Kilmer17 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/us/politics/19cnd-clinton.html?_r=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is entering the Kentucky and Oregon primaries on Tuesday with one of the most pugnacious political messages of her campaign: That she is ahead in the national popular vote when all votes are counted, including from the unsanctioned primaries in Michigan and Florida, and that party leaders who have a vote as super-delegates should reflect this level of appeal. This argument is of a piece with Mrs. Clinton’s increasingly populist image, as a fighter on behalf of average people, but it is also a debatable claim: Most tallies of the national popular vote put Mr. Obama in the lead, especially when Michigan and Florida are not counted. Im sure there are people who claim to admire her "courage" and "resolve". But her campaign and her and Bill are the epitome of all that is wrong with politics today. She wants to count FLA and MICH, even though she agreed not to before, and NOT COUNT Caucuses. Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/us/politics/19cnd-clinton.html?_r=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&oref=sloginSenator Hillary Rodham Clinton is entering the Kentucky and Oregon primaries on Tuesday with one of the most pugnacious political messages of her campaign: That she is ahead in the national popular vote when all votes are counted, including from the unsanctioned primaries in Michigan and Florida, and that party leaders who have a vote as super-delegates should reflect this level of appeal. This argument is of a piece with Mrs. Clinton’s increasingly populist image, as a fighter on behalf of average people, but it is also a debatable claim: Most tallies of the national popular vote put Mr. Obama in the lead, especially when Michigan and Florida are not counted. Im sure there are people who claim to admire her "courage" and "resolve". But her campaign and her and Bill are the epitome of all that is wrong with politics today. She wants to count FLA and MICH, even though she agreed not to before, and NOT COUNT Caucuses. Brilliant. I don't know what she expects to happen when she does stuff like this. Its so stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegionOfDoom Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 C'mon hill is a politician.....I'd expect nothing less than a full blown temper tantrum--kicking and screaming to get the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I don't know why she thinks that the votes will count in 2 states where nobody campaigned and one persons name wasnt even on the ballot (Obama). It will be interesting to see how they come to a decision regarding what to do with FL and MICH. Unless obama has 2,025 by then. I would think that there would be a fair way to seat the delegates from each state without giving Hillary the lead in delegate count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Politicians who lose always seem to have a complete lack of understanding for why they lost. Even when it's obvious. Earth to Hillary: you lost because you are a liar. Why are you still doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Meh, at this point, what else is she going to say. C'mon hill is a politician.....I'd expect nothing less than a full blown temper tantrum--kicking and screaming to get the nomination.I have actually been surprised at how things have toned down in the past few weeks. Hillary took her shot in the run-up to Pennsylvania, and it wasn't quite enough. The campaign is definitely winding down now, and there's really no choice other than to just keep campaigning to June 3 and then accept defeat gracefully.But while she presses forward, aides say she is determined neither to be pushed from the race prematurely nor to be seen as doing anything to damage Obama's prospects of winning in November if he emerges as the nominee. Her campaign team believes that is the best way to bring the party together as quickly as possible once the nomination contest is over.Her advisers say that a major reason she does not want to be pressured out of the race is that she believes it will be easier to bring her supporters over to Obama once the primaries are over if they think she was able to finish the nomination battle on her own terms http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902737.html?hpid=topnews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 20, 2008 Author Share Posted May 20, 2008 I think it's more likely shes still in it to hurt Obama so she has a chance in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegionOfDoom Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Meh, at this point, what else is she going to say.I have actually been surprised at how things have toned down in the past few weeks. Hillary took her shot in the run-up to Pennsylvania, and it wasn't quite enough. The campaign is definitely winding down now, and there's really no choice other than to just keep campaigning to June 3 and then accept defeat gracefully.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902737.html?hpid=topnews TJ I would be surprised if she just swallowed it and moved on back to the Senate. I hope she does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drop Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Hillary's gonna be the one who tries to assassinate Obama. