The Clinton Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

You know what I mean. :whatever:

The very fact you used the term "sway" shows it would carry an "unfair" connotation--and that is exactly how millions of voters will interpret it.
 
You know what I mean. :whatever:

The very fact you used the term "sway" shows it would carry an "unfair" connotation--and that is exactly how millions of voters will interpret it.

I didn't mean to imply anything about being "unfair." I meant this definition of "sway": to move or incline to one side or in a particular direction. That doesn't mention anything about being fair.

I consider "unfair" to be breaking the rules. If she's not breaking any rules and wins under the rules the Dems have set up, there's really nothing "unfair" about it.
 
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.

No it won't. Especially if she wins Indiana the same night. And am I crazy or have you been saying this since day one?
 
You know what I mean. :whatever:

The very fact you used the term "sway" shows it would carry an "unfair" connotation--and that is exactly how millions of voters will interpret it.

They can interpret it however they'd like. It wouldn't be unfair in the least. Obama made the choice to run in the Democrat Party, which is a private institution which is free to set its own rules. Therefore he either abides by their rules or if he does not like those, he can leave the party and run independently. They don't even have to have elections as to who their candidate is. In primaries, elections truly are a privledge, not a right. The super delegates owe Obama and the voters absolutely jack.
 
It's politics people........welcome to the real world......
 
They can interpret it however they'd like. It wouldn't be unfair in the least. Obama made the choice to run in the Democrat Party, which is a private institution which is free to set its own rules. Therefore he either abides by their rules or if he does not like those, he can leave the party and run independently. They don't even have to have elections as to who their candidate is. In primaries, elections truly are a privledge, not a right. The super delegates owe Obama and the voters absolutely jack.

The problem I see with the Supers is that if they subvert the will of their constituents (which they're allowed to do under the Dem rules), they are likely putting at risk their future political careers. Say Obama wins the popular vote in a particular area (district, state, whatever) but a Super with constituents in that area votes for Clinton. Next time this person is up for re-election, he/she will have to explain to their voting bloc why they chose to go against the wishes of their constituents. That's an interesting component to this campaign that I think is going largely undiscussed.

And Matt, I can't help you make a Sticky, but I am pretty good with pasties.
 
It looks like Obama shouldn't have ruined the prospects of a Michigan revote:

Michigan Is Becoming Clinton's Secret Weapon
Susan J. Demas
Detroit News

If you punched your ballot for "uncommitted" in Michigan's Jan. 15 Democratic presidential primary to back Barack Obama, your vote might have essentially gone to Hillary Clinton anyway.

While all eyes were locked on Pennsylvania for the last six weeks, Clinton was quietly amassing delegates in the Wolverine State. And she was rewarded this past weekend with a significant victory at the district conventions.

This development naturally has been overshadowed by her big win Tuesday night in Pennsylvania. But the race for the Democratic nomination wasn't decided then and won't be by the remaining contests -- not North Carolina, Indiana or even Guam -- because the real fight is over delegates. And Michigan remains a key battleground.

On Aug. 25, Clinton will march into the national convention in Denver stronger than most people realize, thanks to her aggressive ground game in Michigan.

Buoyed by party elder support, Clinton seems likely to capture more than 60 percent of the state's 128 pledged delegates, according to an analysis by the Michigan Information & Research Service. Including the 28 superdelegates, which lean heavily in the New York senator's favor, she could win upward of 70 percent of delegates, provided that they're seated with full voting power.

That depends on the Democratic National Committee, which punished Michigan for leapfrogging the primary schedule. There is no deal yet to seat the delegation. But the Clinton camp is working overtime to ensure the elected slate is sent. Keep in mind that Clinton won 55 percent to uncommitted's 40 percent since Obama wasn't on the ballot. He has pushed for a 50-50 percent delegate split, but that proposal hasn't gained traction.

It's becoming apparent that Obama should have consented to a revote here. He certainly wouldn't have lost by 15 percentage points or more; polls have pegged the pair in a dead heat. But Obama seemed spooked that Clintonites put forth the plan and the money, so he quashed the do-over last month.

Now Obama is paying the price in delegates, starting with the Michigan Democratic Party's 15 district conventions on Saturday. The Clinton battle plan was flawlessly executed with an eye toward a contested convention. Their delegate roster is crammed with big names like former Gov. Jim Blanchard and Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero.

"We wanted to pick people who would be loyal to Hillary, who would commit to her through multiple ballots," Blanchard says.

Michiganders for Obama, a ragtag group of new volunteers, triumphed in turnout Saturday but were steamrolled by the Clinton machine. Obama has proved to be a master of organization, but he made a tactical error not to plump up his skeletal apparatus in Michigan.

As a result, he will almost certainly fall short of the 36 uncommitted delegates selected. Volunteers argued that only Obama supporters should be uncommitted delegates, but they were outmaneuvered. About half of the uncommitted delegates reserved the right to vote for Clinton, depending on whom their unions eventually endorse.

While union officials flatly deny they're in the tank for Clinton, Obama supporters point out that United Auto Workers Legislative Coordinator Nadine Nosal was elected in the 8th District as an alternate Clinton delegate. That underscores the fact that Obama's speech to the Detroit Economic Club last year, calling for higher federal fuel economy standards, went over with labor leaders like a lead balloon.

In May, the party's labor-heavy, Clinton-friendly central committee chooses the remaining 45 delegates, setting up a scenario of more uncommitted delegates switching to Clinton.

Given her narrow path to the nomination, Clinton and her aides have argued that pledged delegates are fair game to flip. Although they've since backed away from such statements, the Michigan delegate conventions show the Clinton delegate strategy is being set into motion. What this could mean is four very interesting days in Denver. Although the odds still favor Obama -- who leads in delegates, the popular vote and states won -- he has to be a bit rattled over two losses in one week.

