then how can she possibly win against McCain? Or turn this country around for that matter?
To all of the Clinton supporters out there (RM & Hometown seem to be it on this board), at some point you have to ask yourself, how effective could Hillary be against McCain? This campaign was her's to lose this year, and quite frankly, she's shown that she can lose it at every step of the way. She really had no plan after supertuesday. It reminds me a bit of Bush and the Iraq war. He expected to be greeted as liberators, and had no clue what to do when we weren't. She expected to win handily, and had no idea what to do afterwards. She's had to shake up her staff, which didn't seem to get her anywhere.
Now she is or isn't, depending on who you read, firing her chief strategist. He was the one that put all her eggs in the "big state" basket, a strategy that has resulted in a lead by Obama that is mathematically insurmountable. And by keeping that strategist, the strategist that seemed to find no conflict between his role as a lobbyist and as a campaign advisor, Clinton very likely has lost a large percentage of union votes.
Given this mismanagement, how could she possibly win against the Karl Roves of the republican party? You can argue that the press is out to get her, but after 8 years in the White House, you would think she would be better able to handle the press. Nothing will change come the fall election--how will she manage the press then? How would she manage the press once in the White House?
On the other hand, we have Obama's campaign--one with incredible organization and grass roots support. Obama has been able to win handily in Caucus states because of his superior organization. While Clinton has had to loan her campaign money, Obama is able to raise millions through numerous channels. Whatever your opinion of his positions, you have to admit he's run a brilliant campaign.
Again and again, Clinton tries to make the argument that the superdelegates should overturn the pledged delegates because she is more "electable." So my question is, if she were more electable, then why does she keep losing? If she has the judgement to lead on day one, why does she not have the judgement to know a bad campaign strategy when she sees it?
My guess is that TulsaNow is loaded with well off White computer literate people. That Demographic, at least on the left, has been drawn to Obama.
Regarding your perception that Clinton has not run as good of a campaign as Obama's, I would guess it has to do with media spin and who you are listening to. Tonight, turn off Mathews and Olbermann at MSNBC and watch Campbell Brown on CNN. She has a Clinton bias. Or watch ABC national news, they have a Clinton bias. Or Abrams on MSNBC. He has been more balanced that the other folks at MSNBC.
I'm going to say what I've said before, you Obama supporters need to face the fact that at the end of the process Obama may not be the winner. Clinton supporters have faced this fact but my sense is that Obama supporters have not. I'm afraid you might have a very difficult let down.
Now, don't start arguing numbers. The fact that you have to do all these gymnastics with numbers proves that Obama is the front runner by only slim margins -- not the landslide you once hoped for Pmcalk.
Don't worry Democrats. Everything is going to be okay. This is just a family fuss that's going to get ironed out.
I generally don't watch any of those channels--I prefer getting my news from NPR, PBS, & the New York times (and quite frankly I also enjoy drinking lattes).[;)]
Say what you will about "slim margins" but the fact is that, because of the bad management of Hillary's campaign, she has gone from the inevitable winner of the Democratic nomination to hoping for a hail mary via the Superdelegates over turning the pledged delegates. The only way she can win at this point is for the remaining superdelegates (less than half have remained uncommitted) to overwhelming endorse her. Unfortunately for her, the opposite seems to be happening, and even her most ardent supporters appear angry about Mark Penn.
I don't completely disagree with your comments. I am not sure any democrat can win the White House against the Karl Rove-led attacks that are sure to come.
But Hillary won against top opponents in New York and her husband beat a sitting incumbent President. They are tested against these campaigns.
Obama has never been tested by the nasty campaigners. He won his only national race when the republican nominee withdrew from a scandal and was replaced by a divisive Alan Keys who moved to the state the day before the deadline to register.
If I agreed with your premise that the republicans are going to do anything and everything to win, I would be supporting Hillary.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
My guess is that TulsaNow is loaded with well off White computer literate people. That Demographic, at least on the left, has been drawn to Obama.
Regarding your perception that Clinton has not run as good of a campaign as Obama's, I would guess it has to do with media spin and who you are listening to. Tonight, turn off Mathews and Olbermann at MSNBC and watch Campbell Brown on CNN. She has a Clinton bias. Or watch ABC national news, they have a Clinton bias. Or Abrams on MSNBC. He has been more balanced that the other folks at MSNBC.
I'm going to say what I've said before, you Obama supporters need to face the fact that at the end of the process Obama may not be the winner. Clinton supporters have faced this fact but my sense is that Obama supporters have not. I'm afraid you might have a very difficult let down.
Now, don't start arguing numbers. The fact that you have to do all these gymnastics with numbers proves that Obama is the front runner by only slim margins -- not the landslide you once hoped for Pmcalk.
Don't worry Democrats. Everything is going to be okay. This is just a family fuss that's going to get ironed out.
I am amazed at the lowered expectations that Obama is allowed. I have heard for weeks that Hillary has to "win BIG" in Pennsylvania or it will be considered a victory for Obama. Last night on the news I heard that he has outspent her five to one on television advertising and has three times the campaign staff on the ground in the state.
He is still behind, but tonight the media will probably report that "he is closing the gap" between himself and Hillary. With all that money and staffers and him being ahead in the delegates, he should win big in Pennsylvania.
