PDA

View Full Version : Clinton: Playing the race card


whyme225
May 9th, 2008, 07:04 PM
Clinton: Playing the race card?

The New York Post: “Clinton played the race card yesterday as she dismissed Barack Obama as a candidate who will have a hard time winning support from ‘white Americans.’ It was the most starkly racial comment Clinton has made in the campaign, and drew quick condemnation from some Democrats.

“ ‘I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,’ she told USA Today in an interview published yesterday. She referred to an Associated Press story on Indiana and North Carolina exit polls ‘that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.’ She added, ‘There's a pattern emerging here.’”

Here’s what some said in response: “Muriel Offerman, a North Carolina superdelegate who has not disclosed her choice, said, ‘That should not have been said. I think it drives a wedge, a racial wedge, and that's not what the Democratic Party's about.’ Asked about Clinton's comments, Massachusetts superdelegate Debra Kozikowsi said, ‘That's distressing. I'm not even sure how to respond to that.’”

The New York Daily News: “Hillary Clinton misplays race card while Barack Obama is treated like rock star.” “[S]ome of her supporters -- including Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Manhattan) -- slammed the comments. ‘I can't believe Sen. Clinton would say anything that dumb,’ Rangel told The News as he headed to the House floor, where earlier he had embraced Obama. The bitter words came as both candidates looked ahead to West Virginia's primary Tuesday and pressed their talking points -- Clinton insisting she was in the race to win, while Obama argued he could have the nomination wrapped up when Oregon and Kentucky vote on May 20.”

Peggy Noonan also believes Clinton played the race card in her USA Today interview. "If John McCain said, ‘I got the white vote, baby!’ his candidacy would be over. And rising in highest indignation against him would be the old Democratic Party. To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical ‘the black guy can't win but the white girl can’ is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.”

“‘She has unleashed the gates of hell,’ a longtime party leader told me. ‘She's saying, “He's not one of us.”’

John Edwards said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that he disagrees with Clinton’s “white Americans” comment and that she's got to ask herself, "Where are the lines?" He added, “I think it’s fine for Hillary to keep making the case for her. But when that shifts to everything that is wrong with him, then we’re doing damage instead of being helpful.”

And did Edwards tip his hand on who he’s backing? He called Obama the "likely nominee.” And we’ll chalk this one up to his Southern accent, but he said he "voted for 'em on Tuesday.” (Sounded an awful lot like "him.")

Also… “I think Barack Obama’s doing pretty well without my help.” Edwards also said, “He is clearly the likely nominee at this point.”

Edwards said he may choose to publicly declare for one of the candidates, but he’s keeping it to himself “just for now.” He added, though, that he doesn’t think his endorsement matters except to “people like you all” [the media]. He wouldn’t answer if he and his wife, Elizabeth, voted for different people.

Here’s the New York Post’s headline to Charles Hurt’s column: “Desperate Hillbillies threaten to break up party.” “Well, now these racial politics have spilled out into the public and are splintering longtime, devoted Democrats into separate camps. It's become the ‘working-class whites’ versus the ‘eggheads and African-Americans.’

More: “With no one left to cry to, Sen. Clinton has gone nuclear and she's getting kookier by the minute. Yesterday she was toast. Today, she's looking more like scrambled eggs.”

Politico's Smith on Clinton's blunt talk about her white support: "Now, the press has talked about the race in these terms constantly, so I won't feign shock. But it's a bit strange to hear it so bluntly from the candidate's mouth, and probably not a great way to endear herself to African-American voters. And it's also noteworthy that the blunt talk on appealing to whites surfaces the day after the last round of primaries in which there's a substantial number of black voters."

The New York Times reports it's possible Clinton will give herself more money. "Clinton advisers said Mrs. Clinton was committed to spending more of her own cash on the campaign if necessary, although they spoke optimistically about a rise in fund-raising if she prevails in Tuesday’s primary in West Virginia." More: "Clinton had been increasingly relying on Internet donations this spring from new and small-amount contributors; the day after she won the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, the campaign brought in a record $10 million online. But Hassan Nemazee, one of Mrs. Clinton’s national finance chairmen, put the amount she collected online in the 24 hours after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries at only “$1 million-plus.”

Interestingly, the Times makes the point that Obama's big spending in PA for his nine-point loss actually may have dealt a devastating financial blow to Clinton. "Obama spent $9 million on television advertisements in North Carolina and Indiana, including a last minute $170,000 purchase in the expensive Chicago market, which extends into northern Indiana. By contrast, Mrs. Clinton spent about $4.7 million in those states, according to CMAG. Even more, said Evan Tracey, spokesman for CMAG, the fact that Mr. Obama was able to pump $10 million into media purchases in Pennsylvania in April, even though he did not win that state, forced Mrs. Clinton to spend $5 million, cash she could have used in Indiana and North Carolina.”

Yesterday, Terry McAuliffe said "seven figures." That doesn't quite confirm the million dollar Internet haul but...

During a three-state whirlwind tour yesterday of half of the remaining primaries, Clinton has altered her stump speeches on energy slightly to address the specific needs of those states, NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum notes. While Clinton emphasized coal technology in West Virginia (a topic normally included in a list but rarely specified on), she discussed wind power at more length in South Dakota. "When we get 52% of electricity from coal in the United States, coal is not going anywhere," Clinton said to applause in Charleston, WV. The New York Senator did emphasize the necessity for clean coal technology but assured the audience, which was sure to have included a good percentage of coal miners, that coal mining would not be eliminated.

None of the coal talk was anywhere to be seen in an expanded rally in Sioux Falls, SD four hours later. Instead, the focus was on wind energy production. "It's been said that America from the Dakotas down to West Texas is the Saudi Arabia of wind," Clinton said. "And, you know, that's not just Washington political hot air talking; that's actually a fact, that if we harness the wind coming off of these plains and we had an electric grid system with the distribution system to transmit it from right here in South Dakota across our country, we would be moving toward clean renewable energy."

Why go on? The New York Daily News: “Whatever happens, it's a profile in true grit. But why is she still in a race that with each passing hour appears more doomed? Admirers say she's genuinely driven to make America a better place. Critics attribute her doggedness to the consuming ambition, thirst for power and streak of narcissism she shares with her husband.”

“Movie mogul and Hillary Rodham Clinton backer Harvey Weinstein told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi he would stop fund-raising for Democrats if she refused to support new primary elections in Florida and Michigan, it was reported yesterday.”

In The Zone
May 9th, 2008, 07:09 PM
Talking about race is not a crime. She is not saying he is from the ghetto and will commit crimes. She is talking about it like any other normal person would. It's a legitimate concern for November. Not everyone is liberal and in the 21st century mentally.

In The Zone
May 9th, 2008, 07:22 PM
This is a much better article.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_hillary_democrats.html

Only 2 Democrats have won in 40 years. And they got the votes who are voting for Hillary.

abercrombieguy23
May 9th, 2008, 07:35 PM
This is a much better article.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_hillary_democrats.html

Only 2 Democrats have won in 40 years. And they got the votes who are voting for Hillary.

John McCain will win for this very reason

LeonHart
May 9th, 2008, 07:50 PM
For christ sake I'm tired to people pointing fingers and accusing people of being racist. I feel like talking about race isn't even allowed anymore. It's getting ridiculous and the media is trying to spin it more than it is. And the fact is Hillary is winning 60-70% of the white votes while Barack is winning 90% of the black vote.

abercrombieguy23
May 9th, 2008, 08:01 PM
For christ sake I'm tired to people pointing fingers and accusing people of being racist. I feel like talking about race isn't even allowed anymore. It's getting ridiculous and the media is trying to spin it more than it is. And the fact is Hillary is winning 60-70% of the white votes while Barack is winning 90% of the black vote.

Amen...the paranoia on this board is through the roof

ampers&
May 9th, 2008, 08:10 PM
LOL @ the Clintards who are incapable of seeing what's wrong with this statement. I guess it's understandable to want to dismiss her stupidity in this statement because she's your candidate of choice, but this is, indeed a big blunder.

It's not a crime to talk about race but the way she said this is extremely divisive. If you don't see how then...:o...why should anyone even bother explaining it to you.
Amen...the paranoia on this board is through the roof
ROFL. I'm pretty sure all the politicians and super delegates quoted in the article are not WTAWorld members full of racial paranoia.

Good God. :o

LeonHart
May 9th, 2008, 08:17 PM
This whole primary has been divisive. The democratic party is divisive right now. I mean, it's pretty gutsy on her part to state that, but it is by no means a racist comment. She's making a very plausible case for herself, how can the democrats win without those crucial groups come November?

BigB08822
May 9th, 2008, 08:30 PM
Racism, Sexism, Ageism, all three have issues to deal with and none of them have gone there. Only their supporters. Plenty of people don't want Obama as President because he is black. Plenty of people don't want Hillary President because she is a woman and plenty of people don't want McCain because he is "too old." What a fucked up election! LOL!

miffedmax
May 9th, 2008, 08:30 PM
Well, maybe if HIllary would concede the obvious and end her campaign, the Democrats could start working to regain those white, working-class votes.

Her campaign, despite all the muttering about sexism and misogyny, has been a debacle from beginning to end. She's said stupid things like the above, she's been late to get her troops on the ground in most states and her "big state" stratgey was flawed from the get-go. She's had the disavantage of being the frontrunner from the start, but she also had a huge number of advantages--and she's misplayed every one of them.

Even if Hillary was racist--and I honestly don't think she is--saying something that potentially divisive this late in the campaign is just stupid. Or are is the theory she's really running for 2012 legit?

Thkmra
May 9th, 2008, 08:32 PM
John McCain will win for this very reason

Then you're automatically acknowledging that America is an inherently Racist country, that will not allow a Black candidate to win?

LeonHart
May 9th, 2008, 08:33 PM
Well we'll either have the first black president, first women president, or the oldest president ever. So it'll be a unique election regardless of the outcome ;)

Thkmra
May 9th, 2008, 08:34 PM
Well, maybe if HIllary would concede the obvious and end her campaign, the Democrats could start working to regain those white, working-class votes.

Her campaign, despite all the muttering about sexism and misogyny, has been a debacle from beginning to end. She's said stupid things like the above, she's been late to get her troops on the ground in most states and her "big state" stratgey was flawed from the get-go. She's had the disavantage of being the frontrunner from the start, but she also had a huge number of advantages--and she's misplayed every one of them.

Even if Hillary was racist--and I honestly don't think she is--saying something that potentially divisive this late in the campaign is just stupid. Or are is the theory she's really running for 2012 legit?
:worship::worship:

abercrombieguy23
May 9th, 2008, 08:36 PM
Then you're automatically acknowledging that America is an inherently Racist country, that will not allow a Black candidate to win?

