The Clinton Campaign's New Math
| Mon Mar. 24, 2008 2:35 PM PDT
Unless something truly monumental produces lopsided victories for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming primaries, her chances for the Democratic nomination rely on superdelegates overturning the will of Democratic voters. Knowing this, her campaign has regularly identified criteria upon which the superdelegates might choose Clinton over Obama, some of which directly reflect the voters' intent (pledged delegate count, popular vote) and some of which are essentially judgment calls (electability, readiness). The campaign's problem is that the former criteria currently favor Obama and the latter don't lend themselves to a slam dunk consensus. In fact, they have so far been rejected by the majority of Democratic voters, who think electability and readiness are either better found in Obama or are trumped by Obama's ability to usher in change. If superdelegates were to cite Clinton's electability and readiness in order to coronate a nominee, it could drive voters out of the party.
But the Clinton campaign has found a new angle: imaginary electoral college votes. It is sending surrogates out to push the idea that superdelegates should vote for the candidate who would have come out ahead if the primaries were awarding electoral college votes instead of delegates.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
This has a veneer of legitimacy because the campaign can say, "In the fall, the president is chosen through the electoral college. If you want to know who would make the best nominee, look at the electoral vote math." In fact, Clinton communications guru Howard Wolfson said almost exactly this to the New York Times.
Now, is this spin? Of course it is. The Clinton campaign will and has spit out any criteria it can think of that shifts the media narrative in its direction. It is losing the pledged delegate count, it is losing the popular vote, and it has lost more states. But it is in front when it comes to this notion of electoral college votes because it has won more big states. "It is our belief that at the end of the day, superdelegates will need to take into account a variety of factors," said spokesman Phil Singer on a conference call on Monday. "And that includes which candidate is going to be best able to accumulate the requisite 270 electoral votes."
The problem here is that these fictitious electoral college results have little, if any, connection to the electoral college results in the fall. Clinton won California in the primary, giving her bucketloads of these imaginary electoral college votes. (Because of how the Democratic Party awards delegates, the delegate results were relatively even in California. Electoral college votes are winner-take-all.) The same happened in New York. But Obama will win California and New York in the fall if he is the nominee. He's a Democrat. Winning California and New York in presidential elections is what Democrats do.
And then there's the fact that the winner of a state's Democratic primary is not necessarily the best Democrat to win that state in the fall. Clinton won the Democratic primary in New Mexico, where Kerry lost to Bush by one percent in 2004. The Democrats may need Obama's ability to appeal to independents and Republicans to turn New Mexico blue in the fall.
The question is, how will the media cover the Clinton campaign's latest ploy? In a Politico article recently, Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen made the point that a hard look at the delegate count shows that Clinton has "virtually no chance of winning" the nomination. But the media has a couple reasons for pretending like it does:
One reason is fear of embarrassment. In its zeal to avoid predictive reporting of the sort that embarrassed journalists in New Hampshire, the media — including Politico — have tended to avoid zeroing in on the tough math Clinton faces...
One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it's more fun and it's good for business.
The media are also enamored of the almost mystical ability of the Clintons to work their way out of tight jams, as they have done for 16 years at the national level. That explains why some reporters are inclined to believe the Clinton campaign when it talks about how she's going to win on the third ballot at the Democratic National Convention in August.
I would add another reason: many in the media hold to a twisted form of objectivity. Instead of taking a hard look at the facts and stating them plainly, it gives equal space to both sides' arguments and spin. I'm guilty of some of this myself.
So the media can either: (1) ignore the Clinton campaign's new math; (2) report the campaign's new math, but explain the fallacy behind it; or (3) report the campaign's new math and pretend like its just part of the back-and-forth of a dogfight campaign that either candidate can win. The first two are clearly superior to the third, but it is the third that keeps Clinton viable. The fact that her campaign has realized that content-hungry 24-hour news outlets will report most of their spin as long as they keep producing it demonstrates that though they might not win this nomination fight, they'll never be beat on the media management front.
