Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Same Crucial Questions Remain for Her -- and for the Superdelegates Expected to Decide the Nomination.
WASHINGTON - Pennsylvania voters Tuesday gave Hillary Rodham Clinton every reason to continue her campaign for president.
But they did not present any definitive new evidence that would compel Democratic Party elders to step in and anoint Clinton as their White House nominee, particularly when Barack Obama continues to lead in the overall delegate count and in the popular vote.
Instead, despite a grueling and often bitter campaign, Clinton's victory Tuesday left in play the same questions that remained seven weeks ago after her 10-point victory in Ohio, another large and politically important industrial state.
What does it portend for the fall campaign that Obama is not winning working-class whites, a crucial swing voting bloc, in the Democratic primaries? Or that he has lost most of the biggest states to Clinton?
How much credit should the party elders -- the superdelegates who are expected to select the nominee by providing the final votes needed for victory -- give Obama for drawing new voters to the polls? Or for energizing younger voters and for spurring massive turnout among African Americans?
Should party leaders worry that Clinton has been all but shut out of the black vote?
The big-state primary in Pennsylvania failed to bring clarity. Now, while a muddled Democratic nominating process enters its fifth month of voting, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain is building his fall campaign, embarking this week on a tour of economically disadvantaged areas that is designed to attract the same working-class voters so coveted by the Democrats.
"She can't win but won't quit," Democratic strategist Jim Jordan said of Clinton. Obama, he said, "is going to win but can't close it out. And meanwhile, McCain skates on, unmolested."
The Democrats' indecision pushes the next important test to May 6, when Indiana and North Carolina hold primaries.
Obama is expected to win in North Carolina, with its heavy concentration of black voters, college students and upper-income whites, who have formed a durable coalition for him in the primaries and caucuses.
But Indiana, a predominantly white state with industrial workers and rural voters, is a more substantial test, largely because it presents Obama with another chance to show that he can do better with those blue-collar voting groups that eluded him in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
While Clinton celebrated her win Tuesday night in Philadelphia, Obama demonstrated his immediate focus on Indiana by traveling there and delivering his speech from Evansville. A recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll showed him holding a slight lead there.
"It would be symbolic if Sen. Obama won a state like Indiana," said the state's Democratic chairman, Dan Parker, a Clinton supporter.
But an Obama loss in Indiana might give Clinton an air of momentum, particularly because it is a state where many Democrats have known Obama for several years because of shared media markets with his home state of Illinois.
Later primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky, which play to Clinton's demographic strengths, might give superdelegates even more reason to reassess Obama's electability.
Until voters in those states weigh in, Obama is likely to point to favorable evidence from the Pennsylvania results in seeking new endorsements from superdelegates.
Obama outspent Clinton on television and radio ads in Pennsylvania by more than 2 to 1, yet he did not make major gains among working-class white voters. But he didn't lose support among that group, either -- even after navigating some of the worst weeks of the campaign so far, including a crisis over racially charged comments by his former pastor and accusations that his own comments about economically "bitter" small-town voters showed him to be elitist.
Media exit polls showed Obama winning 38% of the white vote in Pennsylvania, nearly unchanged from the 34% he won in Ohio seven weeks ago.
Even though he lost Pennsylvania by a substantial margin, Obama may argue that he was able to improve his standing with important parts of the electorate. Exit polls found that he won 37% of voters over age 65, up from 26% in Ohio.
He made modest gains among white men, taking 44% of that vote, a gain of 5 points compared with Ohio.
And while self-described independents were less important in Pennsylvania than in Ohio, Obama won a larger share of that group Tuesday.
Obama's campaign is likely to use these numbers in his arguments to superdelegates, some of whom worry that, if nominated, he might not withstand attacks from Republicans aimed at making voters uneasy with his unusual background and lack of experience in federal government.
But as both Democrats fight on, and as about 250 out of the nearly 800 superdelegates remain uncommitted, many strategists and leaders fret that a protracted campaign can only hurt the party's chances of beating McCain in the fall. In the six-week Pennsylvania campaign, Obama faced new scrutiny for certain comments and past relationships, while Clinton was caught exaggerating the dangers she faced in a trip to Bosnia as first lady in the 1990s.
And Pennsylvania's results showed that a potentially damaging racial divide persists in a campaign that once focused on voters' excitement over electing either the first black or female president.
Clinton won just 11% of the black vote.
"Anybody who says past this point that this is good for the party or good for the nominee is a fool," said Jordan, the Democratic strategist, who is not affiliated with either campaign. The candidates, he said are "exhausted, they're more likely to make mistakes, and they're raising each other's negatives."
Evidence of the damage was clear in the exit polls. Consider one example sure to be troubling to Democratic leaders as they examine their chances for November: Among primary voters, about 4 in 10 surveyed said that Clinton was not honest and trustworthy, whereas about 3 in 10 had the same negative assessment of Obama.
© 2008 Los Angeles Times
103 Comments so far
Show AllSomeone once asked me here on another thread, why I hated Blacks? __ Incredible. If you don't support Obama, you're a racist. If you don't support Hillary, you're a male chauvenist pig or piggie. If you don't support Nader, you're not a progressive. ___ Shit.
"It's not that I love Clinton and hate Obama, I kinda can't stand either one of the war-loving duo. It's that I can't stand the blatant sexism and the hero-worship of the Obama tribe."
You know, vox, I have to agree with you. Neither Obama nor Clinton are my original choices and I'd rather have someone else to choose from. I'll spare you the "who's left standing" argument and call you on the sexism remark. There are many other "isms" at play aside from sexism. They include racism, ageism, classism, etc.
There is another reason many Americans would never vote for Obama, and it has nothing to do with his gender. Can you think of what that might be?
So, pinning the sexism card on folks who choose Obama over Clinton can be turned on its head by calling those who favor Clinton, racists.
Of course, I'm not calling anyone here a racist - that's just puerile. I just wanted to make a point and show you how silly that comment is. Oh, so is referring to Obama supporters as "fanatics." For some of us, having to support a Democrat is a very bitter pill to swallow.
Do you realize you are making far too much sense ~VOX~ and writing way above some dunderheads posting here who don't know the facts? They probably don't want to know them, or are so ready to speak their own viewpoints, they never bother to seek out the truth.
NOT being a lawyer should give her ten points ~SUE~. Well, take five off for even thinking about it.
Hey ~CLASSIC LIBERAL~, What you "sayith" makes more sense that what I sayith? Really??
What I sayith wuz, "don't bet on it, blah, blah, blah", because in politics, especially at that level, some very strange things occur that are not broadcast on CNN or Fox.
I also "sayith-ed", "we don't know what will happen with the Florida and Michigan votes. ___We don't know___ and you counter with, what should happpen with them in your opinion. What should happen and what we don't know will happen are two seperate issues ~Classic~.
classicalliberal2,
Clinton has done the same, so that's no argument in her favor.
