MyDD :: She's in until 2,209!!!

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

No it won't because everyone expects a huge WV win for Clinton. I'm expecting a 40 point margin myself, since it the epitome of the Appalachian region.

by politicsmatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:57:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A huge victory on Tuesday (2.00 / 4)

So the presumptive Democratic nominee is going to lose a swing state by 40 points? This is just a footnote I presume?

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:58:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

Well, I don't see it as a swing state. It's been trending red for quite awhile. But, yes, he's going to lose it real big. He doesn't do well in the Appalachian region.

by politicsmatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:01:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A huge victory on Tuesday (2.00 / 3)

Dukakis won West Virginia...Dukakis!

It went blue in 1988, 1992, and 1996!

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:06:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by elrod on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:18:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WV is a very different place now than in 1988. The coal mine unions are gone. Without them, West Virginians vote on "values" issues and on who promises to mine more coal. Since Democrats actually care about stopping mountaintop removal and other atrocious practices employed by coal companies, many West Virginians find both the economic and cultural message of the Democratic Party unappealing. Hillary Clinton would lose WV by as much as Kerry and Gore. It is not a swing state anymore.

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:23:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

but Virginia (hasn't voted Dem since '64) and North Carolina (hasn't voted dem since '76) are?

West Virginia went Dem in '92 and '96 also by the way...

by ckd5555 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:47:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

States change. Just like WV has been trending red because of values voters and the loss of union jobs, NC and VA have been slowly trending blue because of the growth of the Charlotte/Duke/UNC region and the growth of the NoVa (Fairfax, Alexandria, etc.) region in VA.

Dude seriously (none / 0)

Dukakis did better in Kansas and South Dakota than Clinton ever did. This isn't 1988.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:48:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:04:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, actually, it is just a footnote. I've been in West Virginia many times. Never really had a reason to hang out there.

I've had some good friends from there, but they all were people who'd LEFT the place due to a lack of good-paying jobs since the mines aren't doing what they used to.

But a loss there would certainly be a footnote. Neither Democrat is likely to win West Virginia in the general at this point.

A "swing state" is a subjective term. Some states that are in play for Senator Clinton are not in play for Senator Obama, and vice versa.

I'd MUCH rather have a shot at Virginia than I would West Virginia. And, oddly, having Mark Warner on the ticket for the Senate seat could actually help Obama in that state. Warner is absolutely and insanely popular there. We could win it.

Re: A huge victory on Tuesday (1.80 / 5)

Every poll for the last two months shows him losing to McCain by double digits in Virginia...

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:07:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A huge victory on Tuesday (1.66 / 3)

Uhh, this is 100% completely wrong- you pulled that out of your ass. As a Virginian, I've been keeping tabs on such things. Find me a poll that shows Obama behind by double digits- no luck? Sorry. You lose.

by ragekage on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/va/virginia_mccain_vs_oba ma-551.html

Rasmussen 03/27 - 03/27 500 LV 52 41 7 McCain +11.0

SurveyUSA 04/11 - 04/13 515 RV 52 44 4 McCain +8.0

by LDFan on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:07:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Pragmatic Left on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:20:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

8.0, double digits, just like Hillary's PA win.

This far out in a state that red at the height of the Democratic nastiness in Obama's worst month of the election, I'd say a mere 8 point spread is pretty beatable.

Do you know how to read polls? (none / 0)

These are the polls in Virginia:
BO JM
Virginia        Apr 13    3    44%    52%        SurveyUSA
Virginia        Mar 27    1    41%    52%        Rasmussen
Virginia        Mar 16    3    48%    47%        SurveyUSA
Virginia        Feb 28    3    47%    47%        SurveyUSA
Virginia        Feb 19    1    44%    49%        Rasmussen
Virginia        Feb 17    3    51%    45%        SurveyUSA

For Comparison Kerry Bush
Virginia 1 45% 54% Election 2004

More poll fun:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob ama/Maps/May10.html

by The Distillery on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:55:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by KevinT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:05:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sure the press will cover it for several hours on Tuesday. The coverage will go something like this:

"Clinton will net 10 delegates tonight, which unfortunately for her, is less than the 12 Obama has gotten in the last 2 days."