Comments
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Mon Mar. 24, 2008 5:32 PM PDT.
"I would add another reason: many in the media hold to a twisted form of objectivity. Instead of taking a hard look at the facts and stating them plainly, it gives equal space to both sides' arguments and spin. I'm guilty of some of this myself."
Excellent self-appraisal.
It is difficult to know for sure, but the most plausible theory at this point is that the Hillary campaign knows that they cannot win the nomination. Their goal now is to insure that Obama loses in the general election so they can run in 2012.
As democrats, we seem eager to fail in November. We embraced a new face, with little or no vetting or looking into his background until he had "momentum" and surpassed a seasoned politico who's every move has been researched and evaluated. Now that he's damaged by a personal relationship that would surely have a heavy cost in the general election, we feel compelled to give him the nomination anyway. Say what you will about Hillary, but she is arguably the most vetted and tested candidate in decades. Don't think that the Republicans won't find more on Obama if he's the candidate. Shame on us for not making Obama answer for Rev. Wright earlier, when it could have been better addressed.
"Their goal now is to insure that Obama loses in the general election so they can run in 2012."
I've thought that for awhile, but in the end, it won't work for her. The Clintons at this point seem to be actively working to ensure a McCain victory in the fall. The Democrats will want nothing to do with her in 2012 if she destroys the party's rising star and spoils the election in the process.
You want to ensure that John McCain rallies the entire Republican party, and most importantly, the conservative ('Christian right') base, behind him? Nominate Billary. Nothing would excite them more than keeping a(nother) Clinton out of the White House!
Submitted by Sharon Ash (not verified) on Tue Mar. 25, 2008 6:49 AM PDT.
I'll tell you what math is not 'fuzzy' and that is the mainstream America math. I live in a very 'mainstream America' part of the country and 8 out 10 of the people I have talked with would love to have back the vote they gave to Obama in an earlier primary. After the Reverend (and I use that term loosely) Wright exposed Obama's true allegiance to hate an division, most of mainstream America is very much revolted by Obama. That leaves him with blacks, whatever his VP Richardson can pull in the way of Hispanics and the loony left. And, unfortunately, it leaves America with old blood and guts McCain to be elected as president. Happy days are definitely not here again!
Dear Sharon Ash,
Lets put aside the fact that you are judging Sen. Obama based on things that some one else has said. You seem so certain that Rev. Wright's sermons every Sunday preached hate and divisiveness. You are defining a man who has given thousands of hours of sermons and spent hundreds of thousands of hours helping his community based on a 30 sec video clip. I would challenge you to learn more about who Rev Wright is (read his sermons in their entirety) before you label all of his parishioners as having an "allegiance to hate and division." Do you have the guts to do that, or would you prefer to use the convenience of his portrayal as a radical, anti-american, racist to further your political convictions?
It would seem to me that the job of the delegates / superdelegates is to reflect the wishes of the voter. Their vote should be based solely on who received the most votes from the people. We unfortunately live in the era of "taxation without representation" age where the will of the people is never heard or represented from the government that we fund. Our leaders hold their allegiance to the corporations who sponsor their elections and not to the people they were elected to represent.
Submitted by sharon ash (not verified) on Tue Mar. 25, 2008 7:48 AM PDT.
Mike: You missed the point of my comment. I can read all of Mr. Wright's sermons, which I have no interest in investing my time in doing, and that is not going to change the fact that 'mainstream America' believes the media purposefully did not reveal Obama's ties to Mr. Wright until after the fact. They now question what else the media and the right wing are withholding about him. I personally never rely on the media for my information in making a choice for a politician. However, I only represent about 10% of the voting public. Politicians understand just how uninformed the American voters are which is why the most money can buy elections in this country and the media can frame the debate. Oh, well!
"I misspoke about that" = I am a bold faced liar like my husband and I will say and do ANYTHING to get what belongs to me (in my own mind). Do we really want Hillary as pres??? Really ?? Do you realize what the right wing will do to this country if she is nominated?? They will do anything to stay in power do you really think they won't? Really ? There is way too much for them to lose if they lose.