It wasn't meant to be. It was about Obama, not Clinton. I know Obama fanatics have a hard time understanding that. Try harder, please.
Obama has been against the Iraq misadventure from the beginning.
That's easy to say, but to do so ignores what he told the Chicago Tribue in 2004: "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." Indeed, the Trib went on to say that Obama "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."
Learn the facts.
And, again, Hillary Clinton is on-record advocating the same.
You Obama people seem to think that shouting "Hillary too! Hillary too!" means something. It doesn't. Indeed, as I've pointed out in this tread before, Obama and Clinton are virtually identical on policy, and certainly in the Senate. But the Obama zombies don't care. They can't accept that they can BOTH BE WRONG. Those of us who aren't swooning can, perhaps, see more clearly.
No need to mention that, because it isn't true. Obama made an early speech in Lieberman's favor during the last Senate campaign, when his opponent Ned Lamont was barely a blip on the radar screen.
It is true, as you've just stated. And the point of it is that Obama, like any corporate brown-noser, was for Lieberman when he was a Democrat, regardless of Lieberman's policies. Then, when the party turned against Lieberman, so did Obama. He's a follower, campaigning as a leader. He's good at doing what he's told, but no more.
Obama then voted for the original compromise bill, on the grounds that an even worse bill would likely emerge if that one failed to pass.
So I was right. Obama voted to renew the PATRIOT Act, which is exactly what I wrote.
Obama, by the way, also voted for cloture and an up or down vote on Priscilla Owen, a genuine loon. And he's said that he wants to appoint moderates. And he's made collaborating with Republicans a theme of his campaign.
Oh yeah, those are compelling facts. Makes me want to join up with his freakish sideshow.
Here's a bit more dreary reality for those who think Clinton has a real chance to win the general election.
As many of you no doubt know, Clinton has been very forthright in her attacks on MoveOn, saying:
Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down...We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.
This has every potential to really hurt her in the general election. Here's why:
1)MoveOn is an organization situated well within the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Despite Clinton's efforts (above) to paint them as radical leftists, the members of MoveOn (while perhaps a bit left of center on a number of issues) are still pretty firmly attached to the DP as a vehicle for social and political change. Marginalizing them (part of her base) is not smart, and Clinton will have to do work in the general election to woo them back to her.
2)In Republican-land (that is, the ideological territory that right-wing pundits create for their largely Republican audiences), MoveOn is seen as the "radical left" of the Democratic Party--a fantasy, to be sure, but one that appears to be quite effective at times.
3)Hillary will thus be put in the following predicament: she will have alienated part of her base by attacking MoveOn and will have to make some overtures towards it come fall, but this will be siezed on by the Repubs as evidence of her being a secretly sympathetic left-radical despite all evidence to the contrary. Failing this, they will simply trot out her earlier condemnation of MoveOn, compare it with her courting of them in the runup to the election, and paint her as someone who will say anything to anyone to get herself elected.
This is just one of the many hurdles that will face her in her presidential bid. The writing is already on the wall, she just can't see it.
Junna,
I'm not a Clinton supporter, so all the things you said about her, okay. Except for this: Hillary Clinton has said she would obliterate Iran. No, she didn't. She said, "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them...." Being able to (ie, having a strong national defense capable of it) and doing it are different things, though I question anyone who doesn't think that a nuclear attack against any nation would warrant a swift and decisive response. This is actually a good example of the rampant media bias against Clinton, in that almost everyone got it wrong. It's not that I love Clinton and hate Obama, I kinda can't stand either one of the war-loving duo. It's that I can't stand the blatant sexism and the hero-worship of the Obama tribe.
She respects John McCain as more capable and experienced to become the next president rather than Barack Obama.
And Obama thinks that GHW Bush had a "wise" foreign policy, as he said in the PA debate. That includes an illegal invasion of Panama, the baiting of Iraq into Kuwait through April Glaspie, and the highway of death in Iraq. That's absolutely foul, and no one seems to call Obama on it.
Clinton, by the way, has the advantage in the general election. As the BBC pointed out last night, currently, in PA and OH, it's a toss-up between Obama and McCain, and in NM McCain wins. Clinton vs. McCain, Clinton wins both PA and OH and it's a toss-up in NM. I don't see how Obama wins in deeply racist Ohio, and I don't see how Clinton loses. That's the election, right there. All the states that Obama won don't count. Alabama? Who cares? It's going for McCain, not any Democrat, so who really cares what the people in Alabama want for the Democratic party? (I oppose the entire primary system, of course.)
mostly he is on the defense against her attacks
His "Harry and Louise" style ads in PA were defensive? Of course not. He's comfortable slinging the mud, but the MSM doesn't like talking about that.
While I'd like to see the US stop its imperialist aggression, neither Obama or Clinton seem to want to do that. As for your economic analysis, I think there's much more involved than just the occupation of Iraq.
Kivals,
You're post is fine, but completely irrelevant to anything I've written. Indeed, I've not said anything good about Hillary, have I? You seem to think that if I'm against Obama, which I am, I must be for Hillary, which I'm not.
The point here is that Obama is just like Hillary, perhaps a little to her right, and his supporters refuse to see that. In that way, they are like Republicans, living in a faith-based world free of fact.
To all the Republican & Independent Voters who now are so hateful with comments of support for Obama-you say Mrs. Hillary Clinton can't win-will "HIDE AND WATCH".
Let's see we have;
A bi-atch lawyer married to a lawyer.
vs
A lawyer married to a bi-atch lawyer.
vs
A war hero, married to a blonde with a nice rack, that owns a beer distributorship.
Is there a contest here?
I can not understand anyone who would vote for McCain out of spite???? This to me seems self-defeating and not at all in the best interests of this country! Which should be every patriotic American's biggest concern right at this moment. To get someone in there that will change the disastrous coarse this country is on. To cut off one's nose to spite ones face isn't realistic. That's what those Democrat's will be doing if they even consider voting for McCain. Where I am throughly fed up with Hillary Clinton and am growing to dislike her intensely because of her behavior. Her ambition or ego will not allow her to admit she can't win, so she is going to destroy the Democratic Party along with herself. If push comes to shove in November I will hold my nose and vote for her if she is the nominee. Because I will not be responsible for helping another fascist Republican get into office. McCain is more of the same mess we have had for 7 years now. He is a Bush clone that my conscious will not allow me to vote for.
ardee (above) makes some very good points about Obama's caucus victories and what they might mean come fall. I also agree with his/her point about both candidates being centrists.
However, I don't think the prosepcts for Senator Clinton (should she get the nomination) are much better. The Clinton brand name is, in my opinion, at least as much (and probably more) a liability than an asset. She will galvanize the right to come out for McCain despite their current soft stance on him now.