Instead he will lose yet another big state (and democrat stronghold) to her and the media will still proclaim him the winner.
Jimminy RM.... she had a double digit lead which has evaporated. If Hillary Clinton can't run a good primary campaign, how is she ever going to run a good campaign against the Republicans?
This is real time politics. The money comes from millions of contributors at less than $100 each. Outspending her 5 to 1 seems to be the people's will. I told you she was toast after Wisconsin.
Can't wait to see how your support of McCain't unfolds....
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I am amazed at the lowered expectations that Obama is allowed. I have heard for weeks that Hillary has to "win BIG" in Pennsylvania or it will be considered a victory for Obama. Last night on the news I heard that he has outspent her five to one on television advertising and has three times the campaign staff on the ground in the state.
He is still behind, but tonight the media will probably report that "he is closing the gap" between himself and Hillary. With all that money and staffers and him being ahead in the delegates, he should win big in Pennsylvania.
Instead he will lose yet another big state (and democrat stronghold) to her and the media will still proclaim him the winner.
And I am amazed at the insistance that Hillary Clinton isn't substantially behind. She is.
She agreed to the rules regarding Michigan and Florida from the very beginning and now Wolfson and company are trying to force the DNC into different rules.
Facts are pesky things, RM... and in response to simple facts regarding the pledged delegate count and Clinton's path to the nomination, the media are actually being SOFT on Clinton by portraying the last ten contests as more horserace than exercise in futility...
http://www.docstrangelove.com/2008/03/24/hillary-clintons-path-to-the-nomination/
The ten contests that remain have a total of 566 delegates up for grabs distributed as follows:
State Delegates
Pennsylvania 158
Guam 4
Indiana 72
North Carolina 115
West Virginia 28
Kentucky 51
Oregon 52
Puerto Rico 55
Montana 16
South Dakota 15
TOTAL 566
Of the ten primaries remaining, Hillary Clinton is favored to win in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Barack Obama is favored to win in Guam, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Indiana is considered a toss-up slightly favoring Hillary Clinton.
In raw numbers, Hillary Clinton would have to win 369 out of the remaining 566 delegates to edge out Barack Obama in the delegate count. That is, Hillary Clinton would have to win slightly over 65% of the remaining delegates. The only contests so far where Clinton has garnered over 65% of the delegates are American Samoa, where she got 2 out of the 3 delegates, and Arkansas, where she was First Lady.However, Hillary Clinton is not likely to win the states Barack Obama is favored in. Being conservative, if we assume she ties Obama in these states and territories (Guam, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota), they will each get 101 delegates, leaving 364 delegates up for grabs in the remaining states. Hillary Clinton would have to win 268 out of the remaining 364 delegates to overcome Obama's delegate lead. That is, Hillary Clinton would have to win slightly over 73% of the delegates in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. The only contest so far where Clinton has garnered more than 73% of the delegates is Arkansas. In her "triumph" in Ohio, she garnered 53% of the delegates. In other words, to win 73% of the delegates, she would have to beat Barack Obama by around 46 points in each of these states (assuming the delegate percentages will roughly track the popular vote margins in these states). To put things in perspective, according to the polls she currently leads Barack Obama by about 14 points in Pennsylvania (51.2% to 37.5%). She would have to more than triple her lead to 46 points to garner the margin of victory she needs in Pennsylvania. A victory in Pennsylvania of less than 46 points will seriously hurt her chances of overcoming Barack Obama's "razor thin" delegate lead.
Hillary Clinton's path to the nomination becomes even more remote if Barack Obama actually wins any of the states he is favored to win. However, since this post is an exploration of Clinton's path to the nomination I will leave the less rosy scenarios as an exercise for the reader.
As this post demonstrates, Hillary Clinton definitely has a chance to become the nominee of the Democratic party. The anchors on CNN are correct. It is not impossible for her to win.
To win, however, given the proportional delegate system in the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton would have to do significantly better in the remaining states than Ronald Reagan did in his landslide victory over Walter Mondale in 1984. If she pulls off this historic (and to some observers, other-wordly) feat, she will have earned the bragging rights of being called a true Reagan Democrat.
------------------------------------------------
And THAT is exactly why the media is accurately reporting that Hillary Clinton doesn't just need to win Pennsylvania.... she needs to win big... the media glosses over the FACT that HRC really needs to win by at least THIRTY POINTS -- 65% to 35%.
And since that ain't happening and Hillary ain't quittin', the Clintons are allowed to get away with it under the guise of "allowing everyone to vote"...
This is the equivalent of listening to the regular season TU home game versus Memphis and insisting that with four mins left in the game, TU could still win if they only manage to score two-thirds of the remaining points in the game...
Allow Clinton supporters to vote... allow them to lose... and allow them to decide between Obama and McCain... simple, eh?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/2008_Democratic_Primaries_Delegate_Vote.png/400px-2008_Democratic_Primaries_Delegate_Vote.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.png/400px-2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.png)
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
This is the equivalent of listening to the regular season TU home game versus Memphis and insisting that with four mins left in the game, TU could still win if they only manage to score two-thirds of the remaining points in the game...