Submitted by Eric Ferguson (not verified) on Tue Mar. 25, 2008 9:15 AM PDT.
So OK, if no one likes the electoral college idea, let's count the buttons on the coats of each candidate's voters. Unbuttoned buttons don't count. Those whose coats zippered will feel disenfranchised, but hey, that's the new rules.
Or maybe we can decide according to whose voters are taller on average. There's got to be some math by which Clinton can still win.
Sharon, I appreciate your reply. I don't intend to use this board as a dialogue between the two of us, but I would like to respond. You are right, if your intention in the earlier post was to suggest that "'mainstream America' believes the media purposefully did not reveal Obama's ties to Mr. Wright until after the fact," I did miss that, and frankly don't really agree with that either. However, I think my comment is still valid. You were perpetuating an assessment that is based on very little evidence and furthermore projecting Rev. Wrights comments on another man. It took me less than 10 minutes on google to discover the context of Rev. Wright's comments, which are still controversial, but not nearly as divisive as they appeared in reports. It took less then 10 minutes longer to find and read some of his more uplifting and gracious sermons. I am not saying that there isn't more that this man has said that could be considered offensive, but it should be obvious to most adults when they are only being fed one side of a story. I guess my point was simply this, Americans aren't dumb, why is it too much to ask of "mainstream America" to spend an hour every once and awhile to look at the person they intend to elect as president, especially with all of the obstacles the country is now facing? It's really not, most people simply make a visceral decision, however, and then spend the rest of their time looking for reasons to justify that decision.
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Tue Mar. 25, 2008 9:51 AM PDT.
"So OK, if no one likes the electoral college idea, let's count the buttons on the coats of each candidate's voters."
lolol - I like it!
Submitted by Php Shopping Cart Software (not verified) on Tue Mar. 25, 2008 10:12 AM PDT.
A Democratic President can't do a lot without a Democratic Congress. That is all I have to say LOL.
Submitted by Sharon Ash (not verified) on Tue Mar. 25, 2008 10:20 AM PDT.
Mike, it is neither a smart thing nor a dumb thing, just a human, (that is the way we are wired psychologically), thing, for people to try and maintain cognitive consistency. So when someone shouts from the pulpit of a Christian church, "God damn America.", it is not consistent with the teachings of the Christ and are words which would normally never, be spoken. It also, depending upon your frame of reference, is either preaching hate and division, or it is just okie dokie. To 'mainstream America', it is neither okie dokie to say that, nor is it okie dokie to be associated with a church for 20 years which preaches that and also have your young children sitting there listening to it. It is not consistent for Obama to talk about 'change' and bringing us all together and be a member of a church which promotes hate and division. There are many more speeches from Mr. Wright which also contain this same type of both inflammatory and off the wall comments. The one thing that is consistent from Mr. Wright is that he preaches frequently, about 'white America' in a tone that is not stating a fact, but bemoaning a fact. That is Mr. Wright's absolute right and privilege to think and believe that way, but from my frame of reference, hate and division whether it is coming from Mr. Wright or the KKK, is still hate and division.
Are we really saying that a flat out "lie" not as bad as someone someone's pastor said? Inventing a notion of guilt just by someones association? Does that mean if your neighbor says he "hates America" that we should assume you do simply because of your proximity to him? If you don't have the ability to seperate what someone's opinions from your own simply because you have an association to them... I'm kind of affraid for you.
Oops... my own personal edit..
Are we really saying that a flat out "lie" not as bad as something someone's pastor said? Inventing a notion of guilt just by someones association? Does that mean if your neighbor says he "hates America" that we should assume you do simply because of your proximity to him? If you don't have the ability to seperate what someone elses opinions from your own simply because you have an association to them... I'm kind of affraid for you.
Submitted by Sharon Ash (not verified) on Tue Mar. 25, 2008 10:53 AM PDT.
