Clinton thread
- Started
- Last post
- 442 Responses
- GreedoLives0
not sure if this has been posted before, but it's fricking amazing:
http://www.collegehumor.com/vide…- HRC campaign needs directions to the Fuck You Candy Store.********
- That was well done...TheBlueOne
- HRC campaign needs directions to the Fuck You Candy Store.
- rainman0
Time to offset the PA loss (which I think was obviously going to happen) with a donation to barackobama.com.
Who's with me?
- money is not the answerflashbender
- may not be the answer but kinda all I can do at the moment. It's like eating ice cream after being dumped.rainman
- And it can't hurt...rainman
- i heard obama has 42 mil right now and clinton has 8... he ain't brokeGreedoLives
- that dude as enough of dough.akrokdesign
- he outspent her 3:1 and still lost. But if it makes you feel better, then go ahead.flashbender
- boobs0
He's got $30 million in hand over the fat-assed bitch!
He doesn't need money; he needs SuperDelegate votes. Where do we go to buy those?
- he needs a decisive win somewhere so those frightened little delegates can come to himGreedoLives
- food4less got some.akrokdesign
- acescence0
Obama spends 75 cents to every dollar he takes in, Clinton spends 1.10 to every dollar, that math doesn't look good for her.
- question is where goes the other .25 cents. hookers? lol.akrokdesign
- he saves it, which is why he's got millions on hand and she's in debtacescence
- or maybe hookersacescence
- he could be a boy lover also. who knows.akrokdesign
- mm...maybe she like to pay the one that works for her, compare to obama. they get 5.75/hr.akrokdesign
- *not a fact. ok. hah.akrokdesign
- mg330
One of my friends this weekend said, just out of nowhere: "I bet Hillary Clinton has a golden shower fetish!"
It was hilarious.
- video or its not true. lol.akrokdesign
- I can see it. She has a woman straddle her face and piss coffee piss straight into her buggly eyes.jellyneck
- TheBlueOne0
"Listening to Clinton campaign surrogates on television, before the PA votes ever started to trickle in, was truly painful. Suddenly one state was the only state that mattered. All those other states were merely prelude: if Clinton could eke out a victory in this state, trailing in the delegate count would no longer be significant, and it would be a brand new race, and Obama would be on the ropes, and Clinton would suddenly win a billion dollars, a pony, and the moon; attention must be paid. It is not enough for Obama to simply be winning the nomination according to the rules laid out in advance: no, he must win the "right" way, according to the Clinton campaign and surrogates, or it doesn't count. He has to win the "right" states. And he has to win primaries, not caucuses. And he has to "close the deal", shutting Clinton out of remaining wins entirely, or it proves something ominous (the fact that Clinton has not been able to "close the deal" against him, and is instead trailing him badly and irreparably, barring superdelegate do-over, somehow does not count against her own merits.) And he not only has to win the "popular vote", but he has to win that, too, the right way, which is to say by counting only certain states and not counting others. And he has to win small towns, not just big population centers, because winning big population centers is elitist. Except that if he wins small towns in the West and Midwest, that doesn't count, because it's more important to win the big population centers. And all of this somehow proves that Clinton is a better candidate against McCain than Obama is, even though the polls to date have consistently shown Obama is a better candidate against McCain than Clinton is.
All the spin boils down to a simple truth: Clinton now has almost no chance of winning on the delegate count. Barring Obama getting eaten by a bear, it's not going to happen, so the Clinton campaign wants the superdelegates to overturn the primary and caucus results at the convention and appoint her the rightful winner, even though she is, at this point, clearly losing. That's going to be a tough sell, if all Clinton has to offer is one state's worth of "momentum" or the rather odd logic that, since Obama has supposedly not sufficiently proven his campaign viability by kicking her completely to the curb by now, the superdelegates should instead hitch their wagons to a candidate who has been proven to be less viable than him."
- ********0
here's the scenario: If Gore fought like HRC, he would have been president. Lesson: never throw in the towel for something greater than yourself. This lesson observed by every pundit.
- HRC has to give value to her paymasters. That's why she is still in it. plus, she can't help herself********
- HRC has to give value to her paymasters. That's why she is still in it. plus, she can't help herself
- ********0
I'm retired
- Buck up, man! We need your enthusiasms Rand! Hope! Change! Hope for Change!TheBlueOne
- exador10
rand...this one is for you buddy...
thought you would appreciate this...
(appologies if this has been posted before)
http://nicetrygiveup.com/ write a break up letter to Hillary...too funny
- ********0
Hillary, please stop with the campaign
- ********0
- People in Centre & Union county are surrounded.Mimio
- Obama=Fail on that mapflashbender
- ukit0
The Rules of Clintonball
by Hunter
Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:11:45 AM PDTForget the spin: the race is where it is. Clinton won Pennsylvania. The overall delegate margin has barely budged, however, and it is now even more assured that there is no reasonable scenario where Clinton can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates.