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 She might as well wait until 2016. She'd still be younger than McCain is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Dear Hillary: STFD Step the **** Down Thanks, The Democratic Party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I think it's more likely shes still in it to hurt Obama so she has a chance in 2012.But the things she would need to do to hurt Obama are completely incompatible with helping her chances in 2012. She has to make peace with the Democratic Party leaders, and she has to appear to rally around the nominee if the Democrats are even going to consider her in four years ... On the other hand, Obama would have to lose to even give her the opportunity.It's a very thin line to walk, but TJ I would be surprised if she just swallowed it and moved on back to the Senate.I hope she does. I don't think she has any other choice right now than to continue campaigning, avoid anything that could appear dirty, endorse the nominee, and fade into the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 And this is the reason people didn't vote for her in the first place. . . I just count my lucky blessings that we will have a choice of Obama or McCain and not Clinton or McCain. It's funny, Hillary has done more to tarnish Bill's legacy than a stained dress ever could have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I was listening to Dennis Miller on the way home and he mentioned: Hillary Clinton says she will remove the troops in 60 days from Iraq... But cant turn a tiny campaign around in 60 days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 It's funny, Hillary has done more to tarnish Bill's legacy than a stained dress ever could have. Very true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Outside of the political commentary...............is it actually TRUE or not that she has more votes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Maybe she should get Al Gore to explain to her how elections work. He can explain it v e r r y s l o w l y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 On the other hand, Obama would have to lose to even give her the opportunity. I disagree. I think whichever of the three wins, they will be a one term president. Obama, for sure. Hillary would lead the charge against his failed presidency. McCain, most likely. If he goes like he has been, he will be challenged by real conservatives. Hillary, might actually have the best chance at two terms, since her and her ilk would do absolutely anything to make it happen. Worst...choices...ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 20, 2008 Author Share Posted May 20, 2008 Outside of the political commentary...............is it actually TRUE or not that she has more votes? Well, the truth is that there is no way to tell. She can claim that out of the vote totals that have been announced, she has had more cast for her. But that means excluding caucus states that do not release the actual number of votes per candidate. It also means counting every vote in Michigan that voted for Hillary as a Hillary vote, and NOT counting all of the "No choice" votes for Obama. Remember, he removed his name from the ballot when ALL parties agreed Michigan wouldnt count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Outside of the political commentary...............is it actually TRUE or not that she has more votes? She is counting FL and MICH where Obama/Clinton didn't campaign and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MICH, she doe shave more votes. The problem is that the Democratic Party isn't counting those as of May 20th. So she is just extending the finish line so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Well, the truth is that there is no way to tell.She can claim that out of the vote totals that have been announced, she has had more cast for her. But that means excluding caucus states that do not release the actual number of votes per candidate. It also means counting every vote in Michigan that voted for Hillary as a Hillary vote, and NOT counting all of the "No choice" votes for Obama. Remember, he removed his name from the ballot when ALL parties agreed Michigan wouldnt count. So essentially, she has to do A LOT of massaging of the numbers for her claim to be true. Ok, thats all i need to know and i agree with the prevailing sentiment in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 She does have a point. They changed the rules to ensure a women wouldnt win. They won't allow the poor people of Florida/Michigan participate as if they were D.C. residents. They are so close together in just about every stat there is no clear victor yet they try and push the women back into the kitchen because they are worried she will beat the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 They changed the rules to ensure a women wouldnt win.They won't allow the poor people of Florida/Michigan participate as if they were D.C. residents. They are so close together in just about every stat there is no clear victor yet they try and push the women back into the kitchen because they are worried she will beat the man. The second sentence can be an interesting discussion. But please tell me you're joking about #1 and #3 up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Outside of the political commentary...............is it actually TRUE or not that she has more votes? It probably really does depend on how you define votes. I don't think that the FL and MI primaries should count because I don't think you change the rules midgame. Hillary needs them to count and there is an argument against not disenfranchising those to states. However, it's impossible to make the argument that those two primaries were a accurate snapshot. It would have been nice if they could have held a second primary, but the Dems could never quite figure out how to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I think it's more likely shes still in it to hurt Obama so she has a chance in 2012. Yep. She wants McCain to win so she can run again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.