Having Kansas down to Memphis by nine points with two minutes to go and winning in overtime is a better basketball analogy. The margin and remaining delegate counts are eerily close to the basketball percentages.
Can Obama hit the free throws?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
This is the equivalent of listening to the regular season TU home game versus Memphis and insisting that with four mins left in the game, TU could still win if they only manage to score two-thirds of the remaining points in the game...
Having Kansas down to Memphis by nine points with two minutes to go and winning in overtime is a better basketball analogy. The margin and remaining delegate counts are eerily close to the basketball percentages.
Can Obama hit the free throws?
My analogy would be this: Obama is ahead 53% to 47% with 85% of the precincts reporting. If this were an election (oh, wait, it is), most television stations would have called it by now.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichaelI am amazed at the lowered expectations that Obama is allowed. I have heard for weeks that Hillary has to "win BIG" in Pennsylvania or it will be considered a victory for Obama.
You're right RM--because Obama has won 28 states compared to Clinton's 12, because he leads in pledged delegates by apx. 160, because he leads in popular vote by well over half a million, because in the past month 69 superdelegates have endorsed him while only a handful have endorsed Clinton, because she is strapped for cash and he is raising twice as much money, most news sources recognize that Obama does not need to win in Pennsylvania to remain in the lead overall.
Because Clinton is so far behind, she must prove somehow that Obama is unelectable. She cannot do that by winning Pennsylvania by a small percentage.
That's just reality.
No.
The networks wouldn't call it until after the polls close. We still have many Americans yet to vote and calling the election now would disenfranchise them.
Obama is ahead, but Hillary has been catching up. It is a race, and it ain't over. Obama can't win enough delegates to assure the nomination unless he starts winning big.
"Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you."
Satchel Paige
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
That's just reality.
Do you really think I believe in reality?
Obama got a big lead in January and February before the media began to ask questions of his dealings with the Chicago mobster Rezko and his Pastor videos showed up.
Now he hasn't won a primary in a while and was smoked in Ohio and is behind in Pennsylvania and Indiana and West Virginia. He is burning through millions of dollars in ad spending and is still behind.
In my reality, his supporters would be worried that he can't close the deal. He has never had a competitive campaign and seems to be on a losing streak in this one. There is also plans to count Florida and Michigan votes now which will make the popular vote very close.
If Pennsylvania goes big to Hillary, reality would have Obama folks real scared.
Wow. Really RM, really?
Kansas had to hit 4 shots to tie the game up after having hit many shots all throughout the game. Hillary needs to win by >65% in 10 straight states - something she has never even come close to doing. I'd say there is a difference there.
In a basketball analogy she is down by 16 with 2 minutes to go. Sure she has a chance of winning against another #1 seed, it has just never happened before and is very unlikely. All she needs to do is hit 8 shots in a row while making perfect defensive plays on the other end of the court and not fouling.
It can happen, but the fans are starting to file out of the arena. The media announcers are still insisting she's in the game though - they have advertisers to worry about after all. Really, it is likely the only question left is will they shake hands at the end of the game?
Are you really this optimistic or just holding on to hope?
Enough with the basketball analogies...there is no clock in campaigns.
Now baseball...
Obama is four runs ahead, but Hillary has a couple of batters on base and Obama suddenly can't find the strike zone.
Look, the wind has shifted and is suddenly blowing out.
It's not over till Denver...if then...
The Cubs are up by 6 over the Yankees at the top of the 9th in game 7, and the Yankees are at bat.
The closer for the Cubs is still in fine form and, if anything, is tossing more strikes than early on (as seen by growing national poll and shrinking Penn margins). The Yankees have a man on first and have called up their DH and the count is full - if he strikes out we are on to the bottom of the Yankee line up.
If he knocks one out and they bat around the lineup to tie things up, the Cubs still have the bottom to take the lead.
Basically, if Hillary doesn't ding a good one in Penn (65%+) the odds drop dramatically. Even if she knocks out 65%, Obama will likely erase any gains in NC and other other states.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, I don't want RM to be crushed if/when things go bad. Plus, turning around analogies is fun. [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Enough with the basketball analogies...there is no clock in campaigns.
Now baseball...
Obama is four runs ahead, but Hillary has a couple of batters on base and Obama suddenly can't find the strike zone.
Look, the wind has shifted and is suddenly blowing out.
Of course there are clocks in elections. Its over when the last election is held. Not like baseball, which can go on until the last strike.
If you want to use baseball as analogy, you should make clear that Obama is 14 runs ahead (states) or 163 runs ahead (delegates), that Clinton has just lost her best hitter, that earlier she had to replace her pitcher, that its the ninth inning, and so far Clinton's team has been unable to hit more than one or two out of the ball park, while Obama has had a streak of homeruns. She needs a few grandslams to stay in the game.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
That's just reality.
Do you really think I believe in reality?
Obama got a big lead in January and February before the media began to ask questions of his dealings with the Chicago mobster Rezko and his Pastor videos showed up.
Now he hasn't won a primary in a while and was smoked in Ohio and is behind in Pennsylvania and Indiana and West Virginia. He is burning through millions of dollars in ad spending and is still behind.