Dan: What if you gave that neighbor $20,000 to further promote his message? What if you purchased DVD's of his message. Is that just guilt by association? Pull your head out of it! That is supporting the message and that is what Obama has done with Mr. Wright, and his message of hate and division. That's not 'change' it's a black 'Bob Jones University' church.
How much have you given the Catholic church to promote pedophiles? I didn't know that church contributions equated to completely agreeing with their message? Last I checked contributions to a church are to help support the programs that church offers to the community, such as food for the elderly programs. How many times has religion promoted hate and division? The very notion that someone will not go to heaven, or find paradise unless they subscribe to their particular view is secular. Does this mean that anyone associated with a church has to be held accountable for that church? Maybe we should start prossecution for the crusades, and the inquisition.
Submitted by Sharon Ash (not verified) on Tue Mar. 25, 2008 11:19 AM PDT.
Dan: Of course the contributions you make to a church go to feed the hungry and the needy and the preachers all work for free that's why we have all the preachers living in homeless shelters. Please! If you have convinced yourself that a church which preaches hate and division, and to which you have financially supported speaks nothing to what you hold in your belief system, than that's fine for you, however, expect to find yourself sitting around sharing that view with very few 'mainstream Americans'. And, for the record, I do not contribute to any organized religion, but I certainly do support the homeless and others in need.
Sharon: I am waiting for your reasoning on why a blatent lie is not worse? I just find it really funny that the only way to address the issue for you (and the rest of the Clinton supporters) ((and I am not an Obama supporter btw)) is to bring out that heafty finger of yours and point it elsewhere rather than facing the issue. Why does she think it is ok to lie to the people who will elect her? Why does she feel the need to overstate her self-imporatance in foreign policy (i.e. Bringing peace to Ireland.. ha ha ha) It's called Political Chameleon'isms. You embellish your story just a bit, to better appeal to the crowd in front of you. So like um, saying you've gone duck hunting when you're in front of a group of hunters (um... yeah, Hillary did that too), or claiming that you were the driving force behind a child welfare / insurance act when you're in front of a group of mothers (um... she did that too although she had nothing to do with the measure passing) Soooo.... Instead of pointing that finger like a second grader, please give us something that justifies her actions rather than trying to say "oh yeah... well he did this" Point blank, why was it ok for her to lie to the american people??
Submitted by Sharon Ash (not verified) on Tue Mar. 25, 2008 12:14 PM PDT.
Dan: All politicians lie, as in we do not torture, there are weapons of mass destruction, and on and on. And at no point have I tried to defend Hillary. This article was about fuzzy math. I tried to point out that there was some math on which 'mainstream America' was not fuzzy and it was that the words Obama speaks on 'change' do not add up to his actions. You are just full of assumptions aren't you? My choice for president was Biden but apparently only me and five other people thought he would be a good president. But, I most assuredly do not support Obama, but his association with Mr. Wright and the United Church of Christ are not even in my top ten list of why I do not support him. Have a nice day and I am finished posting for today, so you get the last word.
Sharon: And I'll take it... the last word that is. My point, in my original post is simple. I don't see how you can hold the man personally responsible for his pastor's comments. The Pastor obviously doesn't go on these rants on a weekly basis as you imply in your earlier post, and from the earlier comments that you don't have the "time" to research the other messages of this pastor. Obama has said that he does NOT agree with the Pastor's position that was reflected in his anti-america tyraid. If Obama came out and said that he agreed with his pastors comments that would be completely different. In the same note I would ask that you read the following... it seems that spreading words of hate is not something held exclusive by pastors.
"Last week, however, when a newly published book by Jerry Oppenheimer titled State of a Union alleged that Hillary herself had made a profane and bigoted remark, no prominent liberal stepped forward to demand that the First Lady undergo sensitivity training or that she be fined and suspended as the Democratic candidate for New York's-open U.S, Senate seat.
Citing three named witness, Oppenheimer writes that Hillary called Paul Fray, who worked on Bill Clinton's failed 1974 congressional campaign, a "f-ing Jew bastard." Hillary and the President vehemently deny the accusation.
