The Clinton Thread

[Marx]

You do understand that Neo-Liberalism is not the opposite of Neo-Conservatism, correct? Neo-Liberalism advocates the redirection of spending from the public sector to the private sector; emphasizes commercial deregulation; eliminating restrictions on trade; and investing in foreign markets. Basically, Neo-Liberalism is the foundation of the Reagan conservative movement.

I know, I was just making a point. Perhaps I shouldn't have used Neo-Libs and Neo-Cons, but I hope you knew what I was getting at.

I don't think it's crossing a line, and I personally agree with what MoveOn.org had to say. First of all, there is such a thing as free speech in this country, and when you're in the political spotlight there are things you have to accept, including personal attacks and insults. Second, the ad clearly defined what the organization had to say: Was General Patraeus going to give us a fair report, or was he simply going to force feed us what the Bush administration wants us to hear? They had every right to say what they wanted to say and did not deserve the flack they received.

I completely agree that you should expect personal attacks, insults, and praise when in the public spotlight. Do I personally think that Petraeus was objective in his report? Absolutely not. I just don't think it's necessary to slander our military.

What I find insulting is when the Senate takes an entire day out of their schedule to pass a resolution censuring an ad in a ****ing news paper rather than focusing on the real issues facing the American people. The Senate is not a campaign rally for every Senator running for President; it's a place of business, where the work of the American people needs to be accomplished. Censuring an ad which had already been published did not do anything to help the American people; it helped the politicians who don't want to look un-patriotic by giving them time to take a punch at an oh-so-liberal interest group... you know, just in case their constituents gave two ****s...

That was beyond ridiculous. I completely agree with you Jman. They should have focused on REAL ISSUES as opposed to that. The purpose behind the censuring of that ad was quite transparent. Anyone with half a brain knew what was going on and why.

 

[souvlaki]

If you want to attach that label to her, that's your call Souv. I would dare say that Obama is just as polarizing. The Democratic Party is equally split between these two candidates. And a significant percentage of each candidate's support has pledged to defect to McCain before voting for the other.

If Obama is just as polarizing, the polls are not showing it. Of course, I'm not completely convinced about the polls showing defection to the Republican party, so I am pretty much contradicting what I just said. Emotions are high right now, but after the convention I really doubt there will be many Clinton or Obama supporters switching sides. Some may use it as an excuse to stay home on election day, but I can't see people on either side being so bitter about the outcome that they would make an effort to go out and vote for the other party. Not traditional Democrats at least.

 

[Marx]

If Obama is just as polarizing, the polls are not showing it. Of course, I'm not completely convinced about the polls showing defection to the Republican party, so I am pretty much contradicting what I just said. Emotions are high right now, but after the convention I really doubt there will be many Clinton or Obama supporters switching sides. Some may use it as an excuse to stay home on election day, but I can't see people on either side being so bitter about the outcome that they would make an effort to go out and vote for the other party. Not traditional Democrats at least.

Well another thing that we can agree on Souv is the fact that polls are not reliable. This election has proven that. Emotions are definately high. I know some pretty "traditional" Democrats that have told me that they will vote for John McCain if their candidate does not win the nomination. So I wouldn't be too terribly surprised to hear of defections.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

As of late, Clinton's personality is about as appealing as a rustic rake being dragged down a gritty chalkboard. Before the battle for Pennsylvania got dirty, I was willing to believe that both candidates were polarizing and divisive. However, she has demonstrated in the past three weeks that she is a baldfaced liar who will lie and cheat and screech her way into victory, taking stabs whenever she gets the chance over incredibly ridiculous matters.

Obama makes his anti-gun comments. What does she do? She tells a nice story about how her grandfather used to take her out back (in Scranton, none the less) and fire a few shots from a rifle. Nevermind the fact that she wholeheartedly supported gun control legislation when she was both first lady AND a senator. Nevermind that during a debate last spring following Virginia Tech she said that it needs to be more difficult for folks to get a gun, and she flaunted her support for gun control legislation such as the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.

Then she accuses Obama of being an elitist, and she takes a swing at MoveOn.org for being "too liberal." Then she went on another anti-Volvo driving, latte-sipping blah blah blah bull **** blah blah anti-liberal rant, acting as if she's a true "moderate" who can win the election.

And isn't that a crock when you consider the fact that SHE'S RUNNING TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE! She blatantly insulted half the party right there, if not more. See, it's becoming more and more clear that she's willing to do anything possible to win this nomination. She's even willing to destroy her credibility and run her personality through the mud in the process.

Which is quite a shame, considering she was one of the better politicians in this country before she said "I've got to win by ANY means necessary."

Okay, I hereto dub thee as the most objective person here. Wow.

Obama has used a more passive-aggressive attack strategy, granted, but an attack strategy none the less.

