Story



Sheesh.

She's winning so much, she can't even get her own party's nomination!

republican or democrat?

I think I missed the memo where the general election has started.

IRL

I can't really remember now, but WAS it the Clinton administration that was around during that "new math" crap in the early 90's?

'Cuz Bubba and Hillary are REALLY good at it.

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = LOTS!!!!! AND I WIN!!!!!

I wish it were possible for Bill and Hillary to have a dialog bubble above their heads when they're saying these things so we could read the fine print behind these claims.

I wish it were possible to banish them to the Phantom Zone.
Click to view attachment

this

And if Hillary is "winning the general election," shouldn't Obama be crying foul? If the roles were reversed, I wonder if she'd say he was just playing the race card.

I'd like to see the deck that has all of these cards in it.

She HAS been treated unfairly, probably moreso than any candidate in a long while. On the other hand, that's just par for politics and something all politicians are expected to face. The world is not fair, and in this regard it isn't supposed to be.

Although you guys're still obsessed to be able to read that much into other people's words than is actually there.

Plz elaborate on how she's been treated unfairly, poster.

She's said a number of things wrong, sure. Neither her opponents nor the press have been fair in either their representation or their reactions. Why the hell does she need to quit when the nomination hasn't occurred? And if her opponent can't possibly lose, why the hell does she need to quite when the nomination hasn't occurred? It doesn't matter either way. So the people constantly trying to push her out are biased and have their own agenda, or they just don't respect their own political process.

You missed the part where Clinton supporters are urging her to withdraw for the sake of party unity.

The problem that her continued candidacy presents is not that she might win (she won't) but that she might weaken the inevitable Democratic nominee for the fall election by continuing to fight a losing battle.

a) I still don't get how she says that she has been treated unfairly. Was it unfair of the press to call her on her "sniper attack"? Was it unfair to call her on NOT releasing her tax returns even though she had stated she would LONG before to uproar happened?

b) the reason she needs to quit now BEFORE THE NOMINATION is that the Democratic Party has specific rules governing how the nominee is chosen. She's a Democrat. Should the rules all of a sudden NOT apply to her? And for what reason, she's a woman? C'mon...

c) ANOTHER reason why she needs to quit is that the Democratic party is being divided while McCain gets a free pass on being a pandering GOP douchebag. IF Obama is the nominee/Democratic candidate, the party should be united against the Republicans, and he should not have to worry about attacks from inside his own party.

You gotta hand it to the GOP, even when their candidate isn't their choice they still stand behind him.

As reported by the media? What was it? 90% of her supporters, 1 or 2 campaign workers, or some polls?

I don't see how. But maybe it's because I think Obama has more of an uphill battle to fight in trying to persuade enough southern states to vote for a black Democrat over a white Republican than he does from party disunity or lack of Democratic votes in the fall.

"As reported by the media" no, I used the Psychic Friends Network

Hey look, you can believe whatever narrative about Clinton you want to, it's your choice. I just think that it would do you well to read up on stuff, because there hasn't been a chorus of people calling for her to drop out. That's what the Clintons would have you believe, though.

So....what if she ends up running as an independent? Would she Lieberman Obama? Now that would be funny!

Someone's gotta get the hard-working white people vote.

FIX'D!

:hoosane

Nah, wouldn't happen. Ron Paul would kick her ass.

A VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY

It's more that whatever faults Clinton has, neither her critics nor the media allow them to speak for themselves. They take or add snippets of what she says are fairly innocuous and talk about how she means this or Bill means that.

I'm sorry, it sounds like you just said the rules don't need to be followed because those are the rules. Say that again?

I disagree. I think it's a bit early for that. If you really wanna strategically time when it's best to start "fighting" an election, it's best not to expend all your efforts too early.
And attacks from your own party, justified or not, are a sign that there's something you've failed to account for and someone you're not reaching.

Sure. I think that's really what makes them as successful as they are. They're simply that much more strategic and organized at the higher levels and consistently leverage their political power as ruthlessly as possible in their favor.

Pete, my distrust of the media doesn't come from my being a Clinton supporter (because I'm not), or from my being a tool for the Clintons that a lot of you seem to take all Clinton supporters for. Most of the quotes used in the articles against her simply do not back up the message the article suggests she is saying. And the media likes drama.