"Clinton dominated in a state she was expected to dominate. While it is a nice win for her, its far too little, far too late."

"Now thats she's won West Virginia, it would be a great time to bow out on a high note."

"Despite Clinton's win, the math is basically unchanged. She has no realistic chance of catching Obama in pledged delegates, states won, or popular vote, and now he has taken the lead among superdelegates as well."

My God! She will be 263 years old and (2.00 / 1)

still trying to be president!

by waldo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:10:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by sweet potato pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:21:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

John Mccain lost Kansas after he was declared the presumptive nominee. The press is going to treat WV how they treated MS when Obama won. It's not going to be a game changer.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

everyone expected a blowout in NC, and that was considered a game changer for Obama. So why not for a state which can actually vote Dem, West Virginia? And what do you mean "epitome of the Appalachian region?"

by DiamondJay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

Well, there are states that are partly Appalachian. WV is deep Appalachia.

Congressional Districts throughout the Appalachians that are similar to West Virginia have gone to Clinton by 2:1 or 3:1 margins.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

by politicsmatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:03:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by The Distillery on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:59:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Deep Appalachia is an understatement. WV is all appalachia: http://www.gardenharvest.org/appalachiam ap0704.htm

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:05:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama could potentially win North Carolina in the general. It is far more likely with him than with Senator Clinton.

The college and tech areas in North Carolina have exploded in population.

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:11:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you realize:
The last time Virginia voted Dem was 1964!
and the last time NC voted Dem was 1976

That's one hell of a general election strategy!

Re: A huge victory on Tuesday (2.00 / 3)

We just won a congressional district in the middle of Jim Crow country in Louisiana that had been Republican since 1964. And we elected Jim Webb here in 2006.

I guess what you're saying is, forget trying to build the Democratic party, it'll never happen.

by ragekage on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:33:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A huge victory on Tuesday (none / 0)

No...build and keep building. But let's be realistic please...44 years of history should be paid close attention!
Not going blue since 1964 does mean something.

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:38:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But this is the year to seize that difference! The country is sick of George Bush. He's polling at 28% approval rating, or less. "Republican" is almost a dirty word. We can do it.

by ragekage on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

it is, but in a state which has voted Republican precisely because of the Southern Strategy, even with Bush, the way to win it is not with a black guy! Whites still outnumber blacks 3-1 in the electorate, and they will come out and vote, remembering why the went GOP in the first place. A white candidate could have picked up Virginia, but not one who stirs precisely the feeling against the Dem party and civil rights which drove them to the GOP.

by DiamondJay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:54:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:06:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please listen to yourself.

Really. Please listen to yourself.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

I did. Whats wrong with it? Is it too blunt and politically incorrect for you?

by DiamondJay on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:37:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:42:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, that's not the word I would use to describe it.

I will say that you have a particularly low opinion of the voters of those states. And you're a defeatist.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

i'm not a defeatist, I'm a realist. I don't have a low opinion, I just point out facts.

by DiamondJay on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:15:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:51:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"

Know hope, my friend. If there was ever a year to raise that particular bar, this is the one. President Clinton was right in your quote.

But you're wrong. Obama won over half the white vote in the VA primary. The electorate here is changing. You need to get out of the past and into the present, my friend. Things change; I'm here, I'm watching it happen in person. It'll be a tough fight, no doubt, but yes- We can.

by ragekage on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:08:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

first of all, he not only lacked Wright going into that, and he had political momentum, he won the white vote by just 5 points in spite of those factors, which is why he ever won it. 5 points is not terribly a lot. If Wright had been along by then, he'd have gotten wrecked. he'll be here for the general election. Also, this is the Democratic primary, where voters are far more liberal than in a general election, and the demographics in the general heavily favor McCain in light of recent contests and events. The primary there was 50 percent self ID'ed l"iberal".