I never said he didn't use an attack strategy--because he has. But Matt, he HAS to counter these attacks; otherwise he will be considered weak by others in the party. He has tried to play the "nice guy" routine but Hillary & Co. have tried to bring him down to their level because they feel he hasn't been properly "vetted". That same perception has hurt Dem candidates in the past. Sadly, swift attacks have their place in these processes.

My point is he has not tried to literally destroy his opponent with low-blows and smear campaigns. When you consider the amount of skeletons in Hillary's closet, I am impressed that he hasn't made an effort to pull more crap to the public's attention. He hasn't told the WHOLE WORLD that he and McCain are better for the job than his own fellow party members. He hasn't burned any bridges to a joint ticket the way Hillary has.

If anything, I'd say that Obama's attacks have been more reactionary than proactive.

 

[Marx]

I never said he didn't use an attack strategy--because he has. But Matt, he HAS to counter these attacks; otherwise he will be considered weak by others in the party. He has tried to play the "nice guy" routine but Hillary & Co. have tried to bring him down to their level because they feel he hasn't been properly "vetted". That same perception has hurt Dem candidates in the past. Sadly, swift attacks have their place in these processes.

My point is he has not tried to literally destroy his opponent with low-blows and smear campaigns. When you consider the amount of skeletons in Hillary's closet, I am impressed that he hasn't made an effort to pull more crap to the public's attention. He hasn't told the WHOLE WORLD that he and McCain are better for the job than his own fellow party members. He hasn't burned any bridges to a joint ticket the way Hillary has.

If anything, I'd say that Obama's attacks have been more reactionary than proactive.

I disagree. As I have said many times before, Obama has done his own fair share of initiating attacks. I wouldn't exactly call Obama's deliberately misstating various positions and stances that she has, "reactionary." Has Hillary gone too far? Maybe, but the case can be argued either way. That being said, you have to realize that if Obama gains the nomination, Hillary's attacks will seem like child's play compared to John McCain and RSM. Obama whining and crying about tough questions from moderators and "lowball" tactics by Clinton will be nothing come November. If he wants to be President, he might want to try toughening up a little.

 

[Excel]

Hillary looks set to lose in pledged delegates, votes, and states.The problem is, these big state wins-California, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania-all mean NOTHING. And super delegates KNOW IT.

The argument has nothing to do with Hillary Vs. Obama. Nothing. What Hillary has to do is this:

Prove that Barack Obama CANT beat John McCain in those states, but she CAN.

Thats it. Hillary saying she's better to take on McCain because she has won states Obama would beat McCain does not make much sense, does it? Because the points moot, if they both will win the state, it doesnt matter who takes it by more. Its winner take all. So lets look at these big states. The list she uses is California, New York, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

California: Hillary cannot brag about this. Everybody inthe whole country knows California is going democrat, no matter who it is. Supers know Obama has this state in the bag.

New York: Same damn thing.

Ohio: Here is the current Obama Vs. McCain match up in Ohio

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html

Right now McCain leads Obama by 2%. 2%. Lets be realistic. Whenever Hillary gets out of the race, the Democrats will get behind Obama. McCain is a huge NAFTA supporter. McCain does not offer health care. McCain has admitted he does not know very much about the economy. Obama and Clintons policies are 95% the same.

Be real. Is McCain going to beat Obama in Ohio come November? HELL NO.

Texas: Hillary barely beat him, with the caucus included she won by 2%. Is that 2% of the vote really not going to go for Obama? Or will it be enough to give McCain a Texas win? Or does Hillary even have shot in Texas? Obama would do just about if not equally as well as Clinton would here.

Pennsylvania:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_mccain_vs_obama-244.html

Obama is ahead of McCain in Pennsylvania polls. The lead will grow when Hillarys gone. Enough said.

The only state that holds ANY WEIGHT is Florida. McCain leads Obama by 11% in the average poll, he will more than likely take the state in a November match up against Obama. The problem? HE LEADS HILLARY TOO.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_clinton-417.html

Of course, if Obama left the race, chances are Hillary would take the lead. But, if you gave Obama Cali, Ny, Ohio, and Penn, that would be 131 delegates. He could match Hillary getting the dems florida (25 votes) with Obama getting us Illinois.

So out of the whole big state argument, it only works with 1 state. That 1 state will not be nearly enough to get supers to go against the popular vote.

For this argument to work, Hillary needs to prove shell win those states in November and Obama will lose them and that simply does not look to be the case.

 

[Malice]

I simply think, the people are starting to see the crap Obama has been hiding...we already know the crap Hillary has (granted, she should be in prison for it....but hey I digress)

I think in the end, Hillary will be a better D candidate as Obama is slowly piling himself in crap of his own doing.

 

[Matt]

Did this really warrant its own thread? It seems like it could easily be in the Clinton, Obama, or PA thread.