You really crack me up, RM. You should take this on professionally. Obama hasn't won a primary in a while because
there hasn't been a primary in a while . After Supertueday, Obama won 11 states in a row. On March 4, Hillary really only won a single significant state. Since then, Obama has won two more. Her polls are dropping nationally and in Pennsylvania. His are rising quickly, and he has double-digit leads in North Carolina and Oregon. Yet, somehow you think Obama's supporters should be worried.
Obama has won the last 2 primaries.
Before that he split 2/2 with Hillary.
Before that he won 11.
Prior he won super Tuesday.
and of course he won all the early primaries.
- - -
Seriously. You have been stretching things for Hillary RM, but that statement is just wrong. Hillary has not won a string of primaries yet - the best she has done is split the count with Obama.
How do you claim that he hasn't won any for a while when he won the last two?
- - -
No more hyperbole or rhetoric, here is what is left:
State Delegates (recent polls):
Pennsylvania 158 (Consensus of polls Hillary by 6%)
Guam 4 (no official data)
Indiana 72 (Hillary by 6% to a tie)
North Carolina 115 (Obama by 16%)
West Virginia 28 (Clinton by 10%)
Kentucky 51 (no official data)
Oregon 52 (Clinton 10)
Puerto Rico 55 (no official data)
Montana 16 (no official data)
South Dakota 15 (no official data)
TOTAL 566
Lets pretend that the trend of Obama cutting Clinton leads in half or over coming them does not happen (Clinton has yet to surge best her initial poll #s). Lets give Clinton wins in all states with no data by 10 points. And lets ignore that a 10 point win may be a delegate tie and proportion the delegates pro-rata.
That gives Clinton 293 and Obama 277 in what you must admit is a good scenario for Clinton, barring Obama shouting "kill whitey."
SO, that would be:
Clinton 1544 pledge + 252 Super = 1796
Obama 1692 pledged + 225 Super = 1917
At which point 318 Super Delegates remain. In order to win (2024), Clinton would need 73% of those super delegates to vote for her. To win Obama would need 28% to vote for him to win.
So, unless you think the Obama camp will totally collapse, or you think Clinton will get 73+% of the remaining super delegates as well as performing as indicated above - things are grim. The next best course of action would be to file a lawsuit in Florida to have those delegates seated. A campaign which was pretty well put to rest several weeks ago (Michigan is totally moot at this point).
Sorry RM, not even as an advocate, but just looking at the numbers it seems like a long shot.
On March 4th, she won the popular vote in Texas and Ohio. Which of those were not a significant state?
The voters are choosing Hillary now. I saw a poll today that had Hillary up by 18 points in Pennsylvania. If true, Obama should be worried.
Let's do a bowling analogy. Hillary actually owns a bowling ball and Obama bowled a 37.
Yes, we can (throw it in the gutter).
She may have won the popular vote in Texas, but he won. You win the nomination by winning the most delegates, and he won 5 more than her in Texas. Again, it goes back to running a better campaign than her.
CF--Obama is up by 10 in Oregon, not Clinton.
Can we do a tennis analogy? I love tennis....
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
On March 4th, she won the popular vote in Texas and Ohio. Which of those were not a significant state?
The voters are choosing Hillary now. I saw a poll today that had Hillary up by 18 points in Pennsylvania. If true, Obama should be worried.
1) The last poll released as Clinton +3.
Here is a link to all polling data on Penn:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html
The last 10 average to Clinton +6. The last 4 released (all this week) are even, Clinton +3, +5 and plus 18. That was done by Survey USA, which has consistently had Clinton at 10+ ahead and is 2 of 3 to have her with more than a single digit lead in the last 2 weeks while 8 others have the lead in single digits or tied.
2) Is it delegates or popular votes that count? If popular votes only matter Obama is up by nearly 1,000,000 and Clinton would have to get 70+% of likely voters to surpass that total.
If popular opinion is what matters the latest poll has Obama +10 over Clinton in likely voters nationwide.
3) Even if the +18 (the highest margin by a factor of 3 times released in the last week), that is the kind of margin she needs to win ALL THE REMAINING STATES BY to get ahead in pledged would delegates. +18 is what you need to see, it mean she is still in the race, not that Obama is out.
4) Man, bad pick on the bowling RM.
Obama only bowled 7 frames, he would have finished with a healthy 53 in 10. Still below my thresh hold for respectable by 47 points. BUT, we will say he bowled a 37 and not bother extrapolating it out.
Clinton, meanwhile, bowled a ZERO! She missed the pins entirely. Extrapolate that out to 7 frames... ZERO! But I'm glad she was able to bowl at tax payers expense while it in the white house - maybe Obama can achieve a zero after living in the Whitehouse for 8 years. [:P]
Pmcalk, to my recollection, the only positive statement you have ever made here about Obama was that you believe he can move us beyond partisanship. I asked once and you didn't respond with your postive reasons for supporting Obama. Now, this man has been in the public eye for all of four months so you probably aren't very familiar with his various positions and policies, but I sure would like to hear a definitive statement from you about what you like about Obama and what he is going to do for the United States.
FOTD made one positive statment about Obama, he'll get rid of lobbyists.
I honestly believe when you and FOTD and USRufnex repeatedly post negative statements about Clinton it is because you are worried that she might win.
I can say plenty of positive things about Obama.
His strength is his weakness...he has only been in Washington for two years.