Add to this the fact that recent Gallup polls show that only 44% of people polled regard her as "truthful and trustworthy" versus 67% for McCain. Voter perceptions of candidates are far from irrelevant in making their choices, so it cannot be a hopeful sign for her supporters that she will go into the general election polling below 50% on this issue.
All that seems to indicate that McCain has good reason to expect a victory in November, sad as that will be.
Hilary lost my vote for certain when she spoke of "massive retaliation" vs Iran, and I don't know what I'll do if she's nominated. However, I'm disappointed to see Barack called "elitist" in an article on this website. "Elitist" in this primary is a euphemism for "uppity." I live in central PA, and I'm pretty certain race is the reason why the vote went as it did.
What a load of garbage..You all should be so very proud, especially folks like this one:
Power_Slave April 23rd, 2008 10:14 am
"The only way the Hildebeast can win the nomination is to basically steal the process from Obama. If she does that, the black vote stays home in November"
As a registered Green, one who will vote for neither Democratic candidate I speak only from a point of view of fairness and decency in the election process. We have seen much talk about unfair tactics from the Clinton campaign yet the tactics of Obama supporters are the most reprehensible, ignorant of any truth and despicable I have seen in any election in my memory, including those run by Karl Rove, whose tactics you Obama maniacs seem to have adopted nuicely.
There has been much talk about Obama's attraction to youth and first time voters, perhaps this is why the internet is filled with such slimy and sophomoric rants against Senator Clinton....I believe wholeheartedly that both candidates are centrists and globalists and will not lead this nation where it needs to go, yet I understand that reality bites Obama nut jobs on the ass in their refusal to note that many of his "victories" came because nine people in a high school gym clustered around together to support him, and in states that will inevitably go red in the fall as well. Caucus selections simply reek and are not at all reflective of a popular vote.
Clinton wins in states the dems desperately need to carry if they hope to occupy the White House in January, yet you children continue to vent your spleen , and fail to use much in the way of truth or decency in doing so...You all shoudl be very proud of yourselves...freaking amateurs.
Siouxrose:
A common misconception by people is that they believe Killary was/is a lawyer. FYI:She never passed the bar exam!
Kem Patrick sayteth:
"Doesn't do MUCH for her odds? ___ Don't bet on it. If she wins Kentucky, West VA and Indiana, the Pa win will be most significant. Indiana is the key state now."
There aren't any more "odds" for Hillary Clinton. She lost this election over two months ago, when it became mathematically impossible for her to win the delegates needed to secure the nomination. She's lost the majority of the states, and will lose more before its over. She's going to finish way behind in both the delegate count and the popular vote. Her campaign has effectively been over for MONTHS, so let's not even pretend as though there's any real "horse race" ongoing. Her goal, for all of this time, has been to try to get the superdelegates to pull a George Bush Jr. on us and throw out the results of the election, and she has the support of the Republican party in this effort, because the Repubs are terrified of Obama and want to run against her--with 59% of the public telling pollsters Clinton isn't honest or trustworthy, they can easily flatten her in the fall, so they're doing their best to disrupt the primaries. Clinton's victory in PA is padded with a large number of Republicans who crossed over to vote for her, at the repeated suggestion of Limbaugh, Hannity, and other members of the conservative elite. As Obama's upcoming victory in North Carolina--expected to be massive--will erase all of Clinton's "gains" from PA, the Republican party of NC has just launched an anti-Obama television ad campaign today.
A vote for Clinton has been a vote for McCain for over two months.
"We don't know yet what will happen with the Florida and Michigan votes, __ we just don't know."
We do know what should happen: they should be ignored, because there was no contest in those states. Clinton agreed to this beforehand, just like everyone else. They agreed those votes wouldn't count, and they agreed not to campaign there. They signed a pledge to that effect, and even announced it publicly. Everyone including Clinton agreed to it, and everyone but Clinton honored it. She left her name on the ballot in Michigan--the only major candidate to do so--and actively campaigned in Florida--also the only major candidate to do so.
Hillary is committed to taking the nomination, and bringing the entire party down with her...she is Karl Rove in a bad pant suit.
Hillary Clinton supported Bush's preventive war in Iraq, claims experience that she does NOT have, her husband initiated trade agreements which cost loss of jobs especially among the blue collar workers of PA and other states which she supported, and she OUTRIGHT LIED about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, yet the older white males of PA voted for her. Why? because they don't want a black man as President. I suggest they go and read both the Declaration and the Constitution of the United States. Shame on them. Bonatti - an Italian American from Pennsylvania.
I stopped looking at Common Dreams, but just for fun, checked it out tonight. Nothing has changed. You people are sick. . .and not sick puppies. . .just sick!
Doesn't do MUCH for her odds? ___ Don't bet on it. If she wins Kentucky, West VA and Indiana, the Pa win will be most significant. Indiana is the key state now. We don't know yet what will happen with the Florida and Michigan votes, __ we just don't know. We can surmise and guess. Politics is a nasty game. ___ It's still a "rat" race.
Visons of the past....Florida...Bush....stolen election.
As I heard it, McCains campaign manager is trying to buy out Diebold
" .. . if Obama chooses Hillary for a running mate, does that then mean he has poor judgment?" I'd say that it means worse than that.
bojanglesA1,
I posted that same issue yesterday on two threads. Watch the Diebold machines and vote counting. Some ballots were delivered to the wrong people, and some machines were not working, which created two hour delays. Within two hours more than 100 complaints had been filed. Again I ask the question: is this a precursor to a specious victory for Johnny Bomb Bomb in the Fall? My money says yes.
Clemsy
The whole Wright thing was a set up by Fox...and the whole deal taken out of context...
Wright was quoting an Ambassador....Fox wanted it to look like he himself said it...NOT....
FOX Lies!! Irresponsible Media! Barack Obama Pastor Wright...Posted Apr 23, 2008 12:15 PM PST
Category: MAINSTREAM MEDIA
, Category: POLITICS/ELECTIONS/CORRUPTION
Fox news doctored and falsified the video of Obama's pastor Wright. Wright did not preach those words himself. He was quoting a White Man.; Ambassador Edward Peck. And he is a retired, white, career U.S. diplomat who served 32-years in the U.S. Foreign Service and was chief of the U.S.mission to Iraq under Jimmy Carter. The complete video below will show that Pastor Wright is telling his audience that "I will tell you what a white man named Ambassador Peck said". And then he will quote Mr. Peck. And he ends by reminding his congregation "A white man said this, I didn't say it". Fox didn't show that because they wanted people to think it came from Pastor Wright.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ&feature=related
Hillary won? Not according to the exit polls....