In addition to Fray, Oppenheimer cites as sources Fray's wife, Mary Lee Fray, and another Clinton campaign aide named Neil McDonald.
"By three a.m., it was all over: Clinton had lost by a mere six thousand votes. He, Hillary, and Fray went back to Fayetteville in their cars; Addington went home to nurse his sorrow in silence. The others, though, particularly Hillary and Paul, were cut from a different cloth. When in doubt, slug it out.
"The minute Paul walked into the back room at the Fayetteville headquarters that night, Hillary hit him between the eyes. She was angrier than Paul had ever seen her.
"'You f-ing Jew bastard!' she screamed.
"Hillary had cursed him out plenty of items before. But this was the first time she had used a religious slur, and it hit hard. Tt was not something he would ever forget. `I promise you it happened. It created a chasm I never really overcame,' he said.
"Paul Fray was actually a Baptist-later on he would train for the seminary at Ouachita Baptist University. But his father was Jewish, the son of immigrants, and Paul was very proud of his roots. `You don't talk about my forefathers. I come from Cohens (the high priests, in Jewish law). My dad used to tell me, "Son, do you realize what we are, what tribe we're from? You need to understand, that's your heritage."'
"His immediate reaction, of course, was to explode back. ' "You can't talk to me like that." I let her know that in no uncertain terms.' Bill Clinton, Mary Lee, and campaign worker Neil McDonald were also in the room at-the time. Both Mary Lee Fray and Neil McDonald confirmed Paul Fray's account.
" `Yeah, it happened,' acknowledged McDonald years later. `Heat of the moment and all that. You have to realize where Hillary's from. And Paul does have some Jewish in his background.'
"The fight raged on, with McDonald posted at the door to keep out curious staffers. According to various reports, a few ashtrays were heaved, the blue language flew, as Paul and Hillary blamed each other for everything that had gone wrong in the campaign. Mary Lee, defending her husband, brought up some of the problems with Bill and women; Bill for the most part was quiet, letting Hillary handle the combat.
"In the end, exhausted, everyone filed out quietly-there was nothing more to say. The chance of any further working relationship between the Frays and the Clintons had pretty much been reduced to ashes.
"But Hillary's attack on Paul's Judaism would continue to reverberate. There had been too many witnesses for it not to get out.
"'I never asked Bill point-blank about"that statement back then, because it really wounded the s[-] out of me," said Paul. `He thought it was one of those things, you blow off, you go on. I've heard him say, "If anything-:was wrong, forgotten and forgiven, no big deal, heat of the moment. A pretty violent exchange occurred-so what.",
"But for Paul, the cut went too deep to forget: `Hillary can be a sweet girl, but she knows damn well that has wounded me for years. I'll go to my grave with it.'
"One nasty epithet, slung in anger, hardly defines a person. And Hillary has always had a tendency, when enraged; to go for the gut. . . ."
-State of a Union, by Jerry Oppenheimer pp,153-156 "
This has become standard operating procedure for the Clinton campaign in the last couple of weeks. When Hillary is criticized--as she is being criticized now for her fabrications about her Bosnia trip--change the subject and attack Jeremiah Wright. She did it twice today already, proclaiming self-righteously that SHE would never stay in a church like that (no, she just stays in her right-wing, neo-fascist "Family" prayer group for 15 years).
All the fuzzy math is irrelevant. This is how HRC is going to win the nomination. She will harp relentlessly on Jeremiah Wright and use this "issue" to rack up huge margins in the remaining primaries. That way, she will either go to the convention able to persuade the superdelegates that only she is electable, OR she will have the satisfaction of knowing that she has destroyed the Democratic nominee's chances to beat McCain in 2008. Either way, Wright is the wedge issue that will give her what she wants.