He is a great communicator that brings tears to my eyes and has me believing we really can change Washington. And most importantly, I think he believes he really can change Washington.
I just think Hillary is better prepared to be President for our problems today. I like her economic plans better, I like her health care plan better, I think she is more versed on International leaders and issues. She is just not as likable as Obama and doesn't inspire the hope we need in a leader.
What we need in a President (or a governor, mayor, etc) changes.
Sometimes we need a manager. Someone who can finish projects on time, control spending, set priorities, etc. Often they are called on to break partisanship gridlock.
Sometimes we need a decision-maker. That is the type who makes bold moves, seeing the big picture and embracing change. Their moves are often critized initially and often they completely redo the bureacracy.
Sometimes we need a faith leader. That type inspires us to sacrifice or get involved in the movement including raising our children and bringing communities forward by love and spirit.
I think Hillary is trying to be all of these. Obama knows he is the third type and is great at it. His popularity tells me that the need cycle for our country has swung toward his strength.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Pmcalk, to my recollection, the only positive statement you have ever made here about Obama was that you believe he can move us beyond partisanship. I asked once and you didn't respond with your postive reasons for supporting Obama. Now, this man has been in the public eye for all of four months so you probably aren't very familiar with his various positions and policies, but I sure would like to hear a definitive statement from you about what you like about Obama and what he is going to do for the United States.
FOTD made one positive statment about Obama, he'll get rid of lobbyists.
I honestly believe when you and FOTD and USRufnex repeatedly post negative statements about Clinton it is because you are worried that she might win.
I did right my reasons for supporting Obama back on Supertuesday, and I am sorry I didn't again, but just didn't have time. But I am happy to explain why I support Obama.
Really, I cannot say its based upon policy differences, because there really isn't much difference. Just like you and RM, my support for my candidate has more to do with the person. First, I think that Obama is brilliant. Don't get me wrong, Hillary is smart as well, but Obama is brilliant in that he not only sees what the problems are, but he understands how to solve them. I became an ardent supporter of his after reading Audacity of Hope. In that book, he talks about the need to try and understand different points of view, that you don't win an argument simply by screaming louder. It really is something I believe that this country craves--a need for a more civil discussion. We need less division, and he sees that. While Clinton and McCain continue to cater to the "microtrends", Obama looks to the whole country. I am tired of the constant analysis of the "soccer mom vote", the "Catholic vote", the "impressionable elite vote". We need to find more things that unite us, not divide us.
Obama understands how to talk to people. I know that you think its just pretty words, but to me the way you speak to an audience tells something about your character. I like that he actually refers to his opponents by name. I like that every time he mentions McCain, he takes a moment to respect McCain's service to his country. His speeches are not full of "I"; they are full of "us" and "you." Once again, that's where he gets it--that the citizens of our country desperately need to feel part of something bigger than themselves. Maybe it's because of his experience as a community organizer, but he speaks in a way that makes people want to believe in something better, something that they can be a part of.
And he also speaks to us as adults. When I read the great speeches of past presidents, I am always struck by the fact that they actually said something, and they spoke as though their audience actually had an education. I am soo tired of the dumbing down of our country through sound bites and snappy phrases. Life is more complicated than a 3 minute sound bite. His speech on race reinforced that--he gave a long, complicated speech that required actual thought.
Finally, in my opinion, he has consistently shown good judgment and has run a campaign that will be talked about in historic terms. His organization and ability to raise money in small amounts is unprecedented. To me, more than anything, that shows he can beat anything that is thrown at him.
I cannot help but add why I am not for Clinton, even though I have tried not to attack her too much. In the past, I was a strong Clinton supporter. I lived in DC during their administration, and had the opportunity to meet Hillary and hear her speak. I was very impressed with her knowledge, and her command over so many different subjects.
Yet, throughout their administration, I felt constantly let down. I know that they were attacked, I know that most of it was unfair. But they really did such a poor job of handling it. For example, according to the PBS documentary, had Hillary simply relented and released paperwork early on, Ken Starr would have never been appointed. The administration was plagued by scandal--and at some point, you have to ask yourself how much of it was their fault. Ultimately, my support for the Clintons was lost the day that Bill Clinton looked the cameras in the eye and said "I did not have sex with that woman." Honestly, I don't care that he did have sex with her. If he had looked at those cameras and said "none of your business" I would still be suppporting him. And I don't care what he said under oath, because I don't think that was something that deserved an investigation. But he lied to the American people. He dismissed and demeaned Ms. Lewinsky, and as a woman, I find that offensive. But most of all, he did this even though he must have known that the truth would eventually come out. How could he have been so stupid as to think he would get away with it?
Experience is important only insofar as you actually learn from it, and I don't think Hillary has.
She repeatedly told her story of Bosnia, even when challenged. Then the video was released. Could she not have seen this was coming? Surely she knew there was video out there--she was the first lady after all. I don't care if she was shot at or not--I do care if you continually make stupid mistakes. I am quite certain that a Clinton administration will be no different than the last one. Some good things will get done, but most of the time we will be bogged down in fighting, scandals, and "vast right-wing conspiracies."
I am sure that you will now say I am naive, and that Obama's presidency would be no different. Maybe your right. But I would rather hope for something better then to settle for Clinton.