Morning Joe and Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC have reported twice this morning that the exit polls in PA at 5pm yesterday showed that Sen. Obama would win by 5% yesterday. Joe says the exit polls were off by 15%! Andrea verified this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcqdwgeLFU8
best for 90% of americans to flee to canada...especially families and go to a conservative province... the voters who voted for hillary proves too many people in america has been dumded down so much that there will be always the corp robber barons making slaves out of we the people
..
seeing that hillary got that many votes speaks volumns.. there is no HOPE in this corporate controlled system of brainwashing to make slaves out of americans...and america is a magnet to draw the worlds most corrupt and greedy to come here and make the slaves in more misery so they can also get rich... america is fast becoming a third world country..
the clinton yrs in power was about SETTING us UP for all this.. with their nafta and gatt bringing to america ... THAT set this up for all of 90% of americans to be harmed...... and then hillary did it again with voting for this war for the robber barons again to hurt the 90% of americans...
the clintons work for the robber barons to make sure americans are in slavery!! and their voters are the types that would elect hitler even after knowing what hitler has done.. they are brainwashed so strongly by the corp evil.. that there is no hope here ... destruction will be the ONLY way that solves this problem.. so best to get away and maybe come back AFTER the destruction..
"Any "feminist" who votes for her race baiting, fear baiting, saber rattling stuff, and who loves it because it somehow shows a woman can "kick ass" can go join Hillary in her new alliance with the vast right wing conspiracy."
Thanks, longingforsanity.
It's not that I believe women can't "kick ass," it's only that I wonder why they would want to put on a pair of pants and act as if they too think with their dicks. My whole reason for voting for ANY woman is because she is NOT a man, and does not want to act like one. Hillary Clinton wants us to think she's a man, and by doing so, is giving up on the strongest part of herself.
We already have enough testosterone in this world (and I produce my share of it).
the clinton yrs in power was about SETTING us UP for all this.. with their nafta and gatt bringing to america ... THAT set this up for all of 90% of americans to be harmed...... and then hillary did it again with voting for this war for the robber barons again to hurt the 90% of americans...
the clintons work for the robber barons to make sure americans are in slavery!!
best to move to a conservative province in canada especially if one has a family.. this country has been so brainwashed by the robber barons that soon they will elect a hitler type and destruction will come... hillary with her PRVEN corrupt record should not get 5 votes but what we see is the problem is the dumbed down voters by the robber barons and this will cause great harm for the future...
FLEEE to canada to a conservative province while ya can...like span is 6 yrs longer there whereas americans life span was 13th best in the world in 1960.. in 2000 down to 26th best and now down to 42nd... canadas is about 6th best. and with global warming the future there looks even better...
america will be a magnet for the most grred types of the world to come here and get rich off of slavery of the people and making misery... in a way america is great for the world.. cause it cleanses the world of their most evil and greedy to come here.. BUT that will keep making america change faster and faster to a third world country and a slavery country...
with the voters who has voted for a hitler type like hillary there is NO hope...
FLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!
Though I'll probably vote for Obama, I have to give credit where credit is due. Clinton's years in office were great for the majority of us. They were three trillion times better than Bush's Dark Ages.
The Repugs have manipulated our feelings about Hillary and are now laughing at us. If she were to win the nomination, she'll lose the election and we'll be stuck with McCain for four more disastrous years of rapacious corporate rule. At least during Clinton's reign, corporations and banks were not as presumptuous.
White male working class voters are obviously bitterly stupid. How else can one explain their support for the wife of the man that promoted NAFTA? Haven't they ever read Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men"? Guess not. The capitalist indoctrination runs bitterly deep with this segment of the population.
Here are the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which fit Hillary (and Bill) to a T.
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
suspicious vote counting........
last nite on cnn.com their county results showed all countys at 100% reporting except 2... one philadelphia which showed 97% counted which was going for obama by 30 points and the very next one also showing 97% counted and which was going for obama by 10%...
the philly county had about 450,000 voting so 3 percent left would make around 13 or 14 thousand votes left to count...
now at this time all the sites was showing that 99% of the total vote has been counted and this with all the other counties showing 100% counted.. this should mean more votes than obama over clinton coming....
now i have checked the vote totals and they show 100% counted and not the 99% as last nite... now one would think obama would gain a few thousand votes since the 2 counties that had only 97% of their votes counted the biggest went 30 points for obama... so low and behold when i checked tonight it shows hillay gaining 2 thousand votes and get this Obams LOSING 1000 votes... how could he lose votes when 13 or 14 thousand votes were still uncounted and they are from where he was winning by 30 points...
very suspicious stuff... the clintons and their people all have been PROVEN already as corrupt as any politician ever.. so one would logic look in that direction ..
now the big deal ..thing is did hillary win by double digits or single digits....
its extremely important for hillary to look like she won by double digits not single digits...so this would be suspicious stuff on them or their supporters..
now even tho the totals now show 100% counted still the philadelphia county shows 99% counted which could mean still 4 or 5 thousand votes not counted yet this county is where obama won by 30%..all other countys show 100% counted.
now even with obama LOSING 1000 votes from when the totals said 99% counted and today 100% counted even with this.. the margin for hillary over obama is 9.2 or 9.3 % and with this one has to say hillary won by 9% and not 10% a single digit win not a double digit win...
some people are really corrupt and the history of the clintons and their supporters are really scary for america.... hitlers can be easily elected with how their voters seem to care nothing for truth and real value...their voters really are voting for their very worst enemy in the clintons.. but they have been so brainwashed that they don't care.... This is what elects hitlers and brings destruction for the whole country...
those debates are nonsense and just trying to help the corporate candidate to help keep slavery on americans.... saying there was no significant differences in the candidates.... really....
how bout one voting yes to this war and the other saying NO.. the biggest difference in the world for 90% of americans cause this war for the robber barons for oil has hurt 90% of americans.. and then the other that has hurt 90% of americans nafta and gatt.. which the clintons brought to this country to help the robber barons rob from the people....
the moderators had 2 big big issues to ask about it was THESE 2 issues.. and they did not...
in fact rhe vote for the war was also a vote to tell the world we are a fraud on democracy when we went against world democracy the UN when they voted NO.... so this issue was very very important to talk about in the debate.. cause world hate on america harms these 90% in a million different ways..
america is in very very serious trouble.... just watching the response to hillary shows this... shows how a hitler could be elected very easily and destruction coming for the whole country.
LOL! Thanks for noticing, greenspark.
As for your post... well... yeah... I get it.
What pisses me off is that there are some who look at the situation as a good reason for investing in the makers of anti-depressants.
Now excuse me. I have to call my broker.
Just kidding.
BrokenTop sayeth:
"In the large electoral rich (California, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania) states Obama is zero. Florida hasn't even been counted and Hillary won there. So, what really counts is where you get the votes. I know that's news rabid Obama fans won't even consider but the FACT is she gets votes in the states that count the most!"