In 2004, the voters were just 17 percent liberal, and 71 percent to 21 percent white to black. Of the whites, they went 68 percent to Bush, the rest to Kerry. While Kerry did well amongst blacks, winning them 87-12, Obama would not only have to do that well, even if he did better, he'd still have to do better in the white vote. Also, black turnout would have to increase overall, and white turnout severely depress. At the route Obama's going, he's not gonna improve with whites. Being that the state is STILL 75-24 percent white to black, with those kind of voting patterns, voting GOP since 1968, Obama is not winning that state.

by DiamondJay on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:28:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What does that have to do with anything? (none / 0)

California voted Republican for almost 30 years before Clinton won it. Vermont only went Democratic once in 80 years before Clinton won.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:53:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What does that have to do with anything? (none / 0)

yes but those states became gradually liberal, and barely went Bush in 1988, meaning they were WINNABLE. They both went Bush by only 3.5 points each that year, Illinois went for Bush by 2 that year as well, tho it used to be reliably Republican. if we had had a real nominee in 1988, Bush could have lost that election. States are able to switch parties based on either past election history, or past election margins. North Carolina and Virginia have gone Republican consistently by BIG margins for 30/40 years now. Those are not states able to swing with a guy like Barack Obama. Especially because they vote GOP precisely because of race, and Obama is against everything that stood for.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

he is never going to win that in the general election. Kerry got 85 percent of the black vote, which made up 26 percent overall, and still got blown out by 12 points in the state. This was because the white voters went Bush 73-27, and whites were 71 percent of the electorate there. How does Obama win in such a situation? the black electorate who would vote would literally have to double. And there are not enough to do that there. And Obama is not going anywhere with whites in the south, precisely because they haven't gone Dem since 1976, precisely because of the Southern racial Strategy.

by DiamondJay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:21:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is not about just getting 85% (none / 0)

of the black vote but it about DRIVING UP the black vote so that instead of 20% of the vote it is 26% or beyond PLUS getting 90% of that.

That is how Virginia may be a swing state. Add Kaine as his running mate and I think Virginia will turn blue.

One needs to throw out the OLD Demographics of a state especially with VOTE FOR CHANGE which may change the electorate.

by puma on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is not about just getting 85% (none / 0)

Please remember that McGovern was also a "candidate of change" who attraced rallies of tens of thousands of people.
The Vietnam war was deeply unpopular and the movement was in full force...yet Nixon beat him 520-17...

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:57:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is not about just getting 85% (none / 0)

even if that does happen, whites still outnumber blacks 3-1, and the reason states like VA vote Republican is because of the Civil Rights era and social issues, and that coupled with Obama's lack of appeal to enough whites means he is never winning that state. its a fantasy. With the bitter remarks Obama said, not only is he black, but liberal, and white southerners will register and come out in droves to vote against him.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:11:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by KevinT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:10:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

North Carolina is 5 times bigger than West Virginia. So of course its more important in elections.

Polls also showed Hillary closing hard in North Carolina, with many polls showing her trailing by only 5 points or so. If the polls showed Clinton leading by 15 in WV, and she won by 40, then it would be a bigger deal.

When you're down 2 sets and 2 breaks in a tennis match, holding your serve is not a game changer. Hillary needed one of those in NC, and the opposite happened, which is why it was a big story.

Hillary winning by 40 on Tuesday will surprise no one in the press, and more importantly it won't surprise the superdelegates that continue to flood to Obama.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

BTW, on this site, lots and lots of people said they expected Clinton to win NC. That was the mydd expectation just a week ago.

by politicsmatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Pragmatic Left on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:23:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

NC... WAS a game changer.

You calling Hillary a liar?

It must be getting late (none / 0)

I thought the title meant she's in 'til the year 2209.
Or does it just seem that way?

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:39:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:57:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Doubtful. She's mathematically out of it. The press knows it, and is obviously tired of Lanny Davis, Howard Wolfson, and so on trying to spin a bad situation getting worse daily.

Seriously, nobody expects anything to change after West Virginia. I hate to break it to you, I really don't enjoy it, but it's not going to matter. At all.