Once you realize how thoroughly craven and corrupt Hillary Clinton is, nothing is unthinkable or surprising. Just look at her 35 years of experience as a liar and a manipulator and a Machiavellian schemer.
posted by Sharon:
I've given a LOT of money to the Catholic church in my time. Does that make me a pedophile, or a homophobe?
Not that I expect you to answer any more questions...
"And, for the record, I do not contribute to any organized religion, but I certainly do support the homeless and others in need."
Yeah right. That statement is about as transparent as Hillary's sniper-fire story.
I am glad to see some people waking up to the fact that the Clintons are working for the Republicans. Anyone read about HILLARY's 'church'???
Why is no one screaming about that on every outlet available? She is simply there to keep the right in power folks!
The Limbaugh story is mostly myth. He came out with that story after it was exposed that some republicans had been doing just the opposite of what Limbaugh now claims. Republicans have been voting in large numbers for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC open primaries, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC caucuses from day one.
Limbaugh is using reverse psychology on you to cover up.
The REPUBLICANS have been trying to choose the weakest DEMOCRATIC candidate to run against in November. And also to prevent the possibility of a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama DREAM TEAM match up.
I am really surprised the media has not picked this fact up with all their experts, and analyst. It's as plain as the nose on your face. This is why Obama has mostly only been able to win red state caucuses, and primaries. And no big blue states primaries.
If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate.
Hillary Clinton has actually already won the democratic nomination if you remove the republican vote fraud. Does this really surprise anyone after the 2000 and 2004 elections. :-(
They have no respect for the constitution, or the democratic process. They have no SHAME!!!
jacksmith...
Operation Chaos continues. Now you begin to suspect everybody of being a mole and you turn on your brethren and devour them. Come November, McCain will have all the money and an easy job. Operation Chaos rolls on, victory after victory. It just can't be stopped because human nature is so, well, dumb, so dumb.
The Republican Party under Bush has bankrupt the United States. McCann will follow Bush's lead. I really don't see how anyone could possibly vote for a Republican. Where were you the last eight years? If you do then, you are just as corrupt and dumb like they are. Everyone in the U.S. needs to vote for the Democratics so that we will have change.
Submitted by Steven Cyzner (not verified) on Wed Mar. 26, 2008 2:05 PM PDT.
I have been surprised that electoral votes have not been mentioned until now as a good if not only measure for who is the better candidate.
Austin, Texas
(where Clinton caucusers were bullied by precinct captains who preferred the other candidate so that often Clinton lost votes when people who were intimidated left the site.)
Hillary obviously expects to pull out a victory from the Super Delegates, but is disinclined to mention it at this time. If she is ultimately successful, it will be the result of high-level fund raising from her network of law firms, getting checkies for those delegate's local elections.
(The "old fashioned" way, bought and paid for.)
There is no other rational reason why she does not concede. Obama for his part will likely take a proper rogering in PA, partly because there are a lot of racists there but partly because he deserves it because of his friend and Pastors own racist remarks, which he could not bring himself to fully disown.
Lawyers! Can't live with um, can't not live with um.
They should all be constitutionally banned from running for any office. Then the rest of us could begin to enjoy our lives and be prouder of our country.
Why doesn't the DNC pull Hillary's coat on this one? Dean was yanked for less than this. Why is she being allowed to destroy the party for a chance to run in 2012 against the candidate of her choice? She's being granted quite a number of favors here. She gets to campaign for McCain, name Obama her Vice Presidential candidate, and plot a run in 2012 against what is subsequently the extension of the Bush43 administration. What's the worst of it is that she's doing all this over a hotbed of proven lies. She needs to be driven out of this race, at gunpoint, if necessary.
All this is doing is ripping the Democratic party apart. I think Hillary's grab for power has done more to help the Republican party, by destroying the Democratic party. Even if she does pull off a SuperDelegate win, she will still lose because many now democrats will not vote just because of her actions.
My goodness....
"grab for power" as in running for office in a democratic process?
"driven out of the race by gunpoint if necessary" wow, talk about an idiotic thought process.
"campaigning for McCain" she just pleaded with her supporters who were talking about voting for McCain to rethink that idea as a big mistake.