I'd think only Zeller Democrats and Green Party loonies would ever do Liebermans. Most Clinton supporters have nothing to gain by leaving the party as there's nowhere else for them to go.

And it's a fallacy to believe that elections are won by educated people. I'm not sure there're enough educated people in this country to win a single state. Elections are purely about demographics.

*crosses fingers*

who exactly are you voting for anyway?

Sorry for the confusion. What I was saying is that since there are certain rules regarding securing the party's nomination (i.e. primaries and caucuses HELD WITHIN A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME, delegate counts secure nomination vs. popular vote [which Clinton is ALSO losing], etc, etc.), it seems that while anyone with a basic understanding of addition can see that Obama is around 60 delegates away from securing the nomination while Hillary is 250 away, but there is only around 150 left to assign. So doing the math, one could figure that THERE IS NO WAY FOR HER TO WIN.

But instead she is demanding the Michigan and Florida delegates be 100% seated at the convention in August, EVEN THOUGH SHE KNOWS THEY BROKE THE RULES, and furthermore she knows that since those 2 states did that, they are not eligible to be 100% seated at the convention, yet she is now fighting that rule, even going so far as to have "her people" organize protests against it.

It's almost like she wants it so bad, she is willing to sell out the democracy that she is fighting for to be the nominee.

FYI Clinton has stated on the record that a) MI and FL don't count, and that b) the rules should be obeyed. Now she's contradicting those statements because it's in her interest to do so.

Bringing up inconvenient facts is unfair!

still weighing it out.

but I think they all have good/bad points. I jus want to see who the VP choices are, what the debates look like and I want to study the policies/records of each.

Okay. Now how does that change the date of the Nomination? And why does it matter? Because there are still legitimate reasons not to call nominations before their dates, just as much as there are not to call elections before all votes are counted.

The issue isn't whether she can possibly win, but that she represents a lot more than a negligible segment of the voters and the date of the Nomination hasn't come yet. Unless you're saying the rules state that the nomination is called without having to count the rest of the votes.

Frankly, with all the controversy over elections being determined by early broadcast of the results or assertions of disenfranchisement with victors determined by extremely narrow margins, I can see very legitimate reasons for having all votes counted regardless of the possibility of the outcomes.

Despite contradicting herself, the argument has been made that despite their breaking The Rules™, it's counterproductive in the long run to tell people their votes aren't going to count as it can leave feelings of retribution later when you may need to depend on them. And, while I agree that those states knew the consequences ahead of time and that's what they should get, I think there's a valid point behind that argument.

.. because our previous elections have ever been so noble? Not that you aren't correct, of course, but I prefer not to read intent into their actual statements. There's already way too much "It's as if..." going on with her. And if she could have possibly won otherwise, then maybe the nomination wasn't so cinched in Obama's favor after all.

Sounds like there's a merging of the two topics but with that said I agree with Glue, I think the media is doing its part to oust her asap but when I say the media I mean (MS)NBC. Why? Its like CHL said, they want a unified front asap against McCain. Before the race started Obama practically shat gold brick but now with all the in-fighting, gaffs and appeasements his shat looks and smells like shat now and the DNC has to wipe it up quick. I too don't want her to drop out, the process is not over.

*backs slowly and cautiously out of thread*

Anyone who listens to what the media tells them is anyway


not that there are any networks that do that

*checks out the window for the world to end because RDD agreed with him on anything in any politics-related thread*

Yeah no doubt... The weather man said it was going to rain this past weekend and it was sunny everyday.

@ Glue

...This magic moment...

i don't know whats more humorous

watching those 2 make comple idiots of themselves in real life

or watching their act on comedy centrals little bill

The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to agree with the theory that 2004 was Clinton's year... and she blew it. Clinton would have run almost unopposed in 2004, would have enjoyed HUGE Democratic support (and probably a lot of undecideds), could have ran on her husband's record ("Hey, this sucks. Remember the 90's? They were awesome!") without having to pretend to promote change, and would've had a very good chance of beating Bush... I mean, Kerry did okay and most Dems didn't even like him. They just voted for "not Bush." A candidate who actually energized voters could've made all the difference.

But she decided to wait until there was an open field because she thought it would be easier or something. Whoops!