Thank you. I regret missing your earlier post on the subject.
I hear what you are saying. And my partner and I have talked about how we wish we liked Obama. But I look at the same guy you are looking at and I honestly don't see it.
The bad blood from the Clinton presidency came from the Right. I've never seen a president reach across the aisle like Clinton did, to no avail. I believe in this ruff and tough era we are in you achieve unity through strength and leveraging and arm twisting. And that should Obama reach the White House, his speeches will fall on deaf ears and his background will provide more fodder for political wars than the Clintons' ever did.
I have been puzzled by women who have your take on the Lewinsky affair. I do believe your attitude in this regard is naive. It reminds me of Barbara Boxer forcing a leading proponent of women's rights out of the senate because he goosed his secretary.
Finally, did you see the picture of the new city council? I was saddened that Maria Barnes wasn't there to bring some balance to the all male crowd. I can't help but believe that women are less represented in Tulsa, now than before the election. I have that same feeling about the White House, I think it's time to open up the club and that Ms. Clinton offers us our best hope for that.
Please spend one evening watching Fox to get a preview of November. The hate that you hope to put behind us is alive and well and focused on Obama. It will rain down on our Candidate whether it is Obama or Clinton. We will have to respond or we will be vanquished. Clinton is best prepared to fight back, forge consensus and move us forward.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Pmcalk, to my recollection, the only positive statement you have ever made here about Obama was that you believe he can move us beyond partisanship. I asked once and you didn't respond with your postive reasons for supporting Obama. Now, this man has been in the public eye for all of four months so you probably aren't very familiar with his various positions and policies, but I sure would like to hear a definitive statement from you about what you like about Obama and what he is going to do for the United States.
FOTD made one positive statment about Obama, he'll get rid of lobbyists.
I honestly believe when you and FOTD and USRufnex repeatedly post negative statements about Clinton it is because you are worried that she might win.
Too old McBush.....not Clinton despite this news..... Hillary Clinton: The Wal-Mart Videos
http://www.publicintegrity.org/clintonwalmart/.
She is a hypocrit....
I prefer a change from the past 16 years.....youngblood!http://communicativeaction.blogspot.com/2008/04/surge-hearing.html
We need a home run hitter!
HT,
From a more conservative perspective I can assure you the hate will rain down from some on the right no matter who the democratic nominee is. Hannity, Rush, and Coutler will slam whoever it is blindly. But each of them only get one vote.
I would have to assert that more moderates (ooh, ooh, I like to think that's me) and independents (me in Oklahoma since the Libertarians are not recognized) favor Obama - or at least are neutral towards him. For whatever reason, there is a ton of bad blood with the Clintons from many angles.
Also, at the risk of being extremely un-PC, every gay couple I know supports Clinton. Not that I know every gay couple, but from a young lesbian couple in Telequah to friends and relatives in Tulsa, Iowa or Chicago they are all die hard Clintonites. Did Bill have a strong gay rights agenda or does Hillary push one now or is this just a happenstance?
I'm not trying to appoint you a spokesmen or anything, I'm just wondering if I was not paying close attention during Clinton I or missed something. Feel free to tell me it is highly offensive and none of my damn business, I was just curious at the trend.
FOTD, the only homerun hitter our party has seen since LBJ was Clinton. Our party is peopled by losers who have crashed and burned -- except for the Clintons. If you want a homerun, I suggest you look to someone who has hit a few instead of someone who has no record.
Cannon, I haven't seen any endorsements from gay groups. I haven't really been involved in gay politics for many, many years. I'll have to tell you about Tulsa Gay Alliance 1973 one of these days.
Gays constitute about 10% of the population in the United States. About the same percentage as Blacks. Given our disposible income, I would guess we have been important to the party.
I have been dismayed by some local gays who admit to voting Republican and I look at them like, don't you have any memory of what the Republican party has done to gay people.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
FOTD, the only homerun hitter our party has seen since LBJ was Clinton. Our party is peopled by losers who have crashed and burned -- except for the Clintons. If you want a homerun, I suggest you look to someone who has hit a few instead of someone who has no record.
Cannon, I haven't seen any endorsements from gay groups. I haven't really been involved in gay politics for many, many years. I'll have to tell you about Tulsa Gay Alliance 1973 one of these days.
Gays constitute about 10% of the population in the United States. About the same percentage as Blacks. Given our disposible income, I would guess we have been important to the party.
I have been dismayed by some local gays who admit to voting Republican and I look at them like, don't you have any memory of what the Republican party has done to gay people.
The Clitons are a disgrace.....and if Obama wins the nomination, that's a grand slam. No democrat ever mustered up the numbers of working class voters the way he has done.
Just because you don't feel included does not indicate LBJ democrats are still worthy members of our party.
Polls show the blue collar vote is going to Clinton.
Never heard of LBJ Democrats, but the Reagan Democrats are voting for Clinton.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
the Reagan Democrats are voting for Clinton.
Now that sez it all HT.
LBJ democrats have mostly all died and gone to that great society in the beyond.
Can you define blue collar as it relates to working class? Do you think the two have become seperable in light of the service economy? As a matter of fact, Obama has assembled voters that redefine red states from blue states and has managed to attract voters from all spheres. Seems to me he is putting a new stamp on the democratic party....