LOL...see post above re: Paranoia...

abercrombieguy23
May 9th, 2008, 08:37 PM
LOL @ the Clintards who are incapable of seeing what's wrong with this statement. I guess it's understandable to want to dismiss her stupidity in this statement because she's your candidate of choice, but this is, indeed a big blunder.

It's not a crime to talk about race but the way she said this is extremely divisive. If you don't see how then...:o...why should anyone even bother explaining it to you.

ROFL. I'm pretty sure all the politicians and super delegates quoted in the article are not WTAWorld members full of racial paranoia.

Good God. :o

The way she said it....or the way you took it?

LeonHart
May 9th, 2008, 08:39 PM
Well, maybe if HIllary would concede the obvious and end her campaign, the Democrats could start working to regain those white, working-class votes.

Her campaign, despite all the muttering about sexism and misogyny, has been a debacle from beginning to end. She's said stupid things like the above, she's been late to get her troops on the ground in most states and her "big state" stratgey was flawed from the get-go. She's had the disavantage of being the frontrunner from the start, but she also had a huge number of advantages--and she's misplayed every one of them.

Even if Hillary was racist--and I honestly don't think she is--saying something that potentially divisive this late in the campaign is just stupid. Or are is the theory she's really running for 2012 legit?

So if Dementieva was down 4-6 1-5 you would tell her to give up? ;)

She's still fighting out there, she's obviously a very motivated person that will do whatever it takes to reach her goal. It is a characteristic that I admire so much, which I also hope most Americans do too. But sadly they look at this at an attempt to break the party up. Barack hasn't done himself any favors either by denying Michigan and Florida of their votes when he had the chance. Now they're pissed off at him and I really doubt he'd be winning either of them against McCain.

Pureracket
May 9th, 2008, 09:11 PM
So if Dementieva was down 4-6 1-5 you would tell her to give up? ;)

She's still fighting out there, she's obviously a very motivated person that will do whatever it takes to reach her goal. It is a characteristic that I admire so much, which I also hope most Americans do too. But sadly they look at this at an attempt to break the party up. Barack hasn't done himself any favors either by denying Michigan and Florida of their votes when he had the chance. Now they're pissed off at him and I really doubt he'd be winning either of them against McCain.Certainly, you know the problem goes much deeper than a tennis match, though.

What miff and millions like him are saying is the problem isn't that she isn't in the race. It's the rhetoric that may accompany her campaign. She very well may not have meant anything racist about it, but as long as she's saying things like this it makes it dangerous.

Let's get a few things straight, though: Many of you all seem to be dead set on voting for McCain if HRC doesn't win(which any person could find laughable since their policies are almost polar opposites). Well, I am not sure you're hurting the right person by doing that because you certainly can't all of a sudden be a McCain fan. BHO is going to be worth millions after this campaign - win or lose- so you aren't hurting him.

You're voting for McCain means you're voting for everything HRC campaigned against. You'll throw HRC's judges, health care initiatives, and education ideas out just because of your dislike of the guy who beat her? Your choice.

By the way, like Barack, I'll be fine too if he loses.;)

Thkmra
May 9th, 2008, 09:15 PM
LOL...see post above re: Paranoia...

:rolleyes: No I def read your post, but I'll get to that a little later. My question to you wasn't so much directed to you as it was rhetorical. I simply tried to illustrate the argument, that in essence Hillary is making.

Given the current status off the race, I don't know how many countless times it has to be stated, then re-stated, then reitterated, that essentially IT'S OVER!!!! It has been for some time now. By all conclusive accounts, it is mathematically impossible for her to retain the amount of plegde delegates, and popular vote to over-take Obama. Her most ardent supporters, and surrogates will readily admit that.

So here we are, at this empasse, of Obama the shoe-in for the Nom, but not able to put Hillary away. What is the ONLY possible explanation, and argument that the Hillary campaign can use to justify STEALING the election from Obama, who I might add has one it fair and sqaure, despite the Rev Wright controversy?
Answer: 'Electablity'., or lack thereof.

Point blank it's called reading between the lines!!!! Her only reasoning, and case to the super-delegates is:Despite the fact that he won, HE CANNOT WIN THE GENERAL!!!!...Well why not? Better name recognition, close association to the Clinton Pres...better proposals/policies...?!!!! Hmmmm let's see her response:

'It has become very apparent to me, and my campaign, that my opponent has historically had diffuculty in connecting, and obtaining the vote of 'Hard-working Whites...I mean 'Working-class white people, while my campaign has...Who's constituency will win, and who's will lose?!!! *hint hint*... Lacking a lil discernability there?....Well maybe it;s just God-given.:tape:

RVD
May 9th, 2008, 10:43 PM
I did something yesterday that I rarely do, which was to listen to the talking heads. And what were they clamoring over and excerpting...? :lol:
...but this very topic!

I just couldn't believe that a politically "savvy" individual, who spent her entire life gathering the wisdom necessary to position herself as...
1) the Democratic Presidential Frontrunner, and
2) one of the most senior level and influential politicians alive,
could make a blunder of this magnitude, at such a stage in the Primary. :haha: It's honestly laughable if you stop to consider the sheer irony.
The Clintons seemingly hailed themselves as the saviors of Black Americans, working class Whites, Latinos, Women, and other misrepresented minorities. Yet Hillary's statement disparages all that she's worked to accomplish in over 48 years!!! :eek:

Sorry Clinton supporters, but the Death Toll has sounded, and your girl Hillary is ringing it herself. :scared:
Hillary has defied political logic here (if there is such a thing). :lol:

Oh well...,
Everyone was awaiting the one singular decisive moment when we'd surely know the outcome.
Well, me thinks that this was that very moment. *SMH*
How embarrassing.

miffedmax
May 9th, 2008, 10:57 PM
Exactly. If her coalition is so damn broad, why ain't she winning?

LeonHart
May 9th, 2008, 11:01 PM
Certainly, you know the problem goes much deeper than a tennis match, though.

What miff and millions like him are saying is the problem isn't that she isn't in the race. It's the rhetoric that may accompany her campaign. She very well may not have meant anything racist about it, but as long as she's saying things like this it makes it dangerous.

Let's get a few things straight, though: Many of you all seem to be dead set on voting for McCain if HRC doesn't win(which any person could find laughable since their policies are almost polar opposites). Well, I am not sure you're hurting the right person by doing that because you certainly can't all of a sudden be a McCain fan. BHO is going to be worth millions after this campaign - win or lose- so you aren't hurting him.

You're voting for McCain means you're voting for everything HRC campaigned against. You'll throw HRC's judges, health care initiatives, and education ideas out just because of your dislike of the guy who beat her? Your choice.

By the way, like Barack, I'll be fine too if he loses.;)

Matter of the fact is, McCain appeals to moderates more than Barack. I'd have no problem voting McCain because of that. It's why he's having trouble appealing to his Republican base. Hillary appeals to moderates more than Barack as well. I still haven't made up my mind 100% though to be honest. I'm thinking over Barack's tax plan. He's raising social security tax and income tax, and taxing heavily on small business...and my parents own a wholesale scuba company. So it's either my family gets screwed over Barack's tax plan or see America potentially stationed in Iraq for 4 more years (which won't affect me personally as much).

RVD
May 9th, 2008, 11:03 PM
Exactly. If her coalition is so damn broad, why ain't she winning?She was being laughed at all over the news stations yesterday.
I mean these talking heads (even the ones supporting her) couldn't hold it in (after the initial shock of reading the excerpt). :lol:
Quite sad...quite sad.

LeonHart
May 9th, 2008, 11:04 PM
Exactly. If her coalition is so damn broad, why ain't she winning?

She's winning the big states and if you count Florida / Michigan she's right in there with Obama. And she's also appealing to the moderate republicans that may vote for her instead of McCain that aren't voting in the democratic primaries.

RVD
May 9th, 2008, 11:15 PM
Matter of the fact is, McCain appeals to moderates more than Barack. I'd have no problem voting McCain because of that. It's why he's having trouble appealing to his Republican base. Hillary appeals to moderates more than Barack as well. I still haven't made up my mind 100% though to be honest. I'm thinking over Barack's tax plan. He's raising social security tax and income tax, and taxing heavily on small business...and my parents own a wholesale scuba company. So it's either my family gets screwed over Barack's tax plan or see America potentially stationed in Iraq for 4 more years (which won't affect my personally as much).LeonHart, are you sure about this, because so far as this entire Primary is concerned, Obama has done quite well indeed with moderates.

Let's not make the mistake of grouping moderates in a singular category at this point.
Hillary failed miserably using this same line of thinking.

Times have apparently changed on the political landscape, and I may be a bit ahead of myself in this regard, but McCain has already begun making the very same mistakes (According to the political talking heads).

starin
May 9th, 2008, 11:17 PM
you can not win the general election w/ a coalition of Black voters, college students, and liberal rich people.
That's is Obama's coalition and it's losing one. The democratic party is way too beholden to it's extreme left and its' because of them that they keep losing the presidency over and over again. The far left keeps picking candidates that will not appeal to most of middle America.

RVD
May 9th, 2008, 11:18 PM
She's winning the big states and if you count Florida / Michigan she's right in there with Obama. And she's also appealing to the moderate republicans that may vote for her instead of McCain that aren't voting in the democratic primaries.
So is Barack...but for different reasons.
We should wait for the first few General Election results before concluding anything though, because Barack has been pulling off some interesting wins since he began this campaign.

LeonHart
May 9th, 2008, 11:25 PM
So is Barack...but for different reasons.
We should wait for the first few General Election results before concluding anything though, because Barack has been pulling off some interesting wins since he began this campaign.

It's still up in the air for me. Though I hope Barack makes more of an effort to severe his ties with the radical left. I probably won't have my mind set until I go into the booth.

RVD
May 9th, 2008, 11:25 PM
you can not win the general election w/ a coalition of Black voters, college students, and liberal rich people.
That's is Obama's coalition and it's losing one. The democratic party is way too beholden to it's extreme left and its' because of them that they keep losing the presidency over and over again. The far left keeps picking candidates that will not appeal to most of middle America.Is Barack considered a Far Left politician? :scratch: I only ask because one of my initial misgivings was that he wasn't far enough to the left for my taste.
But I guess it's in how you perceive his message.

One of the unknowns here is just how Barack will attack McCain on the hardcore issues that most Americans are concerned about.
McCain will have to rely on more than negative campaigning, because as Hillary has already shown, Americans are tired of that played-out scheme.