It will certainly count. But there ain't enough people left who haven't voted to change things. Senator Obama has an unassailable lead at this point. All those states that Senator Clinton didn't really contest after Super Tuesday really set her back, and she's been slipping ever since.

One blowout in a fairly low-turnout state doesn't make up for that.

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well; some June 3rd, if he doesn't have 2,209, we should prepare for a floor fight in Denver because that's the number you need to win.

by mady on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I read that as food fight, which might work actually.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:06:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I seem to recall your candidate referring to the number needed as 2025. So did the other candidates. So did the DNC.

Why are we changing the number now? Oh, yeah, it suits Senator Clinton to change to target since Senator Obama is about to hit the one everybody had been shooting for.

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:14:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Guess what...

Appealing to the Rules Committee...is part of the rules!

And if they rule (there's that word again) that Florida and Michigan count then the nujmber will change...to 2,209.

by elrod on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:21:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Until May 31, the number is 2025. If the Rules Committee changes things on May 31 then we can use that number. But we have no indication that the committee will change the number at this point, so 2025 is legit.

Re: A huge victory on Tuesday (1.50 / 2)

Any chance you might acknowledge the obvious fact that Senator Clinton referred to 2025 on multiple occasions, until very recently?

Any chance you'll acknowledge the fact that she's only started talking about raising the target number now that her opponent is nearly at 2025?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:36:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A huge victory on Tuesday (none / 0)

Sure...as long as you acknowledge it's WITHIN the rules to do so.
Also, they've been talking about Florida and Michigan since January, they were a little late on changing the number though.

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:05:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, you're right. They were talking about it, saying that it wouldn't count, until she fell behind.

You do remember that, right? Can you at least admit that she said that those two states wouldn't count?

by LDFan on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:08:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah...it wouldn't count until they could appeal to the rules committee. Something they have pointed out for months!

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:14:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's not what she said. I want to repeat that so there's no misunderstanding. She did not say anything of the kind until after the primaries in the early states.

She made a public statement of support for Iowa, New Hampshire and the others, and stated that Florida and Michigan wouldn't count. Once the early states had voted and they couldn't get mad at her, she went back on her word.

She's only making a stink about Florida and Michigan now because it will help her. Oh, she may actually believe that she's doing this for those voters, but if she really cared about them in any consistent way she could have said something when one of her top guys, Harold Ickes, voted to punish those states.

Again, one of her top people, Harold Ickes, voted to sanction those states. I don't recall her ever saying he made a mistake.

by mariannie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:21:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This reasoning is a lost cause with Hillary supporters...seriously, they absolutely will NOT admit that she said 'i don't care if my name is on the ballot in MI or not, because its very clear that the votes in MI and FL will not count.'

ONLY after she realized her nomination was in trouble did she start with the disenfranchising voters, blah blah blah.

To say MI and FL are an issue is a joke! You don't change the game AFTER its played - EVER! And you don't let the candidates' supporters PAY for an election - PERIOD. Hillary's rationale for this is a big zero. The only way you could make it fair would be to give the candidates the same number of delegates - even the playing field, especially in MI. Maybe give her the edge in FL. But the outcome probably won't change anyway, so we know its just to show Hillary has X number of popular vote - and we know what that number is anyway.

by interestedbystander on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:35:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No I'm sorry - her own inner circle will not allow that to happen, she's already losing superdels and her advisors have said it ends in June. If she won't go then, she faces a humiliating public crushing.

Even if she won by %100, she'd only net 28 Dels. (none / 0)

by dystopianfuturetoday on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:21:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She's in until 2,209!!! (2.00 / 4)

Omigod!!! She'll be 262 years old in 2209!

by vermontprog on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:00:50 PM EST

funny (2.00 / 2)

but Obama won't be any spring chicken either!

by 4justice on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:05:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by PhilFR on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:08:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe she and Dianne Feinstein can be Futurama-styled disembodied heads in jars come that election!

Maybe we could put her jar next to Nixon's, and let them argue.

Will she still have her bearings? n/t (none / 0)

by Pragmatic Left on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:30:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It looks like the Superdelegates (2.00 / 2)

are going to shut this down after May 20th.

