Originally Posted By ecdc >>I just saw Harold Ickes on the TV saying that the way the Michigan vote is being apportioned is unfair, on the basis that Obama willingly took his name off the ballot there. Gall much? He really believes that Obama should be punished for following the rules that every candidate had agreed on.<< I think we're watching the same program. I saw him too and could not even believe the rationale coming out of his mouth. To say that Obama took his name off the ballot because he couldn't win Michigan - what a joke. I'm still not convinced it'll go to the convention. Hillary has to know how much that will put her out of favor with the entire party. At this point it's still just a last minute, desperate plea for Superdelegates. Dean, Pelosi, and Reid have all said they'll step in to prevent it from going to the convention. But her efforts for superdelegates are certainly riling up her supporters, some of whom began chanting "Nobama" and "McCain in '08." Bravo, Hillary. Your ego and sense of entitlement are sealing your political legacy.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Dean, Pelosi, and Reid have all said they'll step in to prevent it from going to the convention.<< Excellent. That will give the Clinton's a chance to yet again play the victim. "Everyone's ganging up on poor me!"
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Dean, Pelosi, and Reid have all said they'll step in to prevent it from going to the convention.<< It's possible they won't have to step in. After Tuesday, all the actual voting is done. Depending on how SD and MT go, Obama will need something like 20 of the remaining 205 unpledged superdelegates, and Clinton will need something like 185 (or close to that). There's no way Clinton gets that many. The math just doesn't work for her. After the last votes are in, I'm thinking at least 20 supers will publicly support Obama, thus putting him over the top. All Clinton could really do at that point is suspend her campaign and hope for some nuclear problem for Obama (something far less trivial/more substantial than the pastor stuff or any of that - i.e. something that would make his superdelegates switch sides, which so far nothing has done, though some have switched from Clinton TO him). There's no campaigning per se for Clinton to do after Tuesday. She can repeat her talking points ad infinitum and press her case for the supers to change their minds between now and August, but if she does so after Obama effectively goes over the top, she'll become persona non grata to a LOT of Democrats. She could scuttle any hope of rising further in the senate hierarchy if she ticks too many people off, for starters. I think (and I could be wrong) that after this week, assuming Obama gets enough supers to commit after Tuesday's primaries, that Clinton will suspend her campaign, negotiate behind the scenes for her role at the convention, and eventually make nice with Obama. Whether those negotiations include a demand for a Veep offer, who knows.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I think (and I could be wrong) that after this week, assuming Obama gets enough supers to commit after Tuesday's primaries, that Clinton will suspend her campaign, negotiate behind the scenes for her role at the convention, and eventually make nice with Obama. Whether those negotiations include a demand for a Veep offer, who knows.<< Exactly. Maybe I'm just too much of a sucker for the Democrats right now, but I don't see even Hillary being stupid enough to drag this on. I suppose she could keep her campaign going to raise money to pay off her debt, but that would be done at a lot of private fundraisers and not at public campaign rallies.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I still prefer Obama, though I think Hillary is probably the more electable candidate. In the end she wasn't robbed... she gave it away. The nomination was originally hers for the taking and she blew it by running one of the all time lousy campaigns. You'd have to rate it right down in the cellar with the Dukakis campaign. If she had worked harder to take some of the votes on Super Tuesday from the classically liberal states like Minnesota, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware that went to Obama, she would have been in a much better position. She would have had the momentum coming out of Super Tuesday and would probably have done very well the rest of the way. After picking up the liberal states early she would have locked up the nomination with her thinly veiled racist appeal for the votes of Joe Six-pack in places like Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. Instead she is on the outside looking in and playing more games for votes than Gore did in the 2000 Presidential Election. Do you think any of the Obama primary votes maybe came from punch-cards with hanging chads?? ;-)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You'd have to rate it right down in the cellar with the Dukakis campaign.<< Yep. Struggling too long to find her "voice", she has spent the last month not articulating her positions but rather declaring herself more "electable" than Obama. Trying to count the popular vote, no, states that are blue collar, no, wait, people that won't vote for black people, no, no, that's not it, it's people with last names that end it TH... etc. Add to it Bill Clinton's temper issues and gaffes, and you have a clumsy mess. I really don't know how Obama could have her on the ticket with him after this campaign. She isn't a winning recipe, in my opinion.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 <<<She isn't a winning recipe, in my opinion.>>> She's kind of like meatloaf. Not your favorite but you gotta have something on the menu, cheap, easy and filling.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Trying to count the popular vote, no, states that are blue collar, no, wait, people that won't vote for black people, no, no, that's not it, it's people with last names that end it TH... etc.<< I was a Hillary supporter early on. I even donated a little to her campaign. But now I am in absolute awe at the audacity she has to claim the popular vote, only when counting Florida and Michigan. It just boggles the mind to watch her, talking about how all the votes should be counted and how these people can't be disenfranchised, yada, yada, yada. My mouth drops open in disbelief each time I hear it. You'd think I'd be used to it now, but I keep expecting better of her. My mistake, I suppose.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But now I am in absolute awe at the audacity she has to claim the popular vote, only when counting Florida and Michigan.<< It's the audacity of Hope, AR. ; )
Originally Posted By Lisann22 ecdc - Im where you are on Hillary. I'm just not sold on Obama. I'm realy uneasy with my vote for him. So right now it's a shoulder shrug for me. I just do not want another Republican so I feel boxed in like I have no other choice but to vote for him. I do not feel the energy or "change" that everyone is speaking about. When I envisioned the first "serious" female and black candidate for president these two are not what came to my mind.
Originally Posted By woody Hillary mounted a very flawed campaign, while Obama didn't have the same problem, but turned out to have more character flaws than Hillary. Thus, we are sure to have McCain as our next president.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>turned out to have more character flaws than Hillary<< LOL! Woody said it, and being the fair-minded non-partisan he is, it must be true.
Originally Posted By Elderp The news is kind of funny, despite her campaign saying she is not going to quit this report is saying she is quiting. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24938578/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24938578/</a>
Originally Posted By Elderp oops oh well. It looks like the delegates are forcing her out right now anyhow. Or so says the AP <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24944453/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24944453/</a> (hopefully this time it works)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Woody said it, and being the fair-minded non-partisan he is, it must be true.> As opposed to every body else who posts here, who are not fair-minded non-partisans, and so must be lying?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>As opposed to every body else who posts here, who are not fair-minded non-partisans, and so must be lying?<< There's so many double negatives in that sentence I think we time traveled.