 

[rdh007]

I simply think, the people are starting to see the crap Obama has been hiding...we already know the crap Hillary has (granted, she should be in prison for it....but hey I digress)

We didn't know that much as a nation about Bush in 99/00. We found out he is allegedly half-literate, enjoyed coke, has a drinking problem, and couldn't run almost anything successfully. He still became President. Let alone the fact that we re-elected him.

 

[Excel]

Did this really warrant its own thread? It seems like it could easily be in the Clinton, Obama, or PA thread.

Yeah it did. This is her only argument for the nomination and it does not hold up.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Not really, I feel that this could have easily gone into the Clinton thread.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

We didn't know that much as a nation about Bush in 99/00. We found out he is allegedly half-literate, enjoyed coke, has a drinking problem, produced offspring of the Lohan-Hilton variety, and couldn't run almost anything successfully. He still became President. Let alone the fact that we re-elected him.

This is the only thing I take issue with, the media totally overplayed the Bush twins partying. They were college freshman when he took office, of course they were gonna go out partying. Hell I have plenty of friends that went wild in college and now have very successful careers. They aren't nearly as bad as the Lohans or Hiltons of the world.

On topic, I really don't think the Hillary argument holds water, once the primary race is over, most of the Democrats will rally behind their candidate, sure a small minority will be bitter and vote against the party, but it won't be nearly very significant. I really don't like this idea of Superdelagates planning to nominate someone against who the country has voted for. That will definitely get me to vote for McCain in November, something I'm totally against, another 4 years of a republican White House, because it's showing the Democrats are against the Democratic system.

 

[rdh007]

Removed. But only because of the respect I have for Stanley.

 

[bell110]

Hillary is trying her hand at fear tactics. She really has nothing more to offer than Obama, plus she has the hateability factor (her mutant power), so she knows she probably won't win against Obama. She has to make up the rediculous, "Obama DIDN'T win these states, so that means he CAN'T win them against McCain." And she hopes that people are dumb enough to beleive that, and unfortunitly, they probably are.

 

[Marx]

Hillary is trying her hand at fear tactics. She really has nothing more to offer than Obama, plus she has the hateability factor (her mutant power), so she knows she probably won't win against Obama. She has to make up the rediculous, "Obama DIDN'T win these states, so that means he CAN'T win them against McCain." And she hopes that people are dumb enough to beleive that, and unfortunitly, they probably are.

The argument is that when given the choice, the states that Democrats absolutely have to win, they prefer Clinton over Obama. Is that to say that Obama wouldn't win them anyway? No. But when given the choice between the two in those states, people have voted for Clinton. I do see her point. And I for one, am certainly NOT dumb.

 

[Matt]

I'd say Clinton's argument is fairly solid. As Marx said, MUST win states favor Clinton. Therefore, by simply logic, it is more likely she will win those states than Obama. Does it mean he cannot? No. Does it mean she has a better chance. Yes.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Not only that while New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Texas, and California don't matter. California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New York will vote Democrat and Texas will vote Republican regardless of who is the candidate, states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida do.

Obama is losing to McCain in Ohio and Florida (states that gave the Republicans victory in 2000 and 2004) and Obama got the boost from Pennsylvania because he just spent six weeks campaigning there and spent millions in advertising against Clinton. Not only that but Obama has trouble in Michigan as well, a Democratic stronghold thanks to his efforts to block their delegates from seating.

 

[Kelly]

I don't believe she will be able to catch up.................there is just no way....so IMO there is no argument there.

Before the convention the big 4 will meet, Gore, Pelosi, Reed and Dean secretly with the Super Delegates, they will tell them "we are not going to tell you who to vote for....but please let us know at least 10 days before the convention"....

The super delegates will have a secret convention.....and they will let them know....

And my guess is they will choose Clinton, and Clinton will get the nomination. I'm not totally secure on that guess, but I'll put it out there for the fun of it.

Obama is having problem with the Reagan Democrats and the working class, Hispanic vote and senior citizen vote.....he has to show the SD's over the next few states that he can get that vote........and I don't think he can do that.......so if the SD's choose Obama, then IMO, they are choosing because of the popular vote, not because they think he can win the Presidency.......so many may kick themselves in the ass.

The elderly that are Roosevelt Democrats will vote a straight Democrat ticket, so that probably won't be a problem.......but the Reagan Democrats and Hispanics have already shown that they can be turned......and McCain could be a much safer vote for them...

 

[Excel]

Thats is just about impossible. If the states go as they appear to (note the only real upset of the entire race has been Iowa, everywhere else the person whose lead early wins) for the rest of the way, Obama will finish with roughly 1700 pledged delegates to Hillarys 1534.