My hope is that, if Obama is our candidate, the O supporters who turned out in such big numbers for the caucuses will also turn out in big numbers for all the nitty gritty work of a general election campaign: the phone calling, the door-knocking the get out the vote, the money raising, etc. The nomination is only the beginning of getting the job done.
Rev. Wright isn't the only issue that Senator Clinton has been misrepresenting Senator Obama on. She has also been misrepresenting him on NAFTA. First, his advisor did not approach the Canadian embassy, but the embassy has been approaching members of both camps for reassurances. Second, the missive that was released just before Ohio, was summarizing a conversation that the Canadian government itself admits was taken out of context. At the moment there is an investigation on if someone may have violated our provacy laws, and it looks like it may have been someone from the Prime Minister's Office. But the HRC campaign doesn't want to be confused by the facts.
I am sick and tired of the BS this country seems to be mired in. What Bill Clinton did for sex in America with Monica, his wife is doing for the truth in America.
Apparently it's become a cliché: If you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth. All the entire political life and personal life of the Clintons has been based and lies, deceit, subterfuge, and down right dishonesty.
From White Water to the death of Vince Foster, it's endless with these people.
She has no more right running for the Presidency than Bush has for a third term. The Clintons are part of the problem; they are not the change that we need. Open you minds and your eyes "AMERICA" before it's too late. Start thinking for yourself.
It would be great for a women as well as an African American to become the president, but it's not time for another Clinton in the White House.
Submitted by Skip Roth (not verified) on Sat Mar. 29, 2008 8:28 AM PDT.
Democrats bashing the Clintons is unconscionable, and it helps the opposition. You are doing great harm to our chances in Nov. by bashing Ms. Clinton and ignoring Obama's negatives.
It's a de ja vu event all over again, are you blind Obama fans, trying to torpedo democratic chances?
Wake up to reality, Obama is tied to Wright as if they were Siamese twins. The hate speech from Wright's pulpit is not unique in the African American culture. One can hear the same hateful political rhetoric in America's prisons, spoken by the most radical hard core racist killers our society has ever seen. You type as though the swift-boaters went away, we haven't seen anything yet.
The fantasy Obama paints with his mouth doesn't line up with his actions.
Skip "Chainsaw" Roth.
Submitted by Sharon Ash (not verified) on Sat Mar. 29, 2008 9:13 AM PDT.
Skip: Some of the people on these posts are not Obama supporters at all, but rather are using these avenues to try to boost Obama for Republican purposes. The Republicans do not want Hillary Clinton as president, and it is fair to say, some Democrats feel the same. But the Republicans most certainly want Obama as the candidate, as Mr. Wright is only one part of a history of extremists affiliations for Obama and the real damage will be brought out, once he receives the nomination, and that will have to do with some of his financial support.
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Sat Mar. 29, 2008 9:24 AM PDT.
Wowser,
Obama supporters are helping the GOP?
lololo
"ignoring Obama's negatives"
Nbody supporting Obama could possibly understand and accept his negatives?
We're all just anti-HRC.
If that makes sense to you get some mental health help, you are delusional and paranoid.
I support BHO because I think he is the best for the job. Better than HRC or McSame.
My support of BHO is not in favor of the GOP - to the contrary the HRC supporters are the new Paultards and sound as GOP as anybody I have ever read post here.
Consider one item, HRC wants the delegates to vote their choice - yet when Bill Richardson does so he is a traitor, a Judas.
Sounds about right?
HRC sends out a smear memo that BHO was NEVER really a professor? Whoop's a call to the University would have cleared that little lie up but who cares about the truth when HRC is "win at any cost."
What exactly is wrong to say "God damn America" for its wrongdoings in the world? Christian Right preachers have been damnning gays and homosexuals for all of the ills of the world...no one cares about that. I think something is wrong when Americans get sanctimonious and high and mighty about this country. Many of the actions that OUR government makes on OUR behalf have harmful and damaging effects on others. Don't you think God would want us to recognize that?