If you're suggesting that any Republican is going to win Pennsylvania, or California, or New York, you're out to lunch, and if you aren't suggesting that, you have no point.
Hit the showers.
Gosh, this is such a lively discussion, it's almost better than another pathetic protest to which 5-50 show up to do their part. I adore the CD comments, but my favorite one tonight is Clemsy's: "It's gotten to the point where I change my bumpersticker from "Anyone but a Republican" to "Go, lemmings, go!"..."
While I know this is an article about the hillary, and the topic is the elections, I really have to bring the discussion back to reality... We're screwed, and that's putting it politely. With the methane gas burps starting (see: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,547976,00.html
), and the greenland ice sheets slip-sliding away (see: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2008/2008041726522.ht...), and food crisis threatening ALL of us, and salmon populations being decimated, water shortages about to hit us all very hard, and basically several hundred species a day being destroyed, the elections, the olympics, the brittanys, the polls, game shows--NONE of this matters. It's a distraction. The prez, the occupiers of the white house (who will soon try to occupy YOUR house, or your childrens' house), means nothing to us. It's a game we shouldn't waste our precious time with. See this article: http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=679
Voting won't help us.
Kivals writ:
"And we know that recently Hillary spoke cavalierly about murdering tens of millions of Iranians if their leaders, which the people have little control over, make the foolish mistake of attacking Israel."
Forget "attacking Israel"--Clinton actually voted for Kyl-Lieberman, which was a vote for war with Iran. Even after everything the administration had said, all the lies and cover-ups and everything else, she voted for that without blinking, credulously accepting the Bush policy.
BTW, Kivals, a great post. Saved me some work.
johnycanuck sez:
"Not one of the MSM stations wrote/spoke a peep about the republicans who brazenly change by , in some accounts, by the hundreds ,to democrats to make sure Hillary gets the nod in November, to run against McCain"
Not "hundreds", mate--try thousands, and that's in Pennsylvania alone. Record numbers of Republicans switching to Democrats, at the open urging of Limbaugh, Hannity, and other card-carrying members of America's right-wing elite.
vox sayety:
"He's [Obama's] repeatedly voted to fund the illegal occupation of Iraq. (I thought Democrats were against that. I guess not so much after all.)"
Clinton has done the same, so that's no argument in her favor. Obama has been against the Iraq misadventure from the beginning. Hillary began to turn "against" it only when it came time to run for President.
"Obama even wants to increase military spending! Apparently, over a billion dollars a day is just too stingy."
And, again, Hillary Clinton is on-record advocating the same. The truth is that the depletion of forces because of the Iraq misadventure is probably going to make this necessary in the short term, no matter who is in office.
"Not to mention his support of Joe Leiberman."
No need to mention that, because it isn't true. Obama made an early speech in Lieberman's favor during the last Senate campaign, when his opponent Ned Lamont was barely a blip on the radar screen. When the contest really got rolling, Obama campaigned for Lamont. Lieberman openly dismisses Obama as "far to the left."
"And, of course, he voted to renew the PATRIOT Act."
No, Hillary Clinton voted to renew the USA PATRIOT Act. She also voted to pass it in the first place. Obama helped arrange for a watered-down compromise renewal, and led several Senators in an effort to weaken it further. Hillary Clinton became one of only a handful of Democratic Senators to join with the Republicans in successfully beating back that effort. Obam then voted for the original compromise bill, on the grounds that an even worse bill would likely emerge if that one failed to pass. Hillary has been a USA PATRIOT Act supporter from her initial vote for it.
Learn the facts.
I grew up in Pittsburgh, which isn't really all THAT bad, but aside from Philly, the rest of Pennsylvania is horrible. I actually know a woman up near Erie who doesn't believe there was ever an Ice Age because the Bible never mentions it. I was a small town librarian in Central Pennsylvania and it was all romance novels and car repair manuals. Last year I made the mistake of driving south from Syracuse through north central PA at night. I stopped in one little town for gas at 9 pm and by the look of the locals felt like I was in the movie "Deliverance." All gap toothed grins and guffaws.
Power_Slave say:
"The only way the Hildebeast can win the nomination is to basically steal the process from Obama. If she does that, the black vote stays home in November."
That's been true for MONTHS, now. She's been out of the running for more than 2 months--no chance of getting the nomination. Her strategy, in the whole of that time, was merely to suck up enough delegates to deny Obama a clear victory (which she has accomplished), and to ride this mess into the convention, in hopes of getting the superdelegates to pull a George Bush Jr. on us by throwing out the results of the election and coronating her. She's acting as an agent of the McCain campaign, and that's all she's been doing for the whole of that time.
Ah, it is bitter.
How many of you actually live in this god forsaken state?
Pennsylvania has more "nuke Iran", settle it with a gun, religious rightests than Alabama. The taxes are higher here and the level of education lower than most other states except Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana and there is no culture to speak of...except the Amish who are just fine (thank you for caring), WalMart is doing extremely well and the number of doctors involved in malpractice suits are higher or equal to New York and higher than any other state. Somehow a mean and vengeful god has prevented me, an avowed liberal, older, white female with too damned many degrees and a buddhist spirit a way out. I trudge on...but no one listens...the beer beckons, the couch is in the way, the TV is on and the welfare check does get cashed at WalMart and plump, no, make that obese women and men vote for Hillary, then they'll vote for Bump Bump McCain in the Fall.
Clinton had to win here...here nobody reads well enough to figure out her lies, mostly they are very poorly educated, from lower economic groups, small towns, [guns going off so often my husband said, "Lordy, how would you ever know if there was a problem?"] and so religious they have bumper stickers saying "God loves Republicans"!
Does NAFTA mean we can go live in Mexico and then continue the process until we get to Paraguay and "The compound"? Maybe we could take it over? Build a little mecca for boomers disenfranchised from the political process by "amur-ick-ans"?
Republicans AND Democrats both got us precisely to where we are today. If you think everything in this country and this world is just peachy-fine, then vote for one or the other. Four years later, it won't make a damn bit of difference who you elected (or selected). If you want REAL change, then vote for any one other than the clown corps getting all the press coverage. Vote for a Green, a Socialist, a Libertarian. Hell, vote for a Satanist or a Born Again. DO SOMETHING!
The rabid Hillary haters aren't the people here who just don't like her. What? I didn't vote for her so I hate her? Where have I heard that kind of rhetoric before? Hmmm...
No, no, no. The rabid Hillary haters are the ones who will come to the polls in mindless droves if she's the Democratic nominee. Remember Hillary Clinton? The woman who is the most hated human being on the planet by the entire Republican Party?
Oh right... they hate her husband just as much. He's a big help.
Memories are so short. Running her and him would be the absolute stupidest thing the Democratic Party ever did and that's saying a mouthful right there.
