rally at this point in the elections is a blow but she did the right thing.
Here’s her words:
Which they weren’t. She knows she’s losing, but has not lost yet; it’s still very close. Her strategy now is - and I think it’s a good one - to avoid doing anything to lose votes, accept that she is probably doomed, but give Obama and his campaign the opportunity, slim though it might be, to do or say something really stupid between now and March 4 that might turn things around. She can’t catch up, but she CAN keep the pace and hope he stumbles, or work the back alley approaches - superdelegates and/or finagling a way to seat MI and FL.
And you never know. Stranger things have happened in politics. Why concede when your opponent might jam a foot in his mouth on March 2 and blow a hole open you can run through?
And I agree that she will not accept a VP nomination, and I doubt Obama would offer it. She’s still a Senator who is a virtual lock to win one or two more terms, and that’s not exactly the worst job in the world.
I’m not offended. My brain is just caught on something. She goes on the offensive with the “change you can xerox” line which is less than gracious, then turns at the end to talk about how honored she is to be sitting next to him. Could the first be a just a poorly recieved shot and the second the sincere part? Sure. Could it have been insincere and simply a way for her to shore up her image after getting jeered at earlier? Yep. It doesn’t mean that she is overall a less than wonderful person because she said something while at a debate and running for office that may not have been sincere.
John Mace, I’m not going to count Obama as having won anything until the last delegate is seated. While unlikely, Hillary still could rack up some delegates and leverage on the supers.
She lost my support with the “change you can Xerox” groaner- she ought to fire whoever wrote that one for her. Did they really think it would be a “you’re no Jack Kennedy” type moment? :rolleyes:
Obama did a great deal to turn me off back in New Hampshire with his condescending “You’re likeable enough, Hillary”.
That line alone should negate the $2 million she reportedly owes Mark Penn.
“Hillary, about the two million you owe me…”
“'Change you can Xerox,” Mark. ‘Change you can Xerox’"
Replay: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QoMCoMMgeO0
It was clearly a joke, and everyone (including Hillary) laughed… not roared (it wasn’t that funny), but laughed. The notion that he was trying to belittle her rather than making an off-the-cuff (if not that funny) joke is spin that even Johan Santana can’t put on a ball.
Well that sucked getting home in this muck outside…I’ll start a UHC thread, but I’ve got to do a little informed research.
BTW - quipping about last night is silly. This race is far from over…but it’s no question she has a mountain to climb and may not have the resources to climb it.,
This issue is my biggest hesitation with supporting Obama over Clinton: it is a real policy difference between them, and as I understand it, I think Clinton is on the right side of the issue (sorry to agree with you, Elvis, but there it is). Granted, I’ve gotten this information from Krugman, and I’ve not really read rebuttals to it, but he lays out a pretty convincing case.
Your post, perhaps inadvertantly, suggests to me a very interesting dynamic: with Obama in the White House and Clinton in the Senate, you’d have the possibility for a very powerful executive/legislative team to get UHC passed in some form or another, or at least something that’s on the way toward UHC.
For what it’s worth, I’ve decided that Obama deserves my support despite his health care position, not because of it. His candidacy, coupled with Clinton’s and with the state of US politics at home and abroad (I guess that’s not so much coupled as threesomed), has convinced me that voting for personality over policy is sometimes a wise move. I might support Clinton’s policies more, but I believe her personality will lead to a worse situation than Obama’s would.
Daniel
*Clinton * was joking, to dissipate as graciously as possible a way-out-of-line question from the moderator. In fact, she did give Obama credit props for his likeability. Obama’s answer was not at all gracious, it was given without looking at her directly, and was immediately followed by his looking down to hide his face while he mentally kicked himself for making such a mean-seeming gaffe.
But it is not hard to guess what you’ll choose to believe instead.
