Are you kidding? Dude, where have you been...

Like seriously

Obama didn't have a chance

Here's a news story from June 2007 that seems positively quaint in retrospect...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007...nton-poll_N.htm

I know I've always thought so, but near everyone on this board and most of the media have been painting another picture. Which is what we're talking about. Hillary didn't START out as the presumptive nominee at all. Even after New Hampshire, she was still "just even". She's only had a bit of a lead (that's been swaying back and forth in many respects) from the few states after NY to Super Tuesday.

Just read that link. Oh what.. that's not a lead, that's a poll! Polls haven't meant much of squat in the past presidential elections, and have been rather off throughout this primary, so if the current polls are off when people are actually voting, why would a poll from months before have any significance? (It's also a poll I've never heard or seen. Nothing from that timeframe to the first caucus has suggested to me that the public believed any of the candidates were any more favored than the others.)

Well, you had to have been paying attention before the Iowa caucus. Of course Obama looked like the one to beat, if you started from that point, since he won Iowa. That link is from an article published in June of last year. The Iowa caucus happened on January 3rd of this year. Notice how in the article, they explained away a prior poll that showed Clinton & Obama running evenly by saying that they must have oversampled Obama supporters. The conventional wisdom for months was that Clinton had a lock on the nomination. She had millions of dollars available that she hadn't used from her last Senate campaign. And she was Hillary Clinton.

... I mean, how am I having to explain this? Everyone knows that Clinton was the Democratic favorite going in to this process.

Inevitable nomination INDEED.

Never heard that. Back in June or any other time that year. But whatever. Sounds like retroactive news to me.

Sounds like selective memory to me.

Maybe 2 or 4 years ago. Not this past year. Nope.

Dude, you're clueless.

But I guess your can substitute your own reality, if that's been working so far.

... Dude, BITE ME. It AIN'T been in my news and I just read general stuffs on yahoo an' such. WTF do you all believe the news sources for everyone in the world are the same?

Yeah

On the internet, they are

Hell, she was even touted as the favourite candidate on the news in Australia...

I've heard a few people, who I thought were reasonably correct (not the news or media), say she would win handily. I agreed with them and still do. But that was well before the last 12 months. I heard many many more people all over the Internet say she would lose ridiculously and everyone in the world hates her guts. As said, none of the news I saw suggested she was favored anything this past year. I DID hear and read it from about '05 up until mid '06ish, and then it stopped before '07.

Well, anyway:

Romney endorsed McCain yesterday. He asked his delegates to support McCain, but that doesn't automatically happen in all cases. Some states allow for a candidate to "release" delegates to another candidate, making it mandatory; others don't (specifically caucus states where the delegates are actually appointed at a later date). Either way, this makes Huckabee's continued presence in the race that much more pointless. McCain only needs to gain 369 more delegates to clinch the nomination.

And Obama's lead over Clinton was confirmed by the Clinton campaign... because they've gone negative on Obama. It'll be interesting to see how their next debate goes.

And then after all of this she could lose the primaries and still get given the nomination by the super delegates.......

I'm pissed at how she dissed caucus states. That pretty much eliminated me from her electorate if she's the Dem nominee.

Wow...that is pretty crude.

Her campaign has basically said that any state that didn't vote for her didn't really count.

But Florida and Michigan do.

Man, what a crock of sh*t.

Is there a link to a story or transcript or something on that? Not that I'm calling you a liar, I just want to read/hear her statements.

This is where I read it

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/1.../950/294/454307

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...weekend-losses/

Thanks, guys.

I really wish she'd quit with the "my husband" blot, it's worthless. Being First Lady in the past is not an automatic credential for being PotUS. Jackie Kennedy might have had a nice arse but that doesn't mean she would've been able to handle the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The thing is, every time she brings up her involvement during her husband's terms, I immediately think of her failed attempt to get her healthcare plan passed. Experience indeed.

Wisconsin and Hawaii vote today... film at eleven

P.S. Washington also votes tonight in the GOP primary. Hawaii's caucus is only for the Democrats.

Tune in for "What mistake will Hillary make today?"

For those who haven't been watching the news, yesterday and today have been taken up by accusations from the Clinton campaign that Obama has a "pattern" of plagiarizing his speeches.

Since, you know, Clinton is unable to compete on her own merits, apparently.

That situation is the biggest mountain from a mole hill I've seen in some time. While there's plenty of evidence that Obama has no "pattern" and that Obama was authorized to use the speech bits from their original author, one has to wonder how many politicians read speeches written by others everyday, and how many of her own speeches aren't her original words, even if they accurately represent her ideas.

What irks me about this story is the fact that (as you said) the guy he took lines from not only knows Obama, he has endorsed Obama, they have shared a campaign manager, and he advised Obama to use those lines. It really reinforces my sense that Clinton will do anything to win the nomination.

Even strip for charity?

hate you

They're calling Wisconsin for McCain and Obama.

Obawesome!

Yeah, apparently Hillary hasn't heard of the concept of speech writers.

Although it could just be an effort to distract people from how the Clinton campaign is attempting to skirt campaign finance laws by having some her top fund-raisers, who have "maxed out" at the individual limit of $2,300 and have tapped out their personal network of donors, consulting with lawyers about how they can create "independent" groups that can spend unlimited money in support of her campaign. Which is all technically legal, except that those independent groups are supposed to coordinate with the campaign. And that's after the Clintons were already forced to spend $5 million of their own money.

That and to possibly also distract from her fairly undemocratic comments that they're don't care if they win by getting caucus/primary delegates (you know, the ones chosen through the popular will), and superdelegates (party insiders and government officials).



FWIW that comment is completely true, but you shouldn't aim to win a nomination by disregarding what the public thinks.

Nevertheless... this may all be a moot point if the Democrats soon realize that they actually have a presumptive nominee.

1968'D

my local news calling hawaii for obama by a landslide. way to go, local boy!

That's also certainly a possibility, but at this point it is entirely in Hillary Clinton's hands. If she were to bow out gracefully before the convention, then that potential crisis would be averted. If she presses on and keeps fighting a delegate battle that she cannot win, the convention could in fact be a replay of 1968. And we would all be saying hello to President McCain in January 2009.

Obama is now ahead by 142 pledged delegates; Clinton would have to crush Obama in Ohio and Texas on March 4th just to break even again. (There are 334 delegates up for grabs in those two states. Clinton would need to win 71% to 29% in order to tie it up.) And there are two reasons why that is unlikely to happen: Ohio is demographically similar to Wisconsin, which went for Obama by a 17-point margin (surprising me; I actually thought that she might win the state); and secondly, polls in Texas indicate that both candidates are neck-and-neck. The reason why that bodes well for Obama is because they don't poll first-time voters, and they tend to break overwhelmingly for him.

At this point, it's not mathematically impossible for her to win, but there's really no practical way it's going to happen. Unless she decides to play the delegate game at the convention, and then who knows what will happen.

I'm all for ambition and tenacity - but the fact that this discussion is even happening makes me wonder if the line between "whats best for the country" and "what hillary wants" have gotten blurred abit.

It really frustrating to watch American Politics sometimes because with all the BS flinging back and forth, we forget that we are all essentially on the "same side" (or should be).

Maybe Hillary could plagiarize some of Obama's votes.

And that would not be a bad thing.

lolz

Seeing as how this's turned into the Hate on Hillary thread, gonna stop wasting my time keeping up with this.

Alternately, you could be less ghey and just read the informational parts.

Hence, I've stopped reading this thread!