Congratulations Senator Clinton. You will be the next president of the United States. For those of you who wish it was over, we have disenfranchised Michigan and Florida for going too early, now you want to do the same to those states who didn't. It is a process.
Wow! This looks like a Limbaugh loving, illogically ranting right wing web site. I had no idea Hillary Clinton generated so much baseless vitriol but reading some of the web sites I've been accoustomed to visiting has been a real awakening. She is hated worse than George W. Bush. Just goes to show the left can be just as boneheaded as the right!
It does seem that none of you folks really care who gets elected as long as it isn't Hillary. Well, if Obama gets the nomination, as I think he will, he will not win so you need to brace yourselves now for the let down.
Look at the math and I don't mean superdelegates. I mean electoral college votes. Prior to Pennsylvania he had won 28 primaries & caucuses. Of that figure 16 (57%)are "red" states that he has scant chance of winning in the general election--Hillary would not fare much better.
In the large electoral rich (California, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania) states Obama is zero. Florida hasn't even been counted and Hillary won there. So, what really counts is where you get the votes. I know that's news rabid Obama fans won't even consider but the FACT is she gets votes in the states that count the most!
GOOD posts: LONGING FOR SANITY (first one), KIVALS, OLD GUY & RICH M.
RICH GRIFFIN & OLD BADGER TOO: Hilary Clinton's credentials do NOT outstrip those of Obama! The woman was a corporate lawyer and represented on behalf of Wallmart, a corporation with an egregious record as per employees. Her voting record is obviously not very impressive. Some who comment on this site have painstakingly pointed out her background and voting record, and it's pitiful. Michael Moore was right on when he described her husband as our best REPUBLICAN prez since he passed Nafta, allowed the FCC to deregulate, allowed Wall St banks-investment companies to break down the wall that was put in place after the Great Depression to make sure that such a con could not happen again. Well it has and IS. As a mature woman I have NO problem with a woman owning power or holding high office, but everything Hilary stands for politically OFFENDS me as a HUMAN being. Our nation can't stand more of these 2 dynasties driving it to ruin faster than a freight train on steroids. I'd prefer Kucinich or Edwards, but of the 3 on the crap table, the odds of at least some change favor Obama.
Evan DNC Bayh, one of Hillary's best supporters, just said that McCain was better than Bush on the environment. Hillary/McCain 2008??? Hillary/Bayh 2008???
Demoks have a political party that doesn't trust the people but displaces their will with "superdelegates". That party deserves to be ground up and sent to the compost bin. Fail to do so and you get more of the same "supercontrol", "superoppression", "superdestruction".
Daniel David: Hillary is going to try to squirm to the top
...immitating el chimpo, with "superdelegates" immitating el reinquisto, appointment of comandante en chimpo is most appropos for el estado fascista.
Oh of course it does. Millions of people are voting for her because they believe in her. The misogynists and trendy media types can say what they like, but in the real world it's she whom people turn out for. This rubbish about 10 per cent not being enough of a margin is just pathetic. If it had been 20 per cent, they would be saying the same, because the real objection (she's a woman) is unchangeable. Setting the bar too high for any woman is what this foolishness is about.
For geo's higher self, KCUSICK Do you remember the slogan LIVE A ROCK
ONLY DUMBER
I'll go along with MIFTON about the consciousness of ALL matter,
and will throw in the consolation that geo is likely evolved some since being
SELECTED, BUT sadly,
he's dumber than sand now.
COMarc sez; "The old saying is 'there's no such thing as bad publicity'."
Gee, maybe they'll get some of that free publicity from the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth'. It sure helped Kerry.
My oh my, what a spiteful bunch we are. We say we'd elect a clear psychopath to run the country if our preferred candidate does not win--cut off our noses to spite our face or, in this case, our future. Well, all you Hillary haters may have to accept her being on the ticket, and visa versa for Obama. In this instance, if Obama chooses Hillary for a running mate, does that then mean he has poor judgment?
I wonder, too, about those claiming to be 'democrats' (never mind progressive), not selecting Kucinich or Edwards. We don't vote with our hearts because we're afraid the candidate we REALLY want has no chance of winning. Therefore, we allow fear to be our guide. Either that or we're less progressive or 'liberal' than we profess.
Anyone voting for McCain out of spite, fully deserves him. They will reap what their votes sow.
Rather than staying home out of spite, go out and vote for Nader or McKinney, if you hate Hillary so much. Watching the country now, it is becoming clear that the majority does not KNOW where their best interests lie, and they may not have a lot more time to figure it out.
Most seem like scared little rabbits down a rabbit hole. Well, you should know that the monsters of this world know EXACTLY what they want, and have no conscience about going after it. And while we quibble over trivialities among ourselves, they take it.
But if you must use you vote to make a statement, then at least use it to make a progressive, rather than regressive one.
This whole article is just bs from the campaigns. They just keep slinging this charge back and forth that somehow this competition is helping McCain. There's absolutely nothing to that beyond the BS the campaigns are dreaming up to try to smear the other one with, but that doesn't seem to stop this constant nonsense.
Here's just two thoughts.
-- The old saying is 'there's no such thing as bad publicity'. Right now, Obama and Hillary are in the news all the time. McCain is struggling for notice. If this keeps on, it stays that way through August. That could actually be very good for the Democrats. Once this is settled, the corporate media will start pushing McCain constantly and then the Dems will struggle for any press coverage that isn't just smearing them.
-- Another old saying among political types is that most voters don't pay any attention to an election before 3 weeks out from election day. The strange notion that what's happening today will make people vote for McCain in Nov flies in the face of a lot of political experience.
And, my opinion is that McCain can't win anyways. He's got big boat anchors tied around his neck by his connections to Bush's unpopular war and economics. McCain doesn't have a chance and will be lucky to get 40% of the vote in the fall.
The latter is one reason this is being fought so hard at this time. Everyone who counts knows this is the Presidential election happening right now.
But hey, I guess the corporate media like the LA Times needs something to distract their readers from the fact that the combined economic policies of both the corporate Democrats and the corporate Republicans is crashing the economy and driving them into bankruptcy, which has just been re-written by the same Dems and Rethugs to screw them all even worse. This is just bread and circuses to distract people from becoming an angry mob.
So cool J CRUMB, Only Hilary could turn the housing disaster into a godsend
I'm amazed by the stupidity on here, the irrationality - Obama is NOT a good candidate! Clinton has many flaws but she is not the evil woman that is claimed about her. She can win swing voters; he can win new voters. It's too much of a risk to put an inexperienced do nothing U.S. Senator into the presidency (Obama).
Vox,
I still love America and its people. It's my country but I just get so angry and frustrated.I have to remember , it's the government that's to blame and maybe we will be having a political regeime change soon from Republican to Democrat.