They absolutely do NOT want to take this to the Dem convention.

by puma on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:05:21 PM EST

Re: It looks like the Superdelegates (none / 0)

I agree taking this to the convention will be disastrous for Clinton or Obama

I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson

by obamaovermccain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like the Superdelegates (none / 0)

We'll see...we'll see

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:15:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like the Superdelegates (none / 0)

No we won't - enough of her advisors are on record as saying it will be over in June.

by interestedbystander on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:36:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2 008/story?id=4824779&page=1

Whatever compromise? MI came up with a decent compromise last week, but Mrs Clinton shot it down.

A compromise is going to result in less then full seating, thus less then 2209, and they are not going to be sat at full strength. There will be representation, if Clinton allows it, but FL and MI are going to have to take some lumps in some manner or another.

And hey, while I'm at it have you come up with a response to the assertion that if Clinton, publicly, accepted the sanctions against the two States why is she now "fighting" so hard for them?

And just for good measure, this is what voting McCain in the fall will achieve:

by notedgeways on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:06:57 PM EST

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not voting McCain...I will proudly vote for Obama if he wins!

But it's not over till it's over. Don't push her aside she and her supporters are in for the fight.

When the fight's over...then we'll unite

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not voting McCain...I will proudly vote for Obama if he wins!

But it's not over till it's over. Don't push her aside she and her supporters are in for the fight.

When the fight's over...then we'll unite

guess that kind of puts a damper (2.00 / 1)

or at least an asterisk* on the planned "victory" or "mission accomplished" announcment on May 20th?

by 4justice on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:07:21 PM EST

Re: guess that kind of puts a damper (2.00 / 2)

I hope that was a shot at George Bush; because he's the one who sent them to their deaths!

OR do you also blame Kerry and Edwards?

Do not put their blood on the Democratic Party's hands...the blame rests with the war criminal named George W. Bush!

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: guess that kind of puts a damper (2.00 / 1)

Your candidate said he "saw no difference between his views and George Bush's" in August of 2004 (that would be after the escalation of the war in Falluja)

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:28:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How many Obama endorsers voted for the war? (none / 0)

lets see, that would be Warner, Kerry, Kennedy, to name just a few....

and, didn't Obama vote JUST LIKE HRC in funding the war? Let's see then, how many of those deaths would Obama be responsible for if he kept funding it?

You need to let go of this and help your candidate get elected.

by 4justice on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:36:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To the floor! (2.00 / 2)

Thats right Hillary, keep up the good fight, we are right here with you!

by linc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:10:36 PM EST

There is really no good (2.00 / 2)

in your comment. But thank you anyway.

by linc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poor linc, want some bread with that whine? :( (none / 0)

Appropriate on FARK, maybe, but you gotta use the kid gloves here, buddy. Sorry.

by ragekage on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:30:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poor linc, want some bread with that whine? :( (none / 0)

This is offensive on so many levels carbanion. Sorry to HR you.

by The Distillery on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:41:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"I'll bite your legs off!" -- HRC 2008!

Does this involve cryogenesis, or will she just be really, really old?

by username3 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:29:19 PM EST

No wonder she's railroading any chance of Michigan's primary results to be settled. Good point, LDFan. She doesn't want them sat because she doesn't care about the voters, she cares about winning the nomination.

by ragekage on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:30:09 PM EST

Re: She's in until 2,209!!! (2.00 / 1)

Hey,
I enjoy conversing with you :)
Don't you agree that Obama railroaded a revote back in March?

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:32:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And if you came to me and said that you and I should have a revote, but don't worry, you'd pay- I think I'd be pretty wary myself, too.

Yeah, you're good people. I have fun going back and forth with you. We may bite at each other once and awhile, but it's important to remember we're both real people with real lives, and real reasons to support our respective candidates.

by ragekage on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:39:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She's in until 2,209!!! (none / 0)

Rage,
I am happy that we are able to support our candidates but at the same time remain respectful towards each other.
Just so you understand, I actually like Obama a lot and we be proud to have him as my President.
But Universal Healthcare is too important to me to pretend it is a small issue. It is the main reason I volunteer for her every day, it is why I stand with her, and why I will stick with her.
Should Obama win, however, he will have my full support.