I agree with you though, that Barack's campaign must address the tax issue of small and medium sized companies. For these will be the very entities to pull the U.S. out of this recession

LeonHart
May 9th, 2008, 11:28 PM
Is Barack considered a Far Left politician? :scratch: I only ask because one of my initial misgivings was that he wasn't far enough to the left for my taste.
But I guess it's in how you perceive his message.

One of the unknowns here is just how Barack will attack McCain on the hardcore issues that most Americans are concerned about.
McCain will have to rely on more than negative campaigning, because as Hillary has already shown, Americans are tired of that played-out scheme.

I agree with you though, that Barack's campaign must address the tax issue of small and medium sized companies. For these will be the very entities to pull the U.S. out of this recession

Having ties with Rev. Wright, and Luis Farkon. Oh he's as left as left can get.

RVD
May 9th, 2008, 11:29 PM
It's still up in the air for me. Though I hope Barack makes more of an effort to severe his ties with the radical left. I probably won't have my mind set until I go into the booth.Agreed.

As for his ties to the 'radical left', I'm not as politically tuned in as most here, so could you provide me with a couple of examples of Far Left institutions, individuals, etc... that Barack is connected to/with? That way, I can research a few of these and understand better.

Thanks.

RVD
May 9th, 2008, 11:31 PM
Having ties with Rev. Wright, and Luis Farkon. Oh he's as left as left can get.:lol: You must have read my mind before I made my last post. :worship: :lol:

Okay, thanks.
I'll look into Barack'sonnection with Luis Farrakhan, because I'm already familiar with his connection with Rev. Wright. :wavey:

Oh, incidentally...,
Didn't Barack already cut ties with Rev Wright? :scared:

LeonHart
May 9th, 2008, 11:41 PM
I'm not sure myself, I'm researching as well. I just looked up a little bit and it was Rev. Wright that looked up to Luis Farrakhan so I stand corrected. But there was another person he was associated with, I'll have to get back to this.

In The Zone
May 10th, 2008, 12:04 AM
you can not win the general election w/ a coalition of Black voters, college students, and liberal rich people.
That's is Obama's coalition and it's losing one. The democratic party is way too beholden to it's extreme left and its' because of them that they keep losing the presidency over and over again. The far left keeps picking candidates that will not appeal to most of middle America.

Incredibly true. It was Kerry's downfall.

harloo
May 10th, 2008, 12:18 AM
I did something yesterday that I rarely do, which was to listen to the talking heads. And what were they clamoring over and excerpting...? :lol:
...but this very topic!

I just couldn't believe that a politically "savvy" individual, who spent her entire life gathering the wisdom necessary to position herself as...
1) the Democratic Presidential Frontrunner, and
2) one of the most senior level and influential politicians alive,
could make a blunder of this magnitude, at such a stage in the Primary. :haha: It's honestly laughable if you stop to consider the sheer irony.
The Clintons seemingly hailed themselves as the saviors of Black Americans, working class Whites, Latinos, Women, and other misrepresented minorities. Yet Hillary's statement disparages all that she's worked to accomplish in over 48 years!!! :eek:

Sorry Clinton supporters, but the Death Toll has sounded, and your girl Hillary is ringing it herself. :scared:
Hillary has defied political logic here (if there is such a thing). :lol:

Oh well...,
Everyone was awaiting the one singular decisive moment when we'd surely know the outcome.
Well, me thinks that this was that very moment. *SMH*
How embarrassing.

:worship::worship::worship: For a brief moment I felt a bit sorry for Hilary after seeing a distressed Bill Clinton in the background as she championed her, "stay the course" message in Indiana. His expression during her speech went from amusement at the whole spectacle to a look of stress and discomfort. In my opinion, that said it all about how Bill felt in regards to Hilary pushing on. I thought at least Hilary had an ounce of decency left and maybe the public was being too hard on her. Instead of the politician I saw a woman so driven that she would borrow money from herself to keep going even when their was no chance of her Obama.

It only took me one venture to my email account on Yahoo to see the headline, "Hilary Uses The Race Card" and that's when I knew she had pandered to an ugly side of America. She used white privilege as an excuse to imply that her opponent and party member wasn't more electable. I know Hilary has used many questionable covert race baiting tactics but I just didn't think she would bluntly make these type of statements to the public.

I started to think of all the years the Clintons stated they were for the people. Where did it all go wrong? Honestly I believed the Clinton's would never run this type of campaign against their own party member because it went against everything they stood for but boy was I fooled. :)

RVD
May 10th, 2008, 12:33 AM
I'm not sure myself, I'm researching as well. I just looked up a little bit and it was Rev. Wright that looked up to Luis Farrakhan so I stand corrected. But there was another person he was associated with, I'll have to get back to this.K...thanks. :)

RVD
May 10th, 2008, 12:45 AM
:worship::worship::worship: For a brief moment I felt a bit sorry for Hilary after seeing a distressed Bill Clinton in the background as she championed her, "stay the course" message in Indiana. His expression during her speech went from amusement at the whole spectacle to a look of stress and discomfort. In my opinion, that said it all about how Bill felt in regards to Hilary pushing on. I thought at least Hilary had an ounce of decency left and maybe the public was being too hard on her. Instead of the politician I saw a woman so driven that she would borrow money from herself to keep going even when their was no chance of her Obama.

It only took me one venture to my email account on Yahoo to see the headline, "Hilary Uses The Race Card" and that's when I knew she had pandered to an ugly side of America. She used white privilege as an excuse to imply that her opponent and party member wasn't more electable. I know Hilary has used many questionable covert race baiting tactics but I just didn't think she would bluntly make these type of statements to the public.

I started to think of all the years the Clintons stated they were for the people. Where did it all go wrong? Honestly I believed the Clinton's would never run this type of campaign against their own party member because it went against everything they stood for but boy was I fooled. :)I honestly thought that it was all a political joke (satire). You know how the talking heads are sometimes when a contest is as strange as this one? :lol: I mean, even the talking heads were ALL laughing.
So I was like, okay guys, where's the punch line? :shrug: But it never came. :o

And then they had an audible of Hillary and that 'now infamous' assertion, and I was aghast. :eek:

I actually ran to my computer, logged on to TennisForum.com (GOD! I HATE that name!) , just to see if anybody here had posted a thread on it. :lol: Honestly, it's hard for me to perceive this as a "misspoken comment" or a "simple slip" . She's a Senior Senator and leader for goodness sakes.

What was/is she thinking?! :confused:

Dawn Marie
May 10th, 2008, 01:17 AM
Hillary Clinton can't run a decent campagne so why am I suppose to believe that she will make a good president?

Hillary, acts like she is entitled to the job. Hillary please stop this nonsense and quit in June. I implore you.

Black Mamba.
May 10th, 2008, 01:52 AM
The democrats can't win in November without every type of democrat. This is why this win at all costs throw your opponent under the bus strategy will probably get the democrats beat in the general election. Lets say hypothetically Hillary gets the nomination. She splits the white working class vote with McCain but then Christian Conservatives like the people that go to my church rally behind John McCain out of spite. Lets then assume that while she correctly pointed out that Obama struggles with White working class voters that she completely underestimated what her campaign has done with her relationship with the Black community. Lets assume that rather than voting for John McCain Black Democrats choose to stay home. She'd be in the same position Obama is in now where the primary was so divisive that you lose an election you had no business losing.

Expat
May 10th, 2008, 02:59 AM
hillary is not coming back to run for president ever after
just like al gore wont come back
so just like al gore she needs to ensure that the person who defeated her is somehow always tainted (bush lost the popular vote) to make herself viable in the hunt for political speeches and earning cashchecks out of it

this will happen only if obama loses the election ( and he most likely will win the election given the large no of people who have drunk the kool aid)
but hillary has a solid reason to continue
its about the fact that superdelegates need to decide whos more electable

left liberal + college vote backed nominees have been swiftboated quite rapidly
whats makes obama interesting is that he can expect more than 95% of african americans to line up in the booths
and nearly 100% of them to vote for him
which gives him a solid votebank of at least 20-30 of all votes in the presidential election
(just from african americans)

this race is eerily similar to the one in 1960 with obama as jfk and mccain as richard nixon
there too a large voting bloc of catholics was enmeshed with people swayed by jfk's personality the same case is here

Cam'ron Giles
May 10th, 2008, 04:53 AM
Hillary has a vested interest in derailing the democratic nominee. Do you really think she does not know that it's pretty much over for her? It works better for her if McCain wins...He will continue the campaign in Iraq...the economy will continue to take a beating and she will be perfectly positioned for the nomination on 2012...:shrug:

Rocketta
May 10th, 2008, 05:13 AM
It's really sad, really. :(

I like Hillary and Bill but she's making it hard to continue to like her. :shrug:

*JR*
May 10th, 2008, 05:38 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Seeds of Destruction

By BOB HERBERT
Published: May 10, 2008

The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully.

Their repertoire has always been deficient in grace and class. So there was Hillary Clinton cold-bloodedly asserting to USA Today that she was the candidate favored by “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” and that her opponent, Barack Obama, the black candidate, just can’t cut it with that crowd.

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” said Mrs. Clinton.

There is, indeed. There was a name for it when the Republicans were using that kind of lousy rhetoric to good effect: it was called the Southern strategy, although it was hardly limited to the South. Now the Clintons, in their desperation to find some way — any way — back to the White House, have leapt aboard that sorry train.

He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!

The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years.

(Representative Charles Rangel of New York, who is black and has been an absolutely unwavering supporter of Senator Clinton’s White House quest, told The Daily News: “I can’t believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.”)

But it’s an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It’s true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now.

I don’t know if Senator Obama can win the White House. No one knows. But to deliberately convey the idea that most white people — or most working-class white people — are unwilling to give an African-American candidate a fair hearing in a presidential election is a slur against whites.

The last time the Clintons had to make a big exit was at the end of Bill Clinton’s second term as president — and they made a complete and utter hash of that historic moment. Having survived the Monica Lewinsky ordeal, you might have thought the Clintons would be on their best behavior.

Instead, a huge scandal erupted when it became known that Mrs. Clinton’s brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, had lobbied the president on behalf of criminals who then received presidential pardons or a sentence commutation from Mr. Clinton.

Tony Rodham helped get a pardon for a Tennessee couple that had hired him as a consultant and paid or loaned him hundreds of thousands of dollars. Over the protests of the Justice Department, President Clinton pardoned the couple, Edgar Allen Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo, who had been convicted of bank fraud in Alabama.