Add incurrent super delegate numbers, it looks like this:

Obama: 1936
Clinton: 1793

There are 300 left. Of the 300, Obama needs 89 while hillary needs 232 of them. That means Obama only needs 30% of the remaining supers; Hillary needs 77% fo them to go. Hillary could very well take the vast majority of them, but Obama would have very little trouble finding 90 or so supers. You need to figure a decent amount, probably atleast 45 or so, would go to him simply because he won the popular vote and pledged delegates and out of guilt, they dont want to over turn that.

People are underestimating the Math on Obamas side. She could them 2-1 and it would not be enough. I dont see this going to the convention, after NC you'll gradually see more and more coming out to him. Right now they are just waiting for him to win a big state so they have an excuse to go for him without risking pissing off the Clintons, and a huge win in NC is just what they need.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

The super delegates will have a secret convention.....and they will let them know....

And my guess is they will choose Clinton, and Clinton will get the nomination.

I actually agree with this, and it's exactly what I'm anticipating. I also shudder at the uproar that will follow because of that outcome.

If they "give the nom away" to Hillary over the man who won it fair and square, it will certainly send a powerful message to everyone--especially young, new and African American voters. Hillary will NOT be able to retain them if they are disinfranchised by such a move.

And she'll lose the bid as a result. One way or the other, I really believe McCain has got this now. Too much damage has been done.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Thats is just about impossible. If the states go as they appear to (note the only real upset of the entire race has been Iowa, everywhere else the person whose lead early wins) for the rest of the way, Obama will finish with roughly 1700 pledged delegates to Hillarys 1534.

Add incurrent super delegate numbers, it looks like this:

Obama: 1936
Clinton: 1793

There are 300 left. Of the 300, Obama needs 89 while hillary needs 232 of them. That means Obama only needs 30% of the remaining supers; Hillary needs 77% fo them to go. Hillary could very well take the vast majority of them, but Obama would have very little trouble finding 90 or so supers. You need to figure a decent amount, probably atleast 45 or so, would go to him simply because he won the popular vote and pledged delegates and out of guilt, they dont want to over turn that.

People are underestimating the Math on Obamas side. She could them 2-1 and it would not be enough. I dont see this going to the convention, after NC you'll gradually see more and more coming out to him. Right now they are just waiting for him to win a big state so they have an excuse to go for him without risking pissing off the Clintons, and a huge win in NC is just what they need.

It's not just about math anymore. It is truly about politics now Excel. And it's about preference.

Obama is not going to get the nomination--even WITH the math on his side. Will it be fair? No. But politics is rarely fair (see Florida, 2000, Bush vs. Gore, etc.). I'm just bracing for the impact when the news hits that they've nominated Hillary based on some loose argument that won't carry an ounce of water.

 

[Excel]

No it wont Lightning; Obama will quite simply be too close. It is math. The supers wont get together in one huge room and say "were going for Hillary". Hillary can take the supers at a margin better than 2-1 and she still will not win. Obama will quite simply just be too damn close. Obamas magic number is 114. Realistically, he will only need about 320-340 supers. If Obama achieves 350 supers, the nomination is his. It is HUGHLY unlikely he finished with under 1675 pledged delegates.

Right now Obama is at 236, so his magic number of 114 is how many supers away he is. Realistically he is 90-100 supers away from clinching the nomination and there are 300 left. He will find away to get that number, wether its from them voting for him mout of guilt or fear of killing the party or backroom promises.

 

[Matt]

90-100 SDs is a lot. If they have a back door meeting and talk about it...actually discuss it...well..when you factor in her political pull and power, its just not an argument Clinton can lose.

 

[Tron5000]

I actually agree with this, and it's exactly what I'm anticipating. I also shudder at the uproar that will follow because of that outcome.

If they "give the nom away" to Hillary over the man who won it fair and square, it will certainly send a powerful message to everyone--especially young, new and African American voters. Hillary will NOT be able to retain them if they are disinfranchised by such a move.

And she'll lose the bid as a result. One way or the other, I really believe McCain has got this now. Too much damage has been done.

Well, if Hillary gets the nom from the Supers, then that kinda means that she "won it fair and square." Though Obama may win the popular vote, if the Supers sway the nom to Hillary, that will be fair, because those are the rules under which the Dems play the game.

 

[Excel]

90-100 SDs is a lot. If they have a back door meeting and talk about it...actually discuss it...well..when you factor in her political pull and power, its just not an argument Clinton can lose.

Out of 300, 90-100 wont be too hard for Obama to find. Quite a few will go just because he won the pledged delagetes and popular vote. After that Obama could simply pull aside however many he needs and say "If you guys come fo rme, I win, and Ill give you all this ****".

You guys will see. Many supers right now are just waiting for an excuse to go to Obama so they dont piss off Hillary or the majority of the voters in this election. North Carolina will be that excuse.