Obama resists and renonces pre-emptive attacks.
Not his opponents.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/09/mccain-wont-rule-out-pree_n_95963.html
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Also, at the risk of being extremely un-PC, every gay couple I know supports Clinton. Did Bill have a strong gay rights agenda or does Hillary push one now or is this just a happenstance?
Is this a reference to Elton John raising 2.5 million dollars last night at a concert for Hillary?
I serve on a national recycling board with a very high level Obama campaign official who is gay. I think that there are probably equal numbers of gay people working for Hillary and Obama nationally.
Gay republicans? Don't they know the republican agenda? That is like deer supporting a longer hunting season.
No RM, I was not referencing that at all. Just seems every gay man I know (and the pair of Lesbians) are Clinton supporters and I wasn't sure if that was in my microcosm of the world or a trend. If a trend, if it was for a reason I was unaware of.
I'd be just as curious if all Armenians that I know (or whomever) was siding with a candidate and I did not know why.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Pmcalk, to my recollection, the only positive statement you have ever made here about Obama was that you believe he can move us beyond partisanship. I asked once and you didn't respond with your postive reasons for supporting Obama. Now, this man has been in the public eye for all of four months so you probably aren't very familiar with his various positions and policies, but I sure would like to hear a definitive statement from you about what you like about Obama and what he is going to do for the United States.
FOTD made one positive statment about Obama, he'll get rid of lobbyists.
I honestly believe when you and FOTD and USRufnex repeatedly post negative statements about Clinton it is because you are worried that she might win.
No. But I am worried that she will destroy Obama's chances in the general with her recent tactics and vows to stay in through the convention... she isn't gaining support, she's polarizing her supporters against Obama... I didn't need polarizing against HRC, I never liked her and thought on sheer policy questions, Bill Clinton was the best republican prez in my lifetime...
The only person connected with Hillary Clinton I have much respect for these days is Paul Begala, and he's not even formally in her compaign... so, there ya go...
--reposted from 3/28/08quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Okay you Obama and McCain supporters, either it is taking you some time collect your thoughts or you are incapable of making a positive argument for your candidates.
Talk about a bunch of negative campaigners.
"Talk about a bunch of negative campaigners."Ah, the irony, coming from a Hillary supporter... [B)]
My reasons for supporting Barack Obama...
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369&page=3
1. In February 1990, he was elected the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review. Obama graduated magna cum laude in 1991.
2. His experience in community organizing... working with and representing low-income folks on the south side of Chicago ain't no picnic. This kind of perspective recognizes that having a national minimum wage without a COLA not only affects the folks with jobs at or attached to minimum wage... it also recognizes that a minimum wage political tug of war hurts small, community-based businesses...
3. His experience working in the Illinois senate...
"Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans in drafting legislation on ethics, expanded health care services and early childhood education programs for the poor. He also created a state earned-income tax credit for the working poor. And after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.4. His principled opposition to the war in Iraq... in stark contrast to the go-along get-along views of most Dem politicians at the time...
"I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars," he said. "What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
"He's a bad guy," Obama said, referring to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. "The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences," Obama continued. "I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."5. His experience losing a house race against Bobby Rush in which he was perceived as too intellectual and "not black enough"... his experience transcending race in winning the Illinois Dem primary for the senate against six other candidates; including a multimillionaire (Blair Hull), a white male political insider with widespread support from Chicago's black city aldermen (Dan Hynes), a white female with high name recognition (Maria Pappas), a black female who campaigned on "universal healthcare"... he won the primary...
U.S. Senate (Dem)
11504 of 11745 Precincts (98%)
Barack Obama 640,707 53%
Dan Hynes 288,176 24%
Blair Hull 130,944 11%
Maria Pappas 73,485 6%
Gery Chico 52,105 4%
Nancy Skinner 15,651 1%
Joyce Washington 12,973 1%
... and then beat the crap out of Alan Keyes in the general, receiving 70% of the vote to Keyes's 27%, the largest electoral victory in Illinois history.
6. His ability to "disagree without being disagreeable"... he was criticized by the Clintons before the Nevada primary for his positive statements about Ronald Reagan, yet this was not the only time Obama has praised Reagan...
6/7/2004 --
"Ronald Reagan left Illinois as a young man, but maintained his Midwestern sensibilities throughout his long and storied life.
While I disagreed with many of his policies, I, like most Americans, admired President Reagan's eloquence, optimism and unshakable faith in the ideal of America as a beacon of hope and freedom.
Tonight, our thoughts and prayers are with Nancy and his family.
All of America remembers the grace and courage with which President Reagan told the nation of his diagnosis of the dreaded affliction of Alzheimer's disease 10 years ago.
Let us hope one of the lasting parts of Ronald Reagan's legacy is a renewed commitment to finding a cure for this horrible disease so that no family must endure the pain the Reagan family has known."7. After entering the Senate, he could have used older Dem senators like Ted Kennedy as mentors, but instead, has taken lessons/wisdom from Republican senator Dick Lugar of Indiana...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/obama-says-hed.html
8. His view of making healthcare affordable enough for the goal of "universal coverage" to be achieved, rather than mandating coverage.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/healthcare-mand.html
quote:
...It's "Yes, We Can," vs "I'll Take Care Of You."