Hugh Rodham was paid $400,000 to lobby for a pardon of Almon Glenn Braswell, who had been convicted of mail fraud and perjury, and for the release from prison of Carlos Vignali, a drug trafficker who was convicted and imprisoned for conspiring to sell 800 pounds of cocaine. Sure enough, in his last hours in office (when he issued a blizzard of pardons, many of them controversial), President Clinton agreed to the pardon for Braswell and the sentence commutation for Vignali.

Hugh Rodham reportedly returned the money after the scandal became public and was an enormous political liability for the Clintons.

Both Clintons professed to be ignorant of anything improper or untoward regarding the pardons. Once, when asked specifically if she had talked with a deputy White House counsel about pardons, Mrs. Clinton said: “People would hand me envelopes. I would just pass them on. You know, I would not have any reason to look into them.”

It wasn’t just the pardons that sullied the Clintons’ exit from the White House. They took furniture and rugs from the White House collection that had to be returned. And they received $86,000 in gifts during the president’s last year in office, including clothing (a pantsuit, a leather jacket), flatware, carpeting, and so on. In response to the outcry over that, they decided to repay the value of the gifts.

So class is not a Clinton forte.

But it’s one thing to lack class and a sense of grace, quite another to deliberately try and wreck the presidential prospects of your party’s likely nominee — and to do it in a way that has the potential to undermine the substantial racial progress that has been made in this country over many years.

The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame.

harloo
May 10th, 2008, 06:01 PM
I honestly thought that it was all a political joke (satire). You know how the talking heads are sometimes when a contest is as strange as this one? :lol: I mean, even the talking heads were ALL laughing.
So I was like, okay guys, where's the punch line? :shrug: But it never came. :o

And then they had an audible of Hillary and that 'now infamous' assertion, and I was aghast. :eek:

I actually ran to my computer, logged on to TennisForum.com (GOD! I HATE that name!) , just to see if anybody here had posted a thread on it. :lol:
Honestly, it's hard for me to perceive this as a "misspoken comment" or a "simple slip" . She's a Senior Senator and leader for goodness sakes.
What was/is she thinking?! :confused:

I bet the talking heads had a field day with her revelation. From the articles I've read most of the writers have basically said she's destroying her legacy by pandering to the lowest common denominator which is racial division.

She kind of reminds me one of my former basketball coaches. This man would never say die even if we were trailing 20 points in a game with less than two minutes left on the clock. He would say, "We're only down by twenty, if we can stop the clock maybe we can make a run". It never worked.:tape::lol: The key to winning is to always start with an efficient plan and never underestimate the competition. Unfortunately, Hilary has ran a poor campaign and now is willing to jeopardize her credibility with this desperate move. SMH.:lol:

mykarma
May 11th, 2008, 06:01 AM
LOL @ the Clintards who are incapable of seeing what's wrong with this statement. I guess it's understandable to want to dismiss her stupidity in this statement because she's your candidate of choice, but this is, indeed a big blunder.

It's not a crime to talk about race but the way she said this is extremely divisive. If you don't see how then...:o...why should anyone even bother explaining it to you.

ROFL. I'm pretty sure all the politicians and super delegates quoted in the article are not WTAWorld members full of racial paranoia.

Good God. :o
:worship::worship::worship:

mykarma
May 11th, 2008, 06:12 AM
Well, maybe if HIllary would concede the obvious and end her campaign, the Democrats could start working to regain those white, working-class votes.

Her campaign, despite all the muttering about sexism and misogyny, has been a debacle from beginning to end. She's said stupid things like the above, she's been late to get her troops on the ground in most states and her "big state" stratgey was flawed from the get-go. She's had the disavantage of being the frontrunner from the start, but she also had a huge number of advantages--and she's misplayed every one of them.

Even if Hillary was racist--and I honestly don't think she is--saying something that potentially divisive this late in the campaign is just stupid. Or are is the theory she's really running for 2012 legit?
Just about every time Hillary/Bill come out with one of their code speeches it backfires on them and they continue to do it. Just shows that she's not ready for the white house and she won't win in 2012 if Barack's loses the general because most democrats not just Barak supporters will never forgive her for ruining the dems. chance of taking the white house.

All of the young new voters that came out to support the democratic party will go right back to where they were. The difference is if Barack decides to run in the future w/o a doubt he'd win while Hillary will be more hated than she is now, not only by the repubs. but also by the disenfrancised dems.

Assuming Barack doesn't win if Hillary ran in 2012, whoever would be running against her, I'd campaign for. She can now go bake cookies and become a bitter old woman while Bill continues to cheat on her.

mykarma
May 11th, 2008, 06:19 AM
Exactly. If her coalition is so damn broad, why ain't she winning?
:tape:

mykarma
May 11th, 2008, 06:23 AM
]It's still up in the air for me.[/B] Though I hope Barack makes more of an effort to severe his ties with the radical left. I probably won't have my mind set until I go into the booth.
:lol:

mykarma
May 11th, 2008, 06:27 AM
Is Barack considered a Far Left politician? :scratch: I only ask because one of my initial misgivings was that he wasn't far enough to the left for my taste.
But I guess it's in how you perceive his message.

One of the unknowns here is just how Barack will attack McCain on the hardcore issues that most Americans are concerned about.
McCain will have to rely on more than negative campaigning, because as Hillary has already shown, Americans are tired of that played-out scheme.

I agree with you though, that Barack's campaign must address the tax issue of small and medium sized companies. For these will be the very entities to pull the U.S. out of this recession
If you have to pay more taxes and get free health care, tax break for people under 200k, college tuition break, is still a savings. Forgot to mention that not give tax breaks to companies that send jobs out of the country, and so on and so on.

mykarma
May 11th, 2008, 06:31 AM
Having ties with Rev. Wright, and Luis Farkon. Oh he's as left as left can get.
What about McCain knowing the history of Hegee, Franklin Graham, and Falwell? He went out of his way to associate with them. Doesn't even have a history with them but the media doesn't care.

LeonHart
May 11th, 2008, 06:31 AM
If you have to pay more taxes and get free health care, tax break for people under 200k, college tuition break, is still a savings. Forgot to mention that not give tax breaks to companies that send jobs out of the country, and so on and so on.

Barack's plan doesn't give universal health care. So we're still paying for the :weirdo: that don't pay for them. Isn't it odd that he's not supporting universal health care even though he's "not for the insurance companies."

LeonHart
May 11th, 2008, 06:36 AM
Just about every time Hillary/Bill come out with one of their code speeches it backfires on them and they continue to do it. Just shows that she's not ready for the white house and she won't win in 2012 if Barack's loses the general because most democrats not just Barak supporters will never forgive her for ruining the dems. chance of taking the white house.

All of the young new voters that came out to support the democratic party will go right back to where they were. The difference is if Barack decides to run in the future w/o a doubt he'd win while Hillary will be more hated than she is now, not only by the repubs. but also by the disenfrancised dems.

Assuming Barack doesn't win if Hillary ran in 2012, whoever would be running against her, I'd campaign for. She can now go bake cookies and become a bitter old woman while Bill continues to cheat on her.

You're truly full of hate. This post proves it. I really hope karma bites you in the ass one day.

mykarma
May 11th, 2008, 06:39 AM
hillary is not coming back to run for president ever after
just like al gore wont come back
so just like al gore she needs to ensure that the person who defeated her is somehow always tainted (bush lost the popular vote) to make herself viable in the hunt for political speeches and earning cashchecks out of it

this will happen only if obama loses the election ( and he most likely will win the election given the large no of people who have drunk the kool aid)
but hillary has a solid reason to continue
its about the fact that superdelegates need to decide whos more electable

left liberal + college vote backed nominees have been swiftboated quite rapidly
whats makes obama interesting is that he can expect more than 95% of african americans to line up in the booths
and nearly 100% of them to vote for him
which gives him a solid votebank of at least 20-30 of all votes in the presidential election
(just from african americans)

this race is eerily similar to the one in 1960 with obama as jfk and mccain as richard nixon
there too a large voting bloc of catholics was enmeshed with people swayed by jfk's personality the same case is here
African Americans voted 90% for Bill Clinton and no one complained. Wonder why?

In The Zone
May 11th, 2008, 06:42 AM
African Americans voted 90% for Bill Clinton and no one complained. Wonder why?

Because it wasn't a "deaf", biased vote.

mykarma
May 11th, 2008, 06:49 AM
Barack's plan doesn't give universal health care. So we're still paying for the :weirdo: that don't pay for them. Isn't it odd that he's not supporting universal health care even though he's "not for the insurance companies."
Everyone had to pay for Hillary's whether they needed it or not but with Barack's, if you have health insurance or can afford it, you don't have to pay into it, but if you can't afford it you get help. Makes sense to me.

mykarma
May 11th, 2008, 06:52 AM
You're truly full of hate. This post proves it. I really hope karma bites you in the ass one day.
I'm not full of hate at all and thanks to Monica Lewenski, karma came and bit the right one in the ass don't you think. Bill has and will continues to fvck everything in sight and if Hillary choose to stay with him for what ever reason, that's her damn karma, not mine.

mykarma
May 11th, 2008, 06:54 AM
Because it wasn't a "deaf", biased vote.
It's not deaf or bias because we weren't voting for the black man. Speaking of deaf, bias, and blind, are the people that are defending Hillary's statements.

In The Zone
May 11th, 2008, 07:04 AM
It's not deaf or bias because we weren't voting for the black man. Speaking of deaf, bias, and blind, are the people that are defending Hillary's statements.

Defending her statements is no different than the Obama supporters defending his bitter, typical white people comments. It's all about perception, isn't it?

"Deaf", biased vote.

ptkten
May 11th, 2008, 07:30 AM
Defending her statements is no different than the Obama supporters defending his bitter, typical white people comments. It's all about perception, isn't it?

"Deaf", biased vote.

The difference is the context of the statements. When Obama said his bitter comments he was responding to a specific question about racism in the campaign, and he was explaining that whites were not voting against him because they were racist but because no one's done anything for them economically so they "cling" to their guns and religion. In reality, in context it wasn't really an offensive statement, and he certainly wasn't trying to bring race into the campaign, he was trying to avoid it.

She, on the other hand has consistently used racial undertones to say that he can't win because he's black. Well if that's the case, then she must be a terrible candidate if he's still beating her and there's no one besides blacks voting for him.

In The Zone
May 11th, 2008, 07:38 AM
The difference is the context of the statements. When Obama said his bitter comments he was responding to a specific question about racism in the campaign, and he was explaining that whites were not voting against him because they were racist but because no one's done anything for them economically so they "cling" to their guns and religion. In reality, in context it wasn't really an offensive statement, and he certainly wasn't trying to bring race into the campaign, he was trying to avoid it.

She, on the other hand has consistently used racial undertones to say that he can't win because he's black. Well if that's the case, then she must be a terrible candidate if he's still beating her and there's no one besides blacks voting for him.