The Bush administration has gotten our country to the brink of financial collapse and would keep foreign invasions and killing of citizens in these countries going indefinately to gain power and third world resources. McCain would follow these sames policies. Hillary Clinton has said she would obliterate Iran. She lies about her own experiences and degrades and attacks her opponents. She is ready with the war machine to continue the Imperialistic policies of the Republicans. She respects John McCain as more capable and experienced to become the next president rather than Barack Obama. She shows lack of concern and disdain for own party by tearing down Barack as her main strategy and refusing to consider quitting her campaign at the slightest chance she could get the superdelegates to choose her at the expense of giving McCain advantage in the general election.
I don't agree with everything Barack says but he said he would negotiate instead of mindlessly go into wars. He said he wanted to eliminate the mindset that got us into the wars in the first place. Hillary seems to be trying to appear tough by proclaiming a war stance as her international policy. Most people think Barack should verbally attack Hillary more strongly than he does, mostly he is on the defense against her attacks.
What hurts me about all this is living in a country where the government genocides third world civilizations at will. Everything seems to point to the US as the evil initiator where ever there is trouble in the world. My idea of the first and main priority is "stop the death and destruction of citizens in these countries and don't create any more wars." and this will go a long ways in getting our economy back on track. The main reason the economy of the US is failing is because of it's foreign policies of divide, conquor, steal and kill.
I
"You're about as ready for a growth in consciousness as a rock."
Well, actually, there's a very enlightened author named Peter Russell who is both a theoretical physicist and into Zen meditation...
He suggests that consciousness is a fundamental building block of the universe-- consciousness all the way down, right through rocks and down into the sub-atomic stratum.
Not one of the MSM stations wrote/spoke a peep about the republicans who brazenly change by , in some accounts, by the hundreds ,to democrats to make sure Hillary gets the nod in November, to run against McCain
they must be mighty afraid of what anyone but a corporate shill , will/may do if elected.
I am not surprized by this but just want to keep pointing out the fact that if the republicans want someone for the race other than Obama ,then one must closely look at their reasoning
vox,
You are using CQ Politics as a source? No wonder you are confused. I will try to run down a few of the highlights with regard to their differences.
We all know that before Obama was in the Senate he gave a speech against the war while she voted for it, and she even voted against the Levin amendment, which would have urged diplomacy and multilateralism, before going to war (though leaving unilateral US action as a last resort). Also, before Obama was in the Senate, Clinton voted for the banrkruptcy bill in 2001 (later she missed the vote on the bankruptcy bill in 2005, obviously not wanting to offend her misguided liberal supporters or the banks that are part of her "base"). Obama voted against the 2005 bankruptcy bill.
Also, in 2006, there was an amendment to an appropriations act to ban the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. Hillary voted against the ban and Obama voted for it. And in 2007, Hillary voted at Bush's request to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, a move that many saw as intended to open the way for hostilities. Obama missed that vote (probably worried about AIPAC).
And then there is NAFTA and the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. Hillary claims to have always opposed NAFTA, while the record shows she gave speeches supporting it as first lady. She claims to oppose the Colombian agreement, though her husband and her former main campaign advisor, Penn, are financially interested in its passage. Also, the DLC, of which Clinton is not only a member but was the main speaker in 2005 at the DLC convention, strongly supports all such free trade agreements. And, according to later published accounts by Canadian newspapers, it was the Clinton administration that told the Canadians not to worry about rhetoric about NAFTA, while an Obama aide held a meeting on it with a Canadian official in which he made statements consistent with Obama's position. And Clinton, being the shameless liar that she is, kept on telling the people in Ohio and later in Pennslyvania the distorted account casting blame on Obama.
As for differing rhetoric, Hillary on numerous occasions has referred to the populist and popular leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, as a thug and a dictator. Of course he is neither and Hillary's own president comes much closer to resembling such descriptions, but she has rarely made any pejorative comments about Bush. Obama, on the other hand, has been much more reserved with regard to comments about Chavez or the leaders of China, recognizing that demagoguery can hamper diplomacy.
And we know that Obama joined Edwards in criticizing the role of lobbyists in government while Hillary defended lobbyists. Also, Obama joined Edwards in proposing that we follow through with the Reagan-Gorbachev dream of moving toward the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. I believe Hillary has been silent on this.
And we know that recently Hillary spoke cavalierly about murdering tens of millions of Iranians if their leaders, which the people have little control over, make the foolish mistake of attacking Israel. Obama has made no such reckless comments, though he was given a great amount of flak, from Clinton and the Bush administration, for proposing a policy on Pakistan that is virtually identical to the Bush administration policy regarding elimination of known terrorists in Pakistani territory.
That is a brief rundown. Do your own searches on the Internet if you are really curious.
The Hillary..Her Hillaryness...is the representative of the 50-60 something ANGRY, AGITATED, VINDICTIVE FEMALE REAL ESTATE AGENTS.
This demographic, is SO ANGRY and has so much..BILE..in fact they are STEWING IN THEIR OWN BILE...they are so HYPOCRITICAL..that they really..are..after all..A REPUBLICAN TICKET!
IF THE HILLARY IS SO CONCERNED WITH WOMEN..THEN WHERE IS THE NOTION OF AN "EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT"..THAT WOULD REALLY BE SOMETHING FOR THE WOMEN VOTERS TO BE EXCITED ABOUT..
My POINT? that this is NOT ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN VINDICTIVE RAGE FROM WOMEN WHO HYPOCRITICALLY BLAME THE 'GLASS CEILING' FOR THEIR STRUGGLE TO CLAW THEIR WAY TO THE TOP...OF THE LOCAL CENTURY 21 OFFICE!
Hillary CANNOT beat McBush..McSame..etc..SHE CANNOT BEAT HIM!..But in that vindictive way..she will go on and on...destroying the credibility of the one PERSON who can beat McBUSH...OBAMA!
She is doing more damage than ANY KARL ROVE EVER COULD..PERIOD!
Hillary will NOT END THE WAR, SHE WILL NOT HELP THE ENVIRONMENT, SHE WILL NOT ROLL BACK THE PATRIOT ACT ABUSES, THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OR ANY OTHER ILLEGAL "SECURITY" ACTIONS BY THE CURRENT REGIME..SHE WILL BE MORE OF THE SAME...SHE IS ESSENTIALLY A LYING, CHEATING, REPUBLICAN...SHE IS BACKED BY THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY, SHE WILL NOT HELP THE ECONOMY, THERE IS NO MONEY FOR HER HEALTH "PLAN"..WILL SHE HELP US REGAIN OUR LOST CIVIL LIBERTIES? ARE YOU KIDDING? OF COURSE NOT..SHE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL "CHERRY PICKER" THE WORST FORM OF DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN HYPOCRACY.."OH YES, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT..WELL..MAYBE..BUT THE SECOND? ABSOLUTLEY NOT!.." ETC..ETC..