I am beginning to suffer from primary fatigue. I am an Obama supporter but I am quite frankly tired of the back and forth. I think Senator Clinton should throw her support behind Senator Obama as there is no way for her to win this primary season. The remainder of the primaries will continue just as they have with the Republicans and voters will be able to express their choice. What is this spin that the remaining voters will not have their voices heard as if the primaries would abruptly stop. Some of this stuff is just ridiculous. The other thing is the idea that Senator Obama has something dark and ominous lurking around the corner waiting to explode. This is also ludicrous. Bill Clinton had to be one of the most embattled presidential nominees in modern history and he managed to survive all of the scandal that arose during his bid for the presidency. The other thing is although Senator Clinton has been vetted in many ways, I am sure there is much about her that we don't know as well. Remember, most of her vetting was done with in the context of her husbands presidency and had more to do with Presisent Bill Clinton as opposed to Senator Hillary Clinton. So the idea that she is more electable based on the vetting issue is just as ridiculous as the big state argument, and the electoral math argument. This is a primary and does not reflect how any of these states will vote during the general election, except we know based on history that California, New York, and a few other states will vote democrat regardless of the nominee just as a number of states will vote republican regardless of the nominee. Conversely we should not stake the democratic nomination on Reagan Democrats which in and of itself is a contradiction. Although these folks may vote for Senator Clinton during the primary season they will undoubtly vote for Senator McCain during the general election. So there are many flaws in the arguments being launched in Support of Senator Clinton. What we need is a nominee that can bring in new voters and energize the lethargic democratic base to off set the Reagan Democrats should they split for McCain. While it would be great to have these voters you can not base your nomination on the most unreliable supporters of your party. That is suicidal. As for Jeremiah Wright, the issue is a non-issue for any logical thinking individual. Senator Obama is not responsible for the comments of Jeremiah Wright and has every right to attend his church and take the good with the bad. That is what we do. After all, Jeremiah Wright was not trying to incite people to commit violence, he wanted his congregation to think about the current state of this country. The only way for him to do this is with in the context of his personal experience in this country. Whether you like it or not he comes from the Jim Crow and Civil Rights Era. People often convey ideas based on their experience and Dr. Wright is no different in this respect. While I don't agree with what he said or the tone of his deliverance, some of his less inflammatory comments are facts, for example, Hillary Clinton is a white woman that has not had to endure racism in the same way as Obama. This is an undisputable fact. With that said, I believe that people are very hypercritical when it comes to their views. An earlier poster said that we do not blame the congregation of the Catholic Church for the pediophilia of their priest, as many members continue to attend and support the churh. Yet this seems to be one of the main groups that Senator Obama has a problem with. This implies that as a society we continue to have double standards. The question becomes why is there a different standard of measure for Senator Obama. The hard reality is we do not need to be distracted with these side issues. There is a plethora of real day to day issues we need to resolve - the housing crisis, the falling dollar, corporate corruption, eroding wages, bankrupt pensions, rising healhcare cost, the number of uninsured- this is where the focus should be. This country has rapidly declined because of wedge issues that are really based on personal belief that have been allowed to dominate the American psyche to the extent that folks vote against their own best interest. At this point and time in history, there should be a time out for this type of thinking. In closing, I believe that Senator Clinton had a sense of entitlement and to add to that she was deemed the front runner thus ran a poor campaign. Although there has been much spin and the gold post has been changed many times, this nomination was actually hers to lose not Senator Obama's, and while the news media has continued to promote this argument that he has not been able to close the nomination, in fact it has been Senator Clinton who has not been able to nail down this nomination as she was coronated the front runner. Also, it is no surprise that she won the state she won such as Ohio, she was expected to win this state as well as Texas and Pennsylvania regardless of his campaigning there. He has had more to prove and more obstacles to over come. Mr. Obama developed a sound stragegy for winning taking nothing for granted and Senator Clinton did not, and he deserves credit for that.