Again, context is how you view it and perceive it.

I can argue the same in Hillary's favor. You're proving my point, not yours.

cheo23
May 11th, 2008, 03:04 PM
I mean what she says is true!!!! America is TOO RACIST to elect a black president, and if we let Obama win the nomination, that evil republican McCain will WIN!!!!

GO HILLARY!!!!!!!

WF4EVER
May 11th, 2008, 03:25 PM
The difference is the context of the statements. When Obama said his bitter comments he was responding to a specific question about racism in the campaign, and he was explaining that whites were not voting against him because they were racist but because no one's done anything for them economically so they "cling" to their guns and religion. In reality, in context it wasn't really an offensive statement, and he certainly wasn't trying to bring race into the campaign, he was trying to avoid it.

She, on the other hand has consistently used racial undertones to say that he can't win because he's black. Well if that's the case, then she must be a terrible candidate if he's still beating her and there's no one besides blacks voting for him.

Excellent response; excellent observation!

Pureracket
May 11th, 2008, 03:29 PM
Actually, Obama wasn't really pointing @ white people @ all when he said the statements about people in PA. He never used race, and certainly, there are some working class Black people in rural areas of PA. That's who he was talking about.

Trust me....In the Zone knows all of this. We can In the Zone's argument time after time, but she will come up with the same silly argument a few days later.....it's as if she thinks we don't read the posts. LOL!

Watch, she'll get in another discussion about the "bitter" statement and use some analogy that doesn't apply to the situation in the next disagreement. :haha:

cheo23
May 11th, 2008, 07:25 PM
Obama is also about HOPE and CHANGE!!! SO LAME!!!! Hillary will bring SOLUTIONS to America's problems. Go HILLZ!!!!!

meyerpl
May 11th, 2008, 08:45 PM
Obama is also about HOPE and CHANGE!!! SO LAME!!!! Hillary will bring SOLUTIONS to America's problems. Go HILLZ!!!!!Based on voting records and stated positions, Senators Clinton and Obama appear to be virtual ideological peas in a pod. Other than Ethanol production and whether health insurance should be a mandate, what substantive differences are there betweens Senator Obama's proposed "change" and Senator Clinton's proposed "solutions"?

In The Zone
May 11th, 2008, 09:09 PM
Actually, Obama wasn't really pointing @ white people @ all when he said the statements about people in PA. He never used race, and certainly, there are some working class Black people in rural areas of PA. That's who he was talking about.

Trust me....In the Zone knows all of this. We can In the Zone's argument time after time, but she will come up with the same silly argument a few days later.....it's as if she thinks we don't read the posts. LOL!

Watch, she'll get in another discussion about the "bitter" statement and use some analogy that doesn't apply to the situation in the next disagreement. :haha:

That's how you want to believe it. Sure. But when you're a politician and people only hear clips of your statements and speeches, your words matter.

Intentions are how they are perceived. And if racists or bitter white people find a problem with it, then so be it. Just like black people have a problem with Hillary's race comments but yet I have no qualms about it.

Race is a statistic and thats' how she is describing it. Yet, Obama supporters do not like that. There is no difference regarding Obama's bitter and white people comments. Because you don't believe it or know his intentions doesn't mean others don't perceive it that way.

This is a race for the Presidency of America, not the PTA.

mykarma
May 11th, 2008, 09:26 PM
Actually, Obama wasn't really pointing @ white people @ all when he said the statements about people in PA. He never used race, and certainly, there are some working class Black people in rural areas of PA. That's who he was talking about.

Trust me....In the Zone knows all of this. We can In the Zone's argument time after time, but she will come up with the same silly argument a few days later.....it's as if she thinks we don't read the posts. LOL!

Watch, she'll get in another discussion about the "bitter" statement and use some analogy that doesn't apply to the situation in the next disagreement. :haha:
Ain't that the truth.

*JR*
May 11th, 2008, 10:51 PM
Obama is also about HOPE and CHANGE!!! SO LAME!!!! Hillary will bring SOLUTIONS to America's problems. Go HILLZ!!!!!
As Michelle Obama reportedly said, though she had to later say she was misquoted or whatever:

If Hillary (as First Lady) couldn't protect her own house, how's she gonna protect yours? :tape:

abercrombieguy23
May 11th, 2008, 11:31 PM
As Michelle Obama reportedly said, though she had to later say she was misquoted or whatever:

If Hillary (as First Lady) couldn't protect her own house, how's she gonna protect yours? :tape:

please don't entertain that tripe that Michelle said....

My dad cheated on my Mom and she couldn't have been a better wife/mother...

One's ability to govern a nation has NOTHING to do with their family life

People cheat for many reasons


there is something very transparent about a woman who would say something like that

In The Zone
May 12th, 2008, 12:55 AM
please don't entertain that tripe that Michelle said....

My dad cheated on my Mom and she couldn't have been a better wife/mother...

One's ability to govern a nation has NOTHING to do with their family life

People cheat for many reasons


there is something very transparent about a woman who would say something like that

I really don't like when people bring up personal lives like that. It's just low and really shows a lack of class.

Michelle Obama is a poor excuse for a potential First Lady with the spewing of filth that comes out of her mouth.

In The Zone
May 12th, 2008, 12:56 AM
Ain't that the truth.

Ain't it!!!!!

Thkmra
May 12th, 2008, 01:06 AM
Ain't it!!!!!

Um....Zone, I know I haven't chimmed in, but if you don't realize BY NOW, that Hilliary is done, when will you ever...on inauguration day?!!:tape::help:

mykarma
May 12th, 2008, 01:41 AM
As Michelle Obama reportedly said, though she had to later say she was misquoted or whatever:

If Hillary (as First Lady) couldn't protect her own house, how's she gonna protect yours? :tape:
JR, you know damn well that Michelle did not say that at all and the bitter Hillarytards would jump on the opportunity to degrade Michelle even if they knew it wasn't true. That statement has already been debated to death.
Did Michelle Obama take a swipe at Clinton? (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/21/did-michelle-obama-take-a-swipe-at-clinton/)
Posted: 04:51 PM ET
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/08/21/t1home.obamas.ap.jpg Barack and Michelle Obama at the Iowa State fair last week.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Did she or didn't she?
That's the question some political observers are asking about recent comments from Michelle Obama (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/08/21/sot.michelle.obama.cnn), the wife of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html), that could be interpreted as a swipe against her husband's chief presidential rival Hillary Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/hillary.clinton.html).
In Atlantic, Iowa last Thursday, Michelle Obama pointed to the strength of her own family and said the next president must be "somebody that shares our values."
"Is he somebody that respects family? Is he a good and decent person?" Michelle Obama asked the crowd about the next president. "Our view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House."
The comments went largely unnoticed until an article in Tuesday morning's Chicago Sun Times (http://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/518408,CST-NWS-hunter21.article) suggested the statement was an indirect swipe against the Clintons, whose previous marital problems have been well documented.
The accusation immediately got top billing on The Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/), a conservative Web site, and Obama himself was asked about the comments in a conference call earlier Tuesday.
The Illinois senator emphatically denied the comments were aimed at his rival and added, "There was no reference beyond her point that we have had an administration that talks a lot about family values but doesn’t follow through."
He also noted that his wife often speaks about children and families in her campaign remarks.
Katie McCormick Lelyveld, Michelle Obama's communications director, also told CNN, "the only family Mrs. Obama was talking about was the Obama family."
– CNN's Alexander Mooney and Martina Stewart

In The Zone
May 12th, 2008, 01:42 AM
Um....Zone, I know I haven't chimmed in, but if you don't realize BY NOW, that Hilliary is done, when will you ever...on inauguration day?!!:tape::help:

I don't understand this logic ... let the voters vote. He needs the superdelegates just like her in order to win. Why is it okay for him and not her? If FLA and MI get properly seated, she'll have the popular vote. How many scandals do we need to realize that Obama is just Kerry, Pt 2 destined to lose?

Thkmra
May 12th, 2008, 02:17 AM
I don't understand this logic ... let the voters vote. He needs the superdelegates just like her in order to win. Why is it okay for him and not her? If FLA and MI get properly seated, she'll have the popular vote. How many scandals do we need to realize that Obama is just Kerry, Pt 2 destined to lose?

Again not 1 mnth ago, not 2 wks ago, not even last wk...but NOW!!:tape: If you haven't been following the news, I'll inform that at this point of time Barack has not only exceeded her # elected delegates, he has also Surpassed her lead in Super-delegates...He has like a net gain of 20+ in the lst wk alone! :tape:

This coupled with the fact that after June 3, the last day of the primaries, the Heads of the DNC Dean, Pelosi, Reid have ALL given strong indication that this process will END, meaning despite the Hillary campaigns best intentions, the fight will not be taken to the convention.

Oh, and Btw, in the hopes holding leverage, I wouldn't hold on to the whole 'Fl and Mich' argument much longer. In fact the Obama campaign is so confident that their lead in elected delegates, and popular will not be over-taken, that they are RIGHT NOW in talks to seat those delegates, and ending Clinton's last point of contention.

Lastly Obama will NOT be Kerry, if even the slight majority of Hillary's supporters don't disafect, and vote for Mccain. However, that's IF Hillary ends the last runnings of her campaign in an gracious uplifting, positive way, that seeks party unification, and healing between the competing factions, much like Huckabee, when the math was loud, and clear.OR When she continue to do what she has been doing: putting personal ambition over the intrests of the party, partake in the same 'scorched earth' policy, reinforcing divisions on race, class, and exploiting them?!! Yeah Hillary sure has the eye on the prize alright, she isn't 'fighting for the rights of every last vote! :rolleyes: She's fighting Barack in hopes of diminishng him so badly in the eyes of the general electorate, that he is virtually unelectable; wherin, she will emerge as the:'I told you he couldn't win, candidate next cycle!!:rolleyes: :yeah: Hillary 2012!!:yeah:

*JR*
May 12th, 2008, 12:27 PM
JR, you know damn well that Michelle did not say that at all and the bitter Hillarytards would jump on the opportunity to degrade Michelle even if they knew it wasn't true. That statement has already been debated to death.
I know it has. But her words: "Our view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House." certainly seemed to this Obama supporter like a dig @ HRC.

And a fair one I might add, as 1992's "not a little woman standin' by mah man like Tammy Why-nette" chose to forgive his subsequent utter humiliation of her for political advantage (@ least a seat in the US Senate).

IMO (and of course there's no way to prove or disprove it) Michelle, an extremely smart woman, was @ least subtlty reminding the electorate that Hillary is in effect trying to cash in an IOU from Bill. (Or else tell me why said "not a great campaigner" got so much further than Edwards, Dodd, Biden, and Richardson).