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:45:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My mom is much the same way as you. I'd point out that if we can get a healthcare plan similar to Clinton's passed, that would be great. I am concerned about getting it through the Congress; but if Clinton is Senate Majority Leader, or something similar, I think we'll have just the bulldog we need to help get it through.

by ragekage on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She's in until 2,209!!! (2.00 / 1)

The only revote proposed was that people who voted in the original against-the-rules "fake" primary in Michigan were allowed to vote in the new one. Considering Obama wasn't on the ballot, many of his fans stayed home that night.

If you want to rig a revote to win, you can do it by adding rules like that.

by ckd5555 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:52:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She's in until 2,209!!! (1.00 / 1)

that really sums it up. She said they wouldnt count when she needed IA and NH now that she needs FL and MI to win guess what now that count! (unlike most of the states that voted for Obama)
You really dont even need to read who counts just find out whats best for Hillary and thats what counts and thats whats important.
ALWAYS REMEMBER: Her lust for power IS far more important to her than this party, this country and certainly you and me.

by affratboy22 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:49:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:54:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree...we need those states come November and they VOTERS will appreciate the fact that the Democratic Party didn't piss on them because of a Republican Legislature (See Florida)/ inept leaders (see Michigan). The 2.4 million people who voted deserve to be heard!

Re: She's in until 2,209!!! (none / 0)

i agree they did/do but for Clinton to become there cheerleader is a JOKE because she had no problem telling them they didnt count (which she did and you know she did, we've got it on something you cant even credit the Clinton's for, video tape) when it was good for her and now when SHE NEEDS THEM they are everything to her.
SUMMERY:
Clinton pre-Iowa & NH: "it's clear the election they're having isn't going to count for anything. Obama's name did not even appear on the ballot in Michigan."
Clinton now that she needs MI and FL but no longer needs IA and NH: well, i dont have to tell you its somewhat different from the above.

by affratboy22 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:11:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fuck McCain!! (none / 0)

I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?

by hootie4170 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:35:17 PM EST

Re: She's in until 2,209!!! (2.00 / 1)

Hahaha. That picture is so ridiculous.

I mean this is all getting over the top. I wanted Bill back badly, but after reading what Obama wants to do and as I've got to see more of him I'm fully supportive. I'd be supportive of ANY Democratic nominee.

Hillary has lost, and frankly she (not Bill) continues to find new ways to turn me off and almost be happy she won't be the nominee.

This must be the first time in history that the loser in a competitive venture is allowed to even TRY to somehow manipulate the rules.

She just seems like she feels so damn ENTITLED to this. I mean can we really imagine Obama even attempting this kind of gimmickry if he was the clear loser? He would be laughed out of the room. Or booted. Probably both.

THE ONLY REASON SHE IS BEING GIVEN ANY SORTOF TIME OF DAY ABOUT THIS IS BECAUSE OF WHO OUR GREAT PRESIDENT BILL IS.

It's embarrassing, and has gone on long enough.

by AlexScott on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:37:05 PM EST

Re: She's in until 2,209!!! (2.00 / 1)

According to http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ superdelegate-history-tracker.html a week ago Clinton had a superdelegate lead of 21. Now Obama had a lead of 3.5.

And they've changed their graph from tracking the Clinton superdelegate lead to tracking the Obama lead.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:50:52 PM EST

by Nobama on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:53:21 AM EST

Wow, it's amazing to see how outraged and defensive Obama's supporters are. Shouldn't the be confident, laid back, and relaxed about their presumptive nominee?

Heh, no, not really. They act nervous for a reason.

by 08AMA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:07:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm an Obama supporter and I'm certainly not nervous. Everyone who isn't either working for the Clinton camp or on a blog knows that the Obama is the nominee.

Whilst the superdelegates haven't exactly been flooding to Obama's side, there has been a steady flow since last Tuesday. According to Democonwatch, he had 248 SDs on 5/4 and 274 on 5/9.

It's over.