And that's why a simplistic Obama-is-a-leftist critique won't work as well as some seem to think. He's a liberal, but a reconstructed one. He's the kind of liberal who sees dependency as a problem not a solution. And he's not a statist in the way previous liberal generations have been. He actually listened to and absorbed some of the conservative critique of liberalism these past two decades. And he has changed not just to protect his right flank.
9. Speeches matter. And Barack Obama is the best speaker I've heard in a lifetime... So, when HRC consistently characterizes Obama's speeches as mere words without action, I get very angry... Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Kennedy and yes, Ronald Reagan used great speeches which have stood the test of time, to shape policy and public opinion...
"We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states," he said. "We coach Little League in the blue states, and yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."Yes, the speech from the 2004 Dem convention... and the race speech from a few days ago... there are many to choose from... one of my favorites is the speech he gives primarily to university students mentioning the "empathy deficit"...
http://www.northwestern.edu/observer/issues/2006/06/22/obama.html
quote:
...it called to mind a passage from scriptures that some of you may know: Corinthians 13:11: "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things."
------------------------------------------------
...There's a lot of talk in this country about the federal deficit. But I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit — the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes; to see the world through those who are different from us — the child who's hungry, the laid-off steelworker, the immigrant woman cleaning your dorm room.
As you go on in life, cultivating this quality of empathy will become harder, not easier. There's no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You'll be free to live in neighborhoods with people who are exactly like yourself, and send your kids to the same schools, and narrow your concerns to what's going on in your own little circle.
Not only that — we live in a culture that discourages empathy. A culture that too often tells us our principal goal in life is to be rich, thin, young, famous, safe, and entertained. A culture where those in power too often encourage these selfish impulses.
10. Words matter. I tire of political consultants who have much more power than they have any right to exercise... Peggy Noonan wrote eloquent speeches for Ronald Reagan but those words became his own. Contrast that to the cynical strategies of Lee Atwater, James Carville, Dick Morris, and "Bush's brain," Karl Rove...... I'm happy to hear the words of Barack Obama in his quotes and speeches, with a minimal amount of political meddling from David Axelrod...
Quotes from Obama:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/barack_obama.html
"A good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence; or a good piece of music. Everybody can recognize it. They say, 'Huh. It works. It makes sense.'"
"If you're walking down the right path and you're willing to keep walking, eventually you'll make progress."
"My first job is to say thank you to those who voted me. Those who didn't, I'm going to get your vote next time."
"No one is pro-abortion."
"Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction."
"We're not going to baby sit a civil war."
"You know, my faith is one that admits some doubt."
"We need to steer clear of this poverty of ambition, where people want to drive fancy cars and wear nice clothes and live in nice apartments but don't want to work hard to accomplish these things. Everyone should try to realize their full potential."
"I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying."
"It took a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get to where we are today, but we have just begun. Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today."
"In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?"
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
FOTD, the only homerun hitter our party has seen since LBJ was Clinton. Our party is peopled by losers who have crashed and burned -- except for the Clintons. If you want a homerun, I suggest you look to someone who has hit a few instead of someone who has no record.
Cannon, I haven't seen any endorsements from gay groups. I haven't really been involved in gay politics for many, many years. I'll have to tell you about Tulsa Gay Alliance 1973 one of these days.
Gays constitute about 10% of the population in the United States. About the same percentage as Blacks. Given our disposible income, I would guess we have been important to the party.
I have been dismayed by some local gays who admit to voting Republican and I look at them like, don't you have any memory of what the Republican party has done to gay people.
HT- there could be worse things than gay friends voting Republican.
Seriously, a friend of mine when we were in college had been dreading telling his father he was gay for some time. They were a western Ok farming family, so "gay" was pretty foreign to them. He finally decided his freshman year of college was the time. He kept trying to tell him for a month and would get cold feet or stammer and not be able to do it. Finally when he managed to get the truth out to his dad, in it's entirety, his dad replied (big strapping farmer type): Son, is that all??? Hell, I thought you were going to tell me you'd joined the Baptist Student Union or Democratic party of something along those lines".
The Republican party is a welcome home for thinking homosexuals who can see when they are pandered and lied to, I guess. Let's face it, the Democrat party has really not accomplished much in regards to gay rights. Gay marriage as a national issue is a stupid wedge as it's usually deferred to states rights. The only thing of note which came from Bill Clinton was "Don't ask, don't tell." Now how was that new ground for the military???? That's the way it had always been. It got media attention and not much else.
Honestly look at the way Mark Foley and other Republican gays are treated by the Democrats, and that should tell you plenty about how the gay community is pandered to by the DNC. If you'll carry the DNC's water, they want you. If you vote against Democrat initiatives, you will pay a hefty price for being a gay person. In fact, instead of allowing you to live your live privately, they will make sure you get a very public outing.
Most of the gay people I know aren't singe-issue voters. They are interested in taxes, SSI, overall leadership, growth, national security, etc.
Such nonsense.... Hillary concedes after Penn.....somewhere around May 2nd. Get wired in. Her negatives will drop and everyone will think she's a hero. Watch.