Oh wait, I forgot: unlike Barack, who has never said "vote for me because I'm black", Hillary has shamelessly sought support based on her gender. In any case, I don't need 2C the Obama's as candidates for sainthood to feel that Barack is clearly a better choice than Hillary (or McCain).

mykarma
May 12th, 2008, 03:06 PM
Again not 1 mnth ago, not 2 wks ago, not even last wk...but NOW!!:tape: If you haven't been following the news, I'll inform that at this point of time Barack has not only exceeded her # elected delegates, he has also Surpassed her lead in Super-delegates...He has like a net gain of 20+ in the lst wk alone! :tape:

This coupled with the fact that after June 3, the last day of the primaries, the Heads of the DNC Dean, Pelosi, Reid have ALL given strong indication that this process will END, meaning despite the Hillary campaigns best intentions, the fight will not be taken to the convention.

Oh, and Btw, in the hopes holding leverage, I wouldn't hold on to the whole 'Fl and Mich' argument much longer. In fact the Obama campaign is so confident that their lead in elected delegates, and popular will not be over-taken, that they are RIGHT NOW in talks to seat those delegates, and ending Clinton's last point of contention.

Lastly Obama will NOT be Kerry, if even the slight majority of Hillary's supporters don't disafect, and vote for Mccain. However, that's IF Hillary ends the last runnings of her campaign in an gracious uplifting, positive way, that seeks party unification, and healing between the competing factions, much like Huckabee, when the math was loud, and clear.OR When she continue to do what she has been doing: putting personal ambition over the intrests of the party, partake in the same 'scorched earth' policy, reinforcing divisions on race, class, and exploiting them?!! Yeah Hillary sure has the eye on the prize alright, she isn't 'fighting for the rights of every last vote! :rolleyes: She's fighting Barack in hopes of diminishng him so badly in the eyes of the general electorate, that he is virtually unelectable; wherin, she will emerge as the:'I told you he couldn't win, candidate next cycle!!:rolleyes: :yeah: Hillary 2012!!:yeah:
You hit all the points, and have a good rep. coming. :worship::worship::worship:

victory1
May 12th, 2008, 03:09 PM
I don't understand this logic ... let the voters vote. He needs the superdelegates just like her in order to win. Why is it okay for him and not her? If FLA and MI get properly seated, she'll have the popular vote. How many scandals do we need to realize that Obama is just Kerry, Pt 2 destined to lose?
My family lives Miami, FL and my brother in-law is from and his family lives in Flint, Michigan; many people did not vote in the primaries because the news in each state told them their vote would not count. It was one of the lowest turn out in Florida primary history. The people that went to vote in Florida mostly went to vetoe a stupid tax bill, it was mostly older people; they knew that their vote for the presidential primary would not count. It was the leading story of all the local news since the DNC announced it's punishment before both primaries took place. The DNC told both candiddate that it would not count and now because Hillary is behind, you think it's fair to Obama for them to change their mind after the facts. THEY TOLD THEM IT WOULD NOT COUNT!!:wavey:

mykarma
May 12th, 2008, 03:11 PM
I know it has. But her words: "Our view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House." certainly seemed to this Obama supporter like a dig @ HRC.

And a fair one I might add, as 1992's "not a little woman standin' by mah man like Tammy Why-nette" chose to forgive his subsequent utter humiliation of her for political advantage (@ least a seat in the US Senate).

IMO (and of course there's no way to prove or disprove it) Michelle, an extremely smart woman, was @ least subtlty reminding the electorate that Hillary is in effect trying to cash in an IOU from Bill. (Or else tell me why said "not a great campaigner" got so much further than Edwards, Dodd, Biden, and Richardson).

Oh wait, I forgot: unlike Barack, who has never said "vote for me because I'm black", Hillary has shamelessly sought support based on her gender. In any case, I don't need 2C the Obama's as candidates for sainthood to feel that Barack is clearly a better choice than Hillary (or McCain).
care to elaborate

mykarma
May 12th, 2008, 03:28 PM
My family lives Miami, FL and my brother in-law is from and his family lives in Flint, Michigan; many people did not vote in the primaries because the news in each state told them their vote would not count. It was one of the lowest turn out in Florida primary history. The people that went to vote in Florida mostly went to vetoe a stupid tax bill, it was mostly older people; they knew that their vote for the presidential primary would not count. It was the leading story of all the local news since the DNC announced it's punishment before both primaries took place. The DNC told both candiddate that it would not count and now because Hillary is behind, you think it's fair to Obama for them to change their mind after the facts. THEY TOLD THEM IT WOULD NOT COUNT!!:wavey:
I hope you don't think that your post will make a difference to ITZ. He generally ignores post like yours or come back with but it's disenfranchising the voters of Fl. and Mi. even though Hillary along with all of the other candidates agreed with the DNC.

The Clinton's are so underhanded that they probably planned this just in case something happened with Fl. and Mi. later. Remember that Fl. is the first place Hillary went after losing S.C. She didn't even wait to thank her supporters after it was evident that she had lost there. Anyhow, Mi. had bipartisan reps. get together to come up with a plan to present to the DNC to settle this and even though they gave Hillary more delegates, it wasn't acceptable to her. Don't know if they'll still present their proposal or not.

I really think she's now staying in for two reasons. One so Barack and pay for all of the debts her poorly run campaign was created and pay them back the > 11million she lent her campaign. Secondly, to make sure he doesn't win 2008. If he doesn't win, people want forget why he lost and she will absolutely not win in 2012.

victory1
May 12th, 2008, 03:31 PM
I hope you don't think that your post will make a difference to ITZ. He generally ignores post like yours or come back with but it's disenfranchising the voters of Fl. and Mi. even though Hillary along with all of the other candidates agreed with the DNC.
The Clinton's are so underhanded that they probably planned this just in case something happened with Fl. and Mi. later. Remember that Fl. is the first place Hillary went after losing S.C. She didn't even wait to thank her supporters after it was evident that she had lost there. Anyhow, Mi. had bipartisan reps. get together to come up with a plan to present to the DNC to settle this and even though they gave Hillary more delegates, it wasn't acceptable to her. Don't know if they'll still present their proposal or not.

I really think she's now staying in for two reasons. One so Barack and pay for all of the debts her poorly run campaign was created and pay them back the > 11million she lent her campaign. Secondly, to make sure he doesn't win 2008. If he doesn't win, people want forget why he lost and she will absolutely not win in 2012.

What Hillary's doing reminds me of one of those low budget African movies I saw last Thanksgiving at my cousin's house. The plot was that this guy dressed in all black ask this other guy to play dominoes with him for money and the other guy said he could not because all the money he brings in is for the comfort of his family. The guy in black said then we will play for play money. The guy in black won and demand payments; the other guy said but we agreed to play for play money and he went on about how he took risks that he would have never taken if he was really playing for real money. The entire movie the guy in black spent terrorizing the man and his family in order to collect that debt. The movie was stupid and so is Hillary!

In The Zone
May 12th, 2008, 03:31 PM
I really think she's now staying in for two reasons. One so Barack and pay for all of the debts her poorly run campaign was created and pay them back the > 11million she lent her campaign. Secondly, to make sure he doesn't win 2008. If he doesn't win, people want forget why he lost and she will absolutely not win in 2012.

I think Obama is glad Hillary is staying in. He has that safety net of a "GREAT EXCUSE" in case he loses. You guys are already pumping it up now.

And I wanted a FLA and MI revote. But a certain someone, WHO IS ABOVE POLITICS, blocked revotes in both states. How coincidental, right? At this stage, you have to seat the delegates as is. A certain someone left no other solution.

BigB08822
May 12th, 2008, 03:36 PM
AMEN, ITZ! A revote was all but ready to take place and Obama blocked it. HIS CHOICE! Now the only option is to seat them as is. It won't change much, Obama should still get the nomination with super delegates, but Obama blocked the possible revote and now there is only one thing left to do...

*JR*
May 12th, 2008, 03:44 PM
care to elaborate
Sure. It was probably a swipe @ Hillary; but no where near as mean as HRC having said that while she and John McCain were "qualified" 2B Commander in Chief... "and Senator Obama made a speech in 2002" (referring to his 13 minute one @ a Chicago rally opposing Congress giving W the authority to go to war).

Hillary has shown a shameful "sense of entitlement to the nomination" throughout the campaign (as in her line comparing this year with '92 "I guess it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush") and will frankly face a very tough race for the 2012 nomination if Barack loses; that the mystique will be gone and ppl who passed this time like Russ Feingold, Mark Warner, and Evan Bayh will likely be major contenders.

Does Bill cheating reflect badly on her? No, but her seeming Faustian bargain with him ova Monica etc. does. And there's a sad irony in this. Hillary Rodham ... (pick any married name) was certainly a brilliant young lawyer who could have had her own career in public service, and maybe been a Presidential candidate not linked to a lying prick.

mykarma
May 12th, 2008, 03:47 PM
I think Obama is glad Hillary is staying in. He has that safety net of a "GREAT EXCUSE" in case he loses. You guys are already pumping it up now.

And I wanted a FLA and MI revote. But a certain someone, WHO IS ABOVE POLITICS, blocked revotes in both states. How coincidental, right? At this stage, you have to seat the delegates as is. A certain someone left no other solution.
I think Obama is glad Hillary is staying in. He has that safety net of a "GREAT EXCUSE" in case he loses. You guys are already pumping it up now.:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:

And I wanted a FLA and MI revote. But a certain someone, WHO IS ABOVE POLITICS, blocked revotes in both states. How coincidental, right? At this stage, you have to seat the delegates as is. A certain someone left no other solution.If I recall, Fl. and Mi. decided that they didn't want a revote, that it would take to much time and to many resources.

The certain someone that denied those states were those states own stupidity. The DNC told them what would happen and every last candidate in the democratic race signed on the dotted line. Now, if you're implying that Barack blocked revotes, show me where he ever implied or said that he didn't want them and why should he want a revote. Those states broke the rules and knew what the results would be. You know and I know that when Barack has a chance to campaign in a state, his positives always increase. Anyway, you know and I know that the Mi. and Fl. delegates will be seated and that's what's most important at this junction.

I'm sure you read victory1's post that so elegant stated the both states citizens knew their votes wouldn't be counted. I don't blame you at all for supporting Hilary but this particular argument holds no water and is dead, it ain't gonna happen per both states officials.