Yeah, I shouldn’t have been so definitive. Hillary is definitely the underdog at this point, but I wouldn’t count her completely out yet. And I certainly don’t see her comments as a concession speech. I expect her to fight, and fight hard, until it’s mathematically impossible for her to win. I favor Obama over her, but I think she’d be foolish to drop out now or even to be thinking about it. (Maybe she can get Huckabee to send one of his miracles her way. 
)
It’s not that hard, see?
It was entirely advertent, I assure you. It could well be the same dynamic if the names were reversed, too - which is the main reason I neither expect nor hope them to form a ticket together.
It’s too bad you can’t look at Clinton with the all-seeing, scrutinizing, critical eye that you have for Obama. Clinton has run negative ads, trumped up and made up charges about Obama, lied about his health care plan, played Gotcha with Michigan and Florida, etc. Obama said Clinton was likable. I rest my case.
That from someone who has already admitted a lack of interest in the facts. :shrug:
No, he said she was “likable enough,” his emphasis. There’s a difference. Try this out sometime:
You’re beautiful, honey.
You’re beautiful enough, honey.
That’s the spirit. Accept that Obama says something negative, it’s a joke or a valid debating point. When Hillary says something negative, it’s an attack. When someone says something negative on Obama’s behalf, he can’t be held responsible. When someone says something about Obama, Hillary’s pulling the strings. When Obama says something gracious, it’s evidence of his character. When Hillary says something gracious, it’s evidence of her evil cunning.
So my question is, can you say all this with a straight face? Can you really equate “you’re likable enough” with repeated lame charges of plagiarism? Can you equate… um… saying “you’re likable enough” (because you got nothing else against him) with saying “Oh, sure, those states don’t count… wait… wait… wait… it’s over… i won?.. they should count!”
Because those aren’t the same thing. One takes imagination and creativity to make into an issue, the other takes imagination and creativity to ignore.
Contrary to the beliefs of some on these boards your logic is in the right spot. I personally do not think either of their plans are going to fly - however, a hybrid will do nicely. I worry that both of them have cost containment strategies that would do little more then dent the continued escalation in health care costs and undermine both of their guarantees for affordable coverage. This is a legitimate claim and one that needs more scrutiny.
On a different note.
At some point people are going to have to look at a democratic nominee and either decide to back them or vote republican or stay home. If it’s Obama as the nom then make your decision, if it’s Clinton then make your decision, griping about who is more likable and blah, blah, blah is futile. Millions of people have decided to back Barack Obama. He certainly appears to be the dem nom. Like he said last night, we’re not all getting duped…there’s got to be something in there that’s more than just words and a face. I listen to and read his platform, I would think he’s a great nominee even if he wasn’t such a good orator, becasue I believe in his policies and his ideas…and it’s ideas, new ideas that I believe will make this nation great again. Wow that sounds cliche, but it’s what I beleive
I would vote for Hillary vs. McCain, but I’ve never hated McCain that much so it wouldn’t matter to me if he won anyway. I will be very disappointed if Obama doesn’t win… though I still think an Obama victory is too good to be true.
Given that the Democrats won’t likely have a filibuster proof majority, I think Obama’s voluntary plan has a much better chance of success than Hillary’s mandate plan. I don’t think the Republicans in the Senate are going to swallow having “HillaryCare” thrust upon them for a straight vote.
That’s not to say they’d be all sparkles and rainbows for Obama’s plan but I think he has a significantly better chance of it than Clinton does for both reasons of personality and the nuts & bolts of the plan.
I think you’re right; I also think Clinton is a smart enough politician (in some ways smarter than the other Clinton) that she’d know that, and modify her plan accordingly. As divisive a presence as she is on the national stage, everything I hear about her suggests that as a politician she’s a skilled diplomat.
It so happens that I think Obama is the more skilled diplomat, and people have less emotion invested in thwarting him.
I’ll vote for whichever one y’all Democrats nominate, but I think Obama has a better chance of turning the world toward the way I want it to be.
Daniel