HILLARY CANNOT WIN..SHE CANNOT AND WILL NOT BEAT MCBUSH IN THE FALL..IS THIS THE PLAN? IS SHE THE NADER OF THIS ELECTION CYCLE? RUINING ANY CHANCES OF A REAL DEMOCRATIC VICTORY BY SABOTAGING FROMTHE INSIDE..(THE MOST EFFECTIVE SABOTAGE BY THE WAY..) THE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES CHANCES? THAT IS ALMOST...OBVIOUS..ALMOST..
THANKS HILLARY, FOR YOUR DESIRE TO CONTINUE THE AMERICAN DYNASTY PHASE..AND THUS TO CONTINUE THE AMERICAN DECLINE INTO "FRIENDLY FASCISM"...THANKS! REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
You're missing the point. He can connect Wright to Hillary.
"Is he so bad? You used him to help with your marriage!"
That brings up her can of worms which the Repubs would just love to see and deflects it from him.
That's hardball with spit on it. he won't. She would in a heartbeat.
"Has Obama used that? No! He wants the issue dead in its grave."
Well, of course he does. It reflects very badly on him in much of America. He's not likely to talk about something that people associate negatively to him. That's not decency. That's simple politics 101. "Don't talk about the stuff you don't want people to talk about."
RichM:
Perhaps you're right. On the other hand, though, the Obama campaign has been just as aggressive against Clinton, as far as I can tell, and really the campaigns haven't been that rough at all. Do people forget what Bush did to McCain in 2000? I mean, that was dirty. What Clinton is doing is, to me, just politics, and not particularly harsh ones at that.
Indeed, sitting here, trying to think of anything "filthy" launched by the Clinton campaign this last month, I really can't.
RichM
Well said on all counts.
Evidence A: Who was a guest visitor to the Clinton White House?
Jeremiah Wright!
Has Obama used that? No! He wants the issue dead in its grave.
He's the better person, period, regardless of his voting record.
vox asks (12:00), "What's so decent about him? (Obama). Seroiusly. Give me an example that would matter to me, like a courageous vote in the Senate. Anything at all will do...."
- You're tuning into my remark at the wrong level. Obama has made no courageous votes in the Senate, & I'd be the last one to say that any Democrat can turn around the processes that are relentlessly degrading the quality of American life. I know all about Obama's weakesses, & have recited them here many times. (I don't believe, though, that the Rezko thing is the least bit significant, compared to the other kinds of things you mentioned.)
However, one must recognize that Obama has had plenty of filthy attacks launched at him in the last month or so, & it would have been easy for him to get down in the mud, just like Hillary did. He didn't do that. Instead, he tried to take the high road. In my book, he gets some credit for that -- even if he is in many ways just another corporate centrist Democrat, whose basic positions are scarcely different from Hillary's.
Our society is on its way to a serious collapse. I don't believe it has what it takes, to right itself. Being a US citizen today is quite comparable to being aboard the Titanic, after it struck the iceberg. // That said, however, a passenger on the Titanic would still have been able to appreciate the difference between fellow passengers who panicked & acted shamefully; and those who accepted their fate with a degree of dignity. Obama's conduct has been more in the latter category, to my way of thinking.
Junna,
Tell me, please, what policy differences between Clinton and Obama will hurt you, or this nation.
Now, I think they both have pretty bad policies. He seems to be just a shade to the right of her, but honestly, they're so close as to be almost the same. In fact, they only seem to have voted differently three times, and each time Obama took the Republican position. (By the way, I am not the same person who wrote what I just linked, lest anyone be confused.)
So why the hatred for Clinton? I'm really trying to understand what policies of hers you don't like so much you'd pretend to leave the USA if she won.
Thanks,
vox
These discussions about "winning more votes" are pointless when you consider that in order to increase the number of people voting for you, you have to appeal to those who have not yet decided on which candidate to vote for, despite months of campaigns. These people are obviously so indecisive and out of touch with their own original feelings on the matter that they can be manipulated by low-road scandal-raising propaganda such as comes predominantly out of the Clinton camp. It's a sad day in America when its fate is decided by people who may be too "dumb" to not have figured out where they stand yet; and even sadder when you consider the opportunities that Obama has had for attacking Clinton in the same way she attacks him, and that her tactic obvioiusly works to impress these "dumb" voters.
If Barack Obama doesn't become our next president and Hillary or McCain does, I am going to turn in my citizenship and join the Lakota Indian nation. I will never vote for Hillary. Our country won't survive her or McCain.
My only guess as to why Pennsylvanians went for Clinton is because Obama has said that fixing the country is not going to be easy - it's going to take work - it's going to require sacrifice. We've heard that Hillary attracts the old style Democrats - those who support entitlement programs and the like. Apparently there a lot of people in Pennsylvania who prefer to sit on their butts and collect welfare checks under a Clinton administration rather than actually doing something constructive under an Obama administration. Why don't these lazy people form their own party? Oh well - they're so old they will probably be dead soon anyway. Then the new generation of Democrats can take over.
HRC is no different from any male who has every run. The invective on this web site is horrific and at about the level of, what, 5th graders. Grow up America the world is tired of your ignorance, stupidity and bully tactics that explode everywhere in greed, violence and war. Youre about as ready for a growth in consciousness as a rock.
Bigstinky wrote: "Here we go again, just like '04. Hillary is nothing but a big phony, lusting for power, willing to say and do anything to get elected."
Huh. It seems to me like Obama is lusting for power, too. After all, he's working awfully hard to get elected. That looks like exactly what Clinton is doing.
As for willing to say or do anything, ummm, you mean like LYING RIGHT TO ME? You remember, when he said he wasn't in favor of free trade or NAFTA when he was lying his way through Ohio, but then sent a staffer to tell the Canadians it was all just political rhetoric, not to be taken seriously?
You mean like that?
Just because you've been suckered, don't think that the rest of us have.
"Nonetheless, there's a huge difference between a ruthless dishonest monster like Hillary; and someone like Obama, who is in many ways an exceptionally decent & thoughtful figure, as US politicians go."
What's so decent about him? Seroiusly. Give me an example that would matter to me, like a courageous vote in the Senate. Anything at all will do.
He's on record as saying he wants to accomodate Republicans. Obama told Tim Russert that he wants to appoint moderate judges.
He's repeatedly voted to fund the illegal occupation of Iraq. (I thought Democrats were against that. I guess not so much after all.)
Obama even wants to increase military spending! Apparently, over a billion dollars a day is just too stingy. Not to mention his support of Joe Leiberman.
And, of course, he voted to renew the PATRIOT Act.
Or is his relationship with Rezko an example of his decency?
The man is just another politician. Nothing more.
And he can't beat McCain.