BTW, as usual you completed ignore the points I made in my post and came up with something that I didn't ever mention and then you get upset when people remind you that you're famous for doing that like Pure did yesterday.

mykarma
May 12th, 2008, 03:53 PM
Sure. It was probably a swipe @ Hillary; but no where near as mean as HRC having said that while she and John McCain were "qualified" 2B Commander in Chief... "and Senator Obama made a speech in 2002" (referring to his 13 minute one @ a Chicago rally opposing Congress giving W the authority to go to war).

Hillary has shown a shameful "sense of entitlement to the nomination" throughout the campaign (as in her line comparing this year with '92 "I guess it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush") and will frankly face a very tough race for the 2012 nomination if Barack loses; that the mystique will be gone and ppl who passed this time like Russ Feingold, Mark Warner, and Evan Bayh will likely be major contenders.

Does Bill cheating reflect badly on her? No, but her seeming Faustian bargain with him ova Monica etc. does. And there's a sad irony in this. Hillary Rodham ... (pick any married name) was certainly a brilliant young lawyer who could have had her own career in public service, and maybe been a Presidential candidate not linked to a lying prick.
Sorry I wasn't more specific, I meant this particular statement.
I don't need 2C the Obama's as candidates for sainthood

victory1
May 12th, 2008, 03:55 PM
I think Obama is glad Hillary is staying in. He has that safety net of a "GREAT EXCUSE" in case he loses. You guys are already pumping it up now.

And I wanted a FLA and MI revote. But a certain someone, WHO IS ABOVE POLITICS, blocked revotes in both states. How coincidental, right? At this stage, you have to seat the delegates as is. A certain someone left no other solution.
That's a LIE!
Fla. Dems Abandon Primary Re-Vote Planhttp://i1img.com/images/email_this_page_sm.gif (javascript:eMail_Friend(540, 540);)Email this Story (javascript:eMail_Friend(540, 540);)Mar 17, 6:19 PM (ET)

By BRENDAN FARRINGTON


p {margin:12px 0px 0px 0px;}
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) - Facing strong opposition, Florida Democrats on Monday abandoned plans to hold a do-over presidential primary with a mail-in vote and threw the delegate dispute into the lap of the national party.
While the decision by Florida Democrats left the state's 210 delegates in limbo, Democrats in Michigan moved closer to holding another contest on June 3. Legislative leaders reviewed a measure Monday that would set up a privately funded, state-administered do-over primary, The Associated Press learned.
Florida Democratic Party chairwoman Karen L. Thurman sent a letter announcing the decision.
"A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the party were to pay for it," Thurman said. "... This doesn't mean that Democrats are giving up on Florida voters. It means that a solution will have to come from the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again in April."
Members of Florida's congressional delegation unanimously opposed the plan, and Barack Obama expressed concern about the security of a mail-in vote organized so quickly.
The national party punished Michigan and Florida for moving up their primaries before Feb. 5, stripping them of all their delegates to the party's national convention this summer in Denver. All the Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in the two states, and Obama was not even on the Michigan ballot.
Hillary Rodham Clinton won both primaries. As her race with Obama has tightened, she has argued the delegates should be seated or new primaries held.
Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, who backs Clinton, has suggested one option - seating all Florida delegates already chosen but only giving them half a vote each. Nelson discussed this idea with Clinton and Obama on the Senate floor last week.
Based on the Jan. 29 results, Clinton would have won 105, Obama 67 and John Edwards 13. Instead they would get half those delegate votes.
Republicans stripped Florida and Michigan of half their delegates as a penalty for early primaries.
The draft Michigan legislation included language that would approve spending privately raised funds for the election, according to a Democratic leader who spoke on condition of anonymity because lawmakers and the campaigns are still considering the proposal.
The campaigns of the Democratic presidential contenders also received copies of the bill Monday.
"A re-vote is the only way Michigan can be assured its delegation will be seated, and vote in Denver at the party's national convention this summer, Clinton campaign aide Harold Ickes said Monday. "If the Obama campaign thwarts a fair election process for the people of Michigan, it will jeopardize the Democratic nominee's ability to carry the state in the general election."
Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor said, "It's pretty apparent that the Clinton campaign's views on voting are dependent on their own political interest. Hillary Clinton herself said in January that the Michigan primary 'didn't count for anything.' Now, she is cynically trying to change the rules at the eleventh hour for her own benefit. We received a very complex proposal for Michigan re-vote legislation today and are reviewing it to make sure that any solution for Michigan is fair and practical. We continue to believe a fair seating of the delegation deserves strong consideration."
The Democrat-led House is scheduled to leave for a two-week vacation Thursday, so any bills to set up the do-over primary need to be brought up quickly. The measure also would have to be approved by the Republican-controlled state Senate. To be given immediate effect, the measure would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate.
To go forward, any plan also would require the approval of the two campaigns, the Democratic National Committee, state party leaders and Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is backing Clinton.
The contest must be held by June 10 for the results to count under DNC rules.
The draft measure would set up the a fund within the state Treasury to receive up to $12 million in cash and other assets from private donors to cover the cost of the election.
On Monday in Atlanta, federal appeals judges skeptically questioned a lawyer who argued that the national party's decision to strip Florida of its 210 convention delegates was unconstitutional.
Michael Steinberg, a lawyer for Victor DiMaio, a Democratic Party activist from Tampa, said Florida's Democratic voters are being disenfranchised by not being permitted to have their say in the selection of their party's nominee. The action violates DiMaio's constitutional right to equal protection, he argued.
"The citizens of the state of Florida are not being treated equally," Steinberg told the judges.
But Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the Democratic National Committee, said the party has the right to set its own the rules and not seat delegates who refuse to follow them.
"It goes to the heart of the constitutional right of the DNC to determine the best means of selecting delegates to the convention," Sandler said.
Sounding skeptical of Steinberg's equal protection argument, the judges noted in their questions that states select their presidential picks in different ways - some use caucuses and others primaries - and on different days. Judge Stanley Marcus suggested at one point that the only way to treat all the states equally, under Steinberg's theory, was for them to all hold their primaries on the same day.
Not so, Steinberg said. He said one solution might be to rotate the states so that each gets a shot at being in the first round.
There was no indication when the court would rule.
--- Associated Press Writers Kathy Barks Hoffman in Lansing, Mich., and Shannon McCaffrey in Atlanta contributed to this report.

Pureracket
May 12th, 2008, 03:57 PM
Victory,
Thanks for printing. I'm here, in Florida, and the Bush Republicans totally run this state. They had no problem getting involved in this election and denying the vote process.

victory1
May 12th, 2008, 04:03 PM
What Obama is fighting now since Florida & Michigan abandonned the plan to revote is Hillary's assumption that since there's no revote then the original bogus primaries should be counted AS IS! Read the news and you'll find out I'm right. He's willing to have the pledged delegates seated 50-50 without the superdelegates but Hillary is blocking it. Yeah she's concerned about disenfranchising the voters. It's the only fair solution and it will get both states delegates seated. Why won't Hillary agree to it?

Pureracket
May 12th, 2008, 04:15 PM
At this point, I think even if she's given the delegates, Barack would still be in the lead.

In The Zone
May 12th, 2008, 06:09 PM
At this point, I think even if she's given the delegates, Barack would still be in the lead.

Which is playing politics. If a solution had been resolved earlier, she would have been closer and the impending primaries would have been more crucial. Instead, his victory seems inevitable and the primaries are meaningless. He played the political game quite well. They're going to give her the delegates to shut her up. But then the popular vote question comes in. If a scandal happens, the superdelegates have a reason to go to her.

*JR*
May 12th, 2008, 06:16 PM
Sorry I wasn't more specific, I meant this particular statement.

Quote:

I don't need 2C the Obama's as candidates for sainthood
No problem, and I'll even expand on it a little (as Barack did in his Philly speech about race, instead of just "throwing Rev. Wright under the bus"). ;)

I literally meant only what I said: that to me Barack is simply the best candidate now in the race (though I preferred the populist message of John Edwards B4 he dropped out in late January).

But I promised to take it a step further, as thus: heaven forbid that I'm going to try to turn a fellow who himself admits to being an imperfect messenger into some kind of a Messiah like figure; in fact had he not come across like something of a snob early in the race, it might be ova already.

This may be a little like tennis. To me, Venus and Serena are just 2 superbly talented players. But not "candidates for sainthood", as their happily taking money from companies like Nike and McDonalds shows. Whereas to many (mostly black) posters, they transcend the game.

As stated previously, I no more begrudge blacks for assigning a special significance to the first serious black candidate than I do the Catholics who rallied to JFK's banner in 1960. But I'll evaluate him only as a candidate, thank you. (Which may be the ultimate compliment from a white person). :)

StarDuvallGrant
May 12th, 2008, 06:27 PM
She's fighting Barack in hopes of diminishng him so badly in the eyes of the general electorate, that he is virtually unelectable; wherin, she will emerge as the:'I told you he couldn't win, candidate next cycle!!:rolleyes: :yeah: Hillary 2012!!:yeah:

I don't think 2012 isn't an option. People have a long memory and I think one reason she's still in it is her $20million dollar debt. If she can't do it now, she can't do it period seems to be her mindset. Or at least one of her mindsets. Part of being electable is being able to raise money, string together wins that have you as the front runner, thus being electable within your own party. She's only showing how unelectable she is and oddly enough, Obama is painted as the speaker, but his team and Obama as the candidate have acted in such a way that he's ahead and not in debt, while Clinton only has her words to stand for her because her actions as seen by her campaign prove opposite. Obama has the plan and Clinton the soundbites.

Pureracket
May 12th, 2008, 07:05 PM
Which is playing politics. If a solution had been resolved earlier, she would have been closer and the impending primaries would have been more crucial. Instead, his victory seems inevitable and the primaries are meaningless. He played the political game quite well. They're going to give her the delegates to shut her up. But then the popular vote question comes in. If a scandal happens, the superdelegates have a reason to go to her.
The campaign is about who gets the most delegates, not the popular vote. You can't just change the rules like that. Caucuses can't count popular votes. Then again, we've gone over this 85347839340985 times with you and this popular vote.

We totally expect for you to bring it up again, along with the MI and FL vote which we've said all along Obama had no way of controlling.

In The Zone
May 12th, 2008, 07:07 PM
The campaign is about who gets the most delegates, not the popular vote. You can't just change the rules like that. Caucuses can't count popular votes. Then again, we've gone over this 85347839340985 times with you and this popular vote.

We totally expect for you to bring it up again, along with the MI and FL vote which we've said all along Obama had no way of controlling.

Actually. The rules are getting to 2025. And no one will get to that. So you have to come up with "BACKUP" rules. And Obama's backup rules are not more important than Hillary's. Both are possible solutions. Not according to the rules.