If Clinton comes out on top in a floor war, we might well look back at the Michigan mêlée as the turning point.
 
I voted "uncommitted". I will not be happy. Her leaving her name on the ballot here was cheap and tawdry, like most of her husband's girlfriends.
 
HAHA, the Democratic party is slowly killing itself. A few more elections and there might not be a Democratic party left.
 
I voted "uncommitted". I will not be happy. Her leaving her name on the ballot here was cheap and tawdry, like most of her husband's girlfriends.

Obama could have easily done the same, he instead chose not to. And then killed a re-vote option. I still find it so amusing that people attack her for her husband's extra-curriculars. It's actually more ridiculous and sad, rather than amusing.
icon13.gif
 
Obama could have easily done the same, he instead chose not to. And then killed a re-vote option. I still find it so amusing that people attack her for her husband's extra-curriculars. It's actually more ridiculous and sad, rather than amusing.
icon13.gif

The same holds true with regard to whom Obama associates himself with and the comments of his wife.

Besides, when has politics ever been anything more than ridiculous?
 
Should be an interesting interview - though it is a sign of desperation from Hillary. It will be interesting to see how forceful O'Reilly is with her, he could be the best interviewer he has. A strong showing here would do her some good and only increase her ever growing momentum.

And yes, before anyone is a smart ass, it could of gone in the Hillary thread.
 
Hmm, I think O'Reilly will go soft ball on her as most Republicans would prefer she gets the nomination, I'd imagine.
 
Should be an interesting interview - though it is a sign of desperation from Hillary. It will be interesting to see how forceful O'Reilly is with her, he could be the best interviewer he has. A strong showing here would do her some good and only increase her ever growing momentum.

And yes, before anyone is a smart ass, it could of gone in the Hillary thread.

oh who cares? After watching the colbert report, I can't take O'reilly seriously.

Seriously conservatives used had Bill F. Buckley, who would actually provided intelligent debate, O'Reilly just shouts and talks over people, he is an idiot, a dumbed down, mass produced, pop culture product, instead of an actually intelligent debater.
 
I agree with Matthew. Bill O'Reilly tends to play soft with "high" Ranking Democrats, he does want them to come back some day. It really should be interesting.
 
This will be interesting. He'll either treat her "politely," or he'll start yelling and cramming his crap down her throat like he does all his other guests.

I have no intention of watching, but I'm sure someone will spill the details later.
 
Should be an interesting interview - though it is a sign of desperation from Hillary. It will be interesting to see how forceful O'Reilly is with her, he could be the best interviewer he has. A strong showing here would do her some good and only increase her ever growing momentum.

And yes, before anyone is a smart ass, it could of gone in the Hillary thread.

In my opinion, its the smartest thing she has done thus far in her campaign......she gets millions upon millions viewers (he does beat all other cable news in his time slot, and over all by double digits, I might add) and she gets those viewers for 2 nights (many if not most of the viewers, I predict will be swing voters)......and she gets all of this without spending a dime.

Billy O may be an ass, but he's an ass that people watch....:yay:

Hmm, I think O'Reilly will go soft ball on her as most Republicans would prefer she gets the nomination, I'd imagine.

I think Bill saying...."you do know that people don't like you right...." (not exact quote, but that is the jest)......isn't exactly softball..........and telling here that she is crazy, and that her tax plan will bankrupt the country, isn't exactly softball.....

I think it will be an interesting interview, and I have a feeling it will beat the everyone in its time slot, including the mainstream media. As I said before, smartest move she has made in this campaign.
 
In my opinion, its the smartest thing she has done thus far in her campaign......she gets millions upon millions viewers (he does beat all other cable news in his time slot, and over all by double digits, I might add) and she gets those viewers for 2 nights (many if not most of the viewers, I predict will be swing voters)......and she gets all of this without spending a dime.

Billy O may be an ass, but he's an ass that people watch....:yay:

I agree completely :up:
 
I agree completely :up:

Great, social discourse in America and my faith in humanity in general are both
taking a plunge.

This guy is like Britney Spears in 2002, a talentless hack who makes up for it by having a great PR machine, that is why he is popular, not because he brings anything useful to the table. He is nothing more than political jock shock, you might as take political advice from Howard Stern.
 
I agree completely :up:

Great, social discourse in America and my faith in humanity in general are both
taking a plunge.

This guy is like Britney Spears in 2002, a talentless hack who makes up for it by having a great PR machine, that is why he is popular, not because he brings anything useful to the table. He is nothing more than political jock shock, you might as take political advice from Howard Stern.
 
Great, social discourse in America and my faith in humanity in general are both
taking a plunge.

This guy is like Britney Spears in 2002, a talentless hack who makes up for it by having a great PR machine, that is why he is popular, not because he brings anything useful to the table. He is nothing more than political jock shock, you might as take political advice from Howard Stern.

I disagree completely :huh:
 
Great, social discourse in America and my faith in humanity in general are both
taking a plunge.

This guy is like Britney Spears in 2002, a talentless hack who makes up for it by having a great PR machine, that is why he is popular, not because he brings anything useful to the table. He is nothing more than political jock shock, you might as take political advice from Howard Stern.

So... people can't like Bill O'Reilly now? You've lost you're faith in humanity because there are people who disagree with you?

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Also, if this makes O'Reilly a talentless hack like Britney Spears... what shameless pop diva does that make Keith Olbermann? Christina Aguilera? Jessica Simpson? Maybe even Jamie Lynn Spears?

Because most political pundits, with few exceptions in my opinion, are talentless hacks...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"