I was never a Clinton fan, in this campaign. I have previously stated my deep discomfort with the notion that the person most deserving of the Presidency of the United States just miraculously happens to be the person married to the last Democratic President of the United States; it smacks far too much of the usual intra-Washington narcissism, and carries the strong whiff of American monarchy, something already wafting through the air after the ridiculous rise of the Boy King. At the same time, however, there seems little value in debating whether Clinton should or should not leave the race. That is entirely up to Clinton, and any candidate with a mathematical chance -- even if slim -- of pulling out a win has every right to see the race through until that last fateful day. I don't buy the notion that the campaign is hurting the Democratic party: any election that generates this level of excitement among Democratic voters is hardly a bad thing.
What bothers me, however, is the increasingly insulting quality of the campaign and surrogate spin as each successive campaign day wears on. It is fine to celebrate a Pennsylvania win -- by all means, a victory is a victory, and a significant and hard-fought one at that -- but all I ask in politics is that the spinners of each camp try their best to not make it quite so obvious that they think the rest of us really are a spectacular new species of rubes, able to be led by the nose to whatever ridiculous and improbable conclusion would best benefit a particular camp.
Listening to Clinton campaign surrogates on television, before the PA votes ever started to trickle in, was truly painful. Suddenly one state was the only state that mattered. All those other states were merely prelude: if Clinton could eke out a victory in this state, trailing in the delegate count would no longer be significant, and it would be a brand new race, and Obama would be on the ropes, and Clinton would suddenly win a billion dollars, a pony, and the moon; attention must be paid. It is not enough for Obama to simply be winning the nomination according to the rules laid out in advance: no, he must win the "right" way, according to the Clinton campaign and surrogates, or it doesn't count. He has to win the "right" states. And he has to win primaries, not caucuses. And he has to "close the deal", shutting Clinton out of remaining wins entirely, or it proves something ominous (the fact that Clinton has not been able to "close the deal" against him, and is instead trailing him badly and irreparably, barring superdelegate do-over, somehow does not count against her own merits.) And he not only has to win the "popular vote", but he has to win that, too, the right way, which is to say by counting only certain states and not counting others. And he has to win small towns, not just big population centers, because winning big population centers is elitist. Except that if he wins small towns in the West and Midwest, that doesn't count, because it's more important to win the big population centers. And all of this somehow proves that Clinton is a better candidate against McCain than Obama is, even though the polls to date have consistently shown Obama is a better candidate against McCain than Clinton is.
Now, I'm all for surrogates talking up their candidate, assuming they don't insult my intelligence in the process. But with the ever-changing rules and subrules of Clintonball, my intelligence feels fairly insulted, at this point. There seems to be an ever-expanding list of rationales why the delegate counts in front of our faces don't actually matter, or don't actually exist, or are terribly misleading. There seems to be an ever-expanding list of supposedly devastating Obama faults, such as the supposed elitism of the black guy from Chicago (seriously?), and there is a cynical and mocking dismissal of political eloquence from a campaign that once counted the political eloquence of their former president as one of their greatest assets. People have muttered over the negative tone of the campaign of late: hell, go negative. It's about time the Democrats figured out how to competently go negative, even though so far they have only bothered to practice it against each other. More irritating is that the negative attacks presented are, well, stupid, and seem increasingly to be predicated on the notion that voters, the press, the pundits, and we political hangers-on are all idiots seeking to cling to the most shallow of accusations. The press and the pundits? OK, I'll give you that one. The rest of us, however, weren't born yesterday.
All the spin boils down to a simple truth: Clinton now has almost no chance of winning on the delegate count. Barring Obama getting eaten by a bear, it's not going to happen, so the Clinton campaign wants the superdelegates to overturn the primary and caucus results at the convention and appoint her the rightful winner, even though she is, at this point, clearly losing. That's going to be a tough sell, if all Clinton has to offer is one state's worth of "momentum" or the rather odd logic that, since Obama has supposedly not sufficiently proven his campaign viability by kicking her completely to the curb by now, the superdelegates should instead hitch their wagons to a candidate who has been proven to be less viable than him.
The problem is those arguments simply aren't credible. You can't spin away an insurmountable delegate disadvantage with declarations of mulligans or claims of an "electability" that hasn't been able to actually get you elected. And with the ongoing declarations of which states should and shouldn't count (Pennsylvania yes, North Carolina no, one half of Texas yes, one half of Texas no, etc.), Clinton surrogates are rapidly running out of states and people to dismiss or insult. It has been a very, very nasty habit of her campaign -- seemingly Mark Penn inspired, but expansively used by any number of surrogates.
If Clinton wants the superdelegates to overturn all the voting up until now, fine: she's got every right, according to the rules of the contest, to campaign for that. All I'm asking is for her surrogates to come up with rationales that aren't absurdly premised and/or dismissive of the electorate. Given that I can't think of any such non-absurd arguments, that may pose a problem.
- flashbender0
I am enjoying the destruction of the democratic party.
- Amazing how they figured out how to snatch defeat form the jaws of victory, no?TheBlueOne
- whut0
Yea, there's really one party, it's called "The insiders that manipulate the epic ignorance of Americans through simple minded emotional bullshit."
And we know that party aint no where near destroyed...
- whut0
You think flashbender believes in the American flag?
Not that I'm questioning his patriotism or anything...
- If by "american Flag" you mean the almighty dollar, yep I believe in it just as much as US politicians.flashbender
- flashbender0
OH yeah, the "what's in it for me? Oh, kickbacks for my friends and i? Cool" party is going strong. I think they are going to win this year.
- blingy0
Good job, Democrats, you will surely lose in November if you keep it up
- ukit0
NY Times Thursday blows a Trailer Park Sized hole in the Clintons' electability fantasy.
Exit polling and independent political analysts offer evidence that Mr. Obama could do just as well as Mrs. Clinton among blocs of voters with whom he now runs behind. Obama advisers say he also appears well-positioned to win swing states and believe he would have a strong shot at winning traditional Republican states like Virginia.
According to surveys of Pennsylvania voters leaving the polls on Tuesday, Mr. Obama would draw majorities of support from lower-income voters and less-educated ones — just as Mrs. Clinton would against Mr. McCain, even though those voters have favored her over Mr. Obama in the primaries.
And national polls suggest Mr. Obama would also do slightly better among groups that have gravitated to Republican in the past, like men, the more affluent and independents, while she would do slightly better among women.
Why is Hillary weak with Educated Voters? Men? Blacks? Western State Democrats? Young Voters???
Does it say something about a candidate if they consistently win the Educated? And what does it say about your opponent if they're strongest with the Under Educated??? Anyhow, more on the NY Times Torpedo through Hillary's Meme Du Jour
Mr. Hart, as well as Obama advisers, also say that Mr. Obama appears better poised than Mrs. Clinton to pick up states that Democrats struggle to carry, or rarely do, in a general election, like Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and Virginia, all of which he carried in the primaries. Obama advisers say their polling indicates he is more popular with independents, and far less divisive than Mrs. Clinton, in those states.
“Hillary goes deeper and stronger in the Democratic base than Obama, but her challenge is that she doesn’t go as wide,” Mr. Hart said. “Obama goes much further reaching into the independent and Republican vote, and has a greater chance of creating a new electoral map for the Democrats.”
Of Course however, if you were to listen to Bill Clinton, Only one segment of voters count... White Working Class who he claims Obama has forsaken.
"And today her opponent's campaign strategist said, 'well we don't really need these working class people to win, half the time they vote for Republicans anyways. And I will tell you something, America needs you to win and therefore Hillary wants your support and I hope you will help her in this primary in North Carolina," continued the former president.
Clinton may have been referring to comments made by Obama strategist, David Alexrod. “The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes," Axelrod told NPR.
This is in Response to the Axelrod assertion that White Working Class Voters have been voting for Republicans for years... which is infact true. They're called Reagan Democrats. They are illusive, and for the most part, undependable. The few who are voting in the Dem Primary are just a portion of the much larger crowd who will vote for McCain in the General and scoff at us from the sidelines. "Anyone raised in a "Reagen Democrat" home is a Republican which the Democrats need to convert to Democrat, i.e an Obamacon." It's quite telling when Bill Clinton is in public agreement with Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager.
The cracks in Obama's Democratic coalition in Pennsylvania mirror what we saw in Ohio, and those cracks could have implications in November.
The truth is this is an election that will be won in the middle ground, among independents. In Pennsylvania, Obama won Independents 54%-46%
In California, Obama won Independents 58%-34%
In Missouri Obama won Independents 67%-30%
In Wisconsin Obama won Independents 64%-33%
In Virginia Obama won Independents 69%-30%
The pattern is clear... Independents + Core Democratic Groups like Youth and Minorities create Obama victories. The General Election is very different than a closed Pennsylvania Primary. Independents are the middle ground, the holy grail of the DLC, the place where the battle takes place. There are essentially three general rules of the General Election:
1- Democrats vote for Democrats
2- Republicans vote for Republicans
3- Independents decide the Election; Electability starts and ends with these often educated, often affluent voters who are allergic to Hillary's Brand.
- TheBlueOne0
Sen. Hillary Clinton is arguing that she is ahead of rival Sen. Barack Obama when it comes to the popular vote.
"I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else," Clinton said Wednesday, one day after her decisive win in Pennsylvania.
Not so fast, says Obama's campaign. Clinton's count includes her wins in Michigan and Florida, but the Democratic presidential candidates agreed not to campaign in those states because they violated party rules by scheduling their contests too early.
Obama didn't even have his name on the Michigan ballot, so he received no votes from that contest.
- So I assume, if elected, Clinton will lie and distort the facts as President as well.TheBlueOne
- of course!flashbender