I really don't get the onslaught of Hillary hate. Have your personal opinions of her, fine. But half the democratic party disagrees. Obama is not winning in a LANDSLIDE. He is winning by a hair. Remember that.

Expat
May 12th, 2008, 07:12 PM
African Americans voted 90% for Bill Clinton and no one complained. Wonder why?
where am i complaining ?
more power to african americans
they have a chance of getting their man in the white house
and OTOH i compared this to roman catholics bulk voting for JFK
I only noted that a candidate with Obama-esque credentials would have been a prime candidate for making the swiftboating case like kerry mcgovern etc

Pureracket
May 12th, 2008, 07:13 PM
Actually. The rules are getting to 2025. And no one will get to that. So you have to come up with "BACKUP" rules. And Obama's backup rules are not more important than Hillary's. Both are possible solutions. Not according to the rules.

I really don't get the onslaught of Hillary hate. Have your personal opinions of her, fine. But half the democratic party disagrees. Obama is not winning in a LANDSLIDE. He is winning by a hair. Remember that.There might be Hillary hate, but you certainly don't see it coming from me. Nah, it's not by an hair, and he will get 2025. She will not win the most votes, delegates or superdelegates, or states.

These aren't Backup rules. They are in the rulebook for a situation like this. The most delegates win. You already knew that too.:rolleyes:

@Sweet Cleopatra
May 12th, 2008, 08:19 PM
no , the real fact is that both of them will lose to the republican ...

In The Zone
May 12th, 2008, 09:37 PM
There might be Hillary hate, but you certainly don't see it coming from me. Nah, it's not by an hair, and he will get 2025. She will not win the most votes, delegates or superdelegates, or states.

These aren't Backup rules. They are in the rulebook for a situation like this. The most delegates win. You already knew that too.:rolleyes:

Well, is the primary season over? Have all the superdelegates chosen? He may have more delegates now, but will he? You may assume answers but anything can happen and there is no reason to suggest that OUT OF NOWHERE, the primary season will finally go to plan.

The fact there is a cloud of doubt over the result, whether it would affect the outcome or not, is not good for Obama or Hillary. This really should have been dealt with earlier.

And after West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico -- yes, it will be by a hair. I understand the delegates and I agree with the delegates. But to say that more votes cast for Hillary Clinton is meaningless is stupid. That is going to play in the minds of superdelegates.

Donny
May 12th, 2008, 10:05 PM
Well, is the primary season over? Have all the superdelegates chosen? He may have more delegates now, but will he? You may assume answers but anything can happen and there is no reason to suggest that OUT OF NOWHERE, the primary season will finally go to plan.

The fact there is a cloud of doubt over the result, whether it would affect the outcome or not, is not good for Obama or Hillary. This really should have been dealt with earlier.

And after West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico -- yes, it will be by a hair. I understand the delegates and I agree with the delegates. But to say that more votes cast for Hillary Clinton is meaningless is stupid. That is going to play in the minds of superdelegates.

By what metric will it be "by a hair"?

mykarma
May 12th, 2008, 10:08 PM
Well, is the primary season over? Have all the superdelegates chosen? He may have more delegates now, but will he? You may assume answers but anything can happen and there is no reason to suggest that OUT OF NOWHERE, the primary season will finally go to plan.

The fact there is a cloud of doubt over the result, whether it would affect the outcome or not, is not good for Obama or Hillary. This really should have been dealt with earlier.

And after West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico -- yes, it will be by a hair. I understand the delegates and I agree with the delegates. But to say that more votes cast for Hillary Clinton is meaningless is stupid. That is going to play in the minds of superdelegates.
Is that like the peanut lead that you said Barack had in N.C.?:tape:

Donny
May 12th, 2008, 10:11 PM
Which is playing politics. If a solution had been resolved earlier, she would have been closer and the impending primaries would have been more crucial. Instead, his victory seems inevitable and the primaries are meaningless. He played the political game quite well. They're going to give her the delegates to shut her up. But then the popular vote question comes in. If a scandal happens, the superdelegates have a reason to go to her.

The revotes, if they had happened, would have been after the last scheduled primary (Puerto Rico) at the earliest. That's in June. And the current sham results *shouldn't* have any effect on the race. So what, exactly, if your beef?

In The Zone
May 12th, 2008, 10:20 PM
Is that like the peanut lead that you said Barack had in N.C.?:tape:

More like the Hillary victory in Indiana where you, along with other Barack supporters, predicted an Obama win. :tape: :help:

Donny
May 12th, 2008, 10:23 PM
More like the Hillary victory in Indiana where you, along with other Barack supporters, predicted an Obama win.

If not for Hillary voters who, according to exit polls, did NOT want Hillary as the nominee, Obama would've won. But when you're losing this bad, even the votes of people who hate you are welcome.

StarDuvallGrant
May 12th, 2008, 10:25 PM
There wouldn't be such an issue with the two states that broke the rules, thus resulting in them being punished, if Hillary hadn't gone back on her word, that she is on record giving about Michigan and Florida. Attempting to change the rules when she fell behind is what is happening.

In The Zone
May 12th, 2008, 10:28 PM
If not for Hillary voters who, according to exit polls, did NOT want Hillary as the nominee, Obama would've won. But when you're losing this bad, even the votes of people who hate you are welcome.

"This bad"?

These kind of comments are the ones that drive Clinton supporters away from Obama. Not really a wise decision. Like her or hate her, half the party wants her and not Obama. Perhaps that should be thought about again before passing comments like this.

In The Zone
May 12th, 2008, 10:29 PM
There wouldn't be such an issue with the two states that broke the rules, thus resulting in them being punished, if Hillary hadn't gone back on her word, that she is on record giving about Michigan and Florida. Attempting to change the rules when she fell behind is what is happening.

She wanted a revote. Obama conveniently played politics and it's being blocked. No other choice but to seat the delegates as is. Do you really want to go into the November Election discounting two potentially strong, swing states?

The mere fact that Obama has not reached out to FLA or MI superdelegates just shows you the type of politician he is. Says and does anything to get a clap, a rise, or an audience to cheer. If he thinks you're not with him, he ignores you. Wait, so you guys are preaching in his image!

Donny
May 12th, 2008, 10:31 PM
"This bad"?

These kind of comments are the ones that drive Clinton supporters away from Obama. Not really a wise decision. Like her or hate her, half the party wants her and not Obama. Perhaps that should be thought about again before passing comments like this.

It's hard to take this criticism seriously when your preferred candidate is actively trying to weaken Obama's support as we speak.

mykarma
May 12th, 2008, 10:37 PM
More like the Hillary victory in Indiana where you, along with other Barack supporters, predicted an Obama win. :tape: :help:
You're the one that talked about Obama's lead shrinking to the size of a peanut in N.C. and please show me where I claimed a victory in Indiana for Barack.

Anyhow, according to the last weeks results, Hillary was suppose to slam Barack in Indiana because of her white, blue collar, hardworking supporters. I'm very happy with the In. results, as I was hoping that Barack was able to keep it under 10% so the results exceeded my expectations. :bounce::bounce::bounce:

Barack 08

StarDuvallGrant
May 12th, 2008, 11:00 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859.html

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/06/uselections2008.hillaryclinton3

How about that revote again?

And lastly, Hillary showing her word means nothing.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3134

Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge

The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.
"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.
And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.
Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."


Bosnia 2.0 :rolleyes:

Pureracket
May 12th, 2008, 11:22 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859.html

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/06/uselections2008.hillaryclinton3

How about that revote again?

And lastly, Hillary showing her word means nothing.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3134

Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge

The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.
"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.
And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.
Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."


Bosnia 2.0 :rolleyes:ITZ will totally disregard this.

In The Zone
May 13th, 2008, 01:21 AM
ITZ will totally disregard this.

Okay. The number of posts that explicitly state my username and continue to call me out need to stop. I don't have to agree with you. Instigating and continuing the tension is not going to make things better, at all.

And yes, we understand RULES ARE RULES. We get it. No one saw this process being so close.

Since you love rules, what happened to Obama being in Florida in September 2007, AGAINST DNC RULES? What happened to Obama running ads the week before the Florida primary? The DNC rules explicitly state that a candidate who violates these rules would lose ALL delegates. In fact, the DNC rules also explicitly state that only HALF the delegates would be stripped. Instead, the DNC ignored Obama's violations and stripped ALL the delegates. So please, do tell me more about the RULES.

We wanted a revote. But now a revote is out of the question. So now the current results have to stand. Either seat the delegates or have that cast of doubt that will haunt Obama in November.

In The Zone
May 13th, 2008, 01:22 AM
You're the one that talked about Obama's lead shrinking to the size of a peanut in N.C. and please show me where I claimed a victory in Indiana for Barack.

Anyhow, according to the last weeks results, Hillary was suppose to slam Barack in Indiana because of her white, blue collar, hardworking supporters. I'm very happy with the In. results, as I was hoping that Barack was able to keep it under 10% so the results exceeded my expectations. :bounce::bounce::bounce:

Barack 08

Racist. :worship: :bounce: :help:

mykarma
May 13th, 2008, 01:43 AM
Racist. :worship: :bounce: :help:

So you're finally admitting that what your candidate said was racist since those were her words not mine. :lol: Anyhow, anyone that's been on this board during this election knows who the real racist is and there initials are ITZ. :worship:.

I see you kept with your MO, ignore the post when you have no answer and attempt to change the subject.

BTW, name calling isn't going to change the fact that you're bitter and you're taking this race way to personal.

*JR*
May 13th, 2008, 01:48 AM
Since you love rules, what happened to Obama being in Florida in September 2007, AGAINST DNC RULES? What happened to Obama running ads the week before the Florida primary? The DNC rules explicitly state that a candidate who violates these rules would lose ALL delegates. In fact, the DNC rules also explicitly state that only HALF the delegates would be stripped. Instead, the DNC ignored Obama's violations and stripped ALL the delegates. So please, do tell me more about the RULES.
You don't know WTF you're talking about. BOTH of them did FUNDRAISERS in FL, which were NOT prohibited; and the REPUBLICANS were the ones who imposed a half-the-delegates penalty on FL and MI, the Democrats said 100% disqualification well B4 either state voted. :rolleyes:

I'm not familiar with the ads, but I'm sure they didn't ask for ppl's votes in those 2 states. And why did Hillary leave her name on the ballot when she clearly said the FL results wouldn't count? (MI didn't offer the candidates a choice in the matter).

starin
May 13th, 2008, 01:50 AM
Clinton def. Obama 61 06 97
coming back from 0-5 triple MP's down :drool:

StarDuvallGrant
May 13th, 2008, 04:13 AM
ITZ will totally disregard this.

:lol: