DISQUS

dad · 1 year ago

if it doesn't change the game she'll just change the rules,

again.

Bush_Bites · 1 year ago

Hillary's such a liar.

I'm still having trouble believing anybody would vote for her.

aquarius2 · 1 year ago

"If she doesn't win North Carolina and win big, it's over. If North Carolina doesn't change the game like she said it would, she should drop out this week. And, her staff can then stop doing the GOP's work."

------------------------------------

Oh really? You want to bet on that? I believe the woman will go all the way to convention and try and settle the matter there. Nothing, short of a heart attack, will keep her out of this race. No matter what happens with IN and NC Clinton will have an explanation of why she needs to go to convention.

Rob Mule · 1 year ago

The pundits are dead men walking...

lynchie · 1 year ago

does NC have electronic voting. If so watch out boys and girls.

Mikki --SE Pennsylvania · 1 year ago

Yes aquarius2, I fear you are quite right about poor Hil but she already has the explanation, well several explanations: She deserves it; she's got all that experience (to be a first lady); she's got the biggest gonads and she pees standing up at the urinal. What she wont accept is that a majority of Americans of all stripes DO NOT LIKE/WANT HER. It's not even that she is a woman for many, but much more the sort of woman she is. Yes, I do admit that there is most likely a small percentage of the ignorant and ill-informed electorate that would not vote for a woman of any stripe, but these are balanced by a similar number of this ignorant elctorate who would not vote for a black man purely becase he is black.
Lets face facts, Hil is barely a Democrat; she has been busy using republicon tactics and ideas in her campaign and was very quick off the mark to take Insane McCain's ill-considered federal gas tax holiday idea and run with it. She has probly beat up on Obama more than she has on Insane McCain. As dad pointed out she is not above changing the rules when they do not suit her, even after agreeing to abide by them.
The best she could do for her country is to take her whoremonger hubby and his wagging finger and get them both out of the spotlight and go live in a trailer in Arkansas somewhere. America has had its last nerve worn down by the Clintons, they should just GO AWAY PERMANENTLY!

Jimbo62 · 1 year ago

I would add that the joint venture between Clinton and the MSM has a subtle racist tone to it. They keep toying with the idea of taking it away from the black guy because he isn't electable. He can't attract "working class whites"......good ole boys some would say. And of course, this is based on the race between two democrats, one of which is white, has massive name recognition, has a former president making 8 - 10 appearances per day, has massive operations like Ed Rendel and the likes to get out the vote, but let's attribute all her success to the fact that Barack is black and doesn't appeal to "working class whites". The media is letting Clinton set the agenda. They don't challenge her lies, or Bill's, they don't mention all the things that Republicans might bring up against her in the fall, but they use that as an excuse to obsess about Rev. Wright. God help us all. Give me a break, the fact that Barack is leading when he's gone against the Clinton machine, the MSM, the Republicans and he's still winning. And his name is Barack Hussein Obama.

tlsintx · 1 year ago

remember back in the beginning, when we had two great candidates?
Hillary, make this stop.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/...

aquarius2 · 1 year ago

I remember way back when the candidates declared and my first thought was are they nuts, a woman and a black man. Then the candidates dropped like flies for various reasons but I think mostly because the media froze many of them and their messages out of national delivery. So that left the two, a woman and a black man. I thought then that what should have been an EASY election year was going to turn into historic raging mess. I never thought that "raging mess" was going to occur within the Democratic Party.

I think the Dems will win the General Election but it is going to be tough. Race, if it is Obama, is going to be a major factor for many people. It is something no one wants to really address because their heads say it isn't an issue but their hearts say it is. Gender is also going to be a problem, not as much as Race, but still a problem for many. The Republicans have an age factor which I don't think is nearly difficult to overcome as race or gender.

Smarmy · 1 year ago

There is no 'game changer'. This is how Hillary justifies it to herself for staying in a primary season she lost long ago. Fact is she lost this way back in March. She's really staying in this to muddy Obama. Her slash and burn style is not fit for the presidency. She's just too mean to be a leader.

360sound · 1 year ago

Do you realize how much someone was probably paid to come up with the phrase "game changer", and how many times we will hear it parroted today? Ooh.. that one is gold. In fact, we will hear that one at every run-up to each remaining contest...

ericgoldman · 1 year ago

Since I posted about Sen. Obama's relationship with the Teamsters yesterday, I think it's only fair of me to report that there is a follow up story in today's WSJ.

The lead paragraph reads as follows: "Hilary Clinton told a meeting of Teamsters officials last year that she was "open" to "looking at" reviewing the strict federal oversight of the union, but stopped short of saying it should be removed."

Later in the article, the following is attributed to Sen. Clinton:" In her remarks to the Teamsters board last year, Sen. Clinton said the union "has really done a tremendous job in turning itself around" and that "at some point the past has to be opened . . . You can't go around dragging the ball and chain of the past." She concluded by saying "I would be very open to looking at that and to saying, "What is it we're trying to accomplish here."

The union has released audio recordings of Senators Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

Senator Obama's statement is reported as follows: "On the recording, Sen. Obama told the union that day that if he was elected, they would see a change from the Bush administration "in terms of how we evaluate these consent decrees." He added that because it is a legal matter under the auspices of the Justice Department, he couldn't guarantee a change, but said he would be "a president with the authority to appoint an attorney general who actually understands the law."

Further excerpts:

"Sen. Clinton's campaign said Sen.Obama was contradicting earlier promises when he said on ABC's "Good Morning America" Monday that he "wouldn't make a blanket commitment" to the union.

"Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said the "clear implication" of the Clinton audio is that Sen. Clinton favors doing away with the oversight, a position similar to Sen. Obama's."

"Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer disputed that interpretation. Mr Singer said Sen. Clinton has consistently said that she is "making no promises about lifting the consent decree."

Both sides are making charges, but I guess the gist of the dispute is that Sen. Clinton pandered to the union but stopped short of taking a firm position against the consent decree; and Sen. Obama took a firm position against the consent decree and Sen. Clinton's position is basically the same as Sen. Obama's.

The big loser: The American people and the concept of a Department of Justice free from political interference.

acole · 1 year ago

I was reading an analysis that posited - what if ... THey go to the convention and The Michigan and Florida delegates ARE seated. Hillary has been working VERY hard to make that come about - and has been VERY strong in tryingto court the "uncommitted" ones in here Michigan wher we were told to vote "uncommitted" if you supported Obama, who was not on the ballots. You do all the figuring and Hillary is VERY close if not on top of Obama then in delegate counts. Dirty politics live on. I was receptive to Hillary when she first began running, but her tactics since have made me truly disgusted.

acole · 1 year ago

dang, remind me not to get so worked up and do my grammar checking

Amicus · 1 year ago

edit: for some reason this didn't thread with the prior comment, but it was directed at the MI, FL posting below.

I think it would be OUTRAGEOUS is the "Pledged to 'Uncommitted'" were allowed to vote for Hillary.

She won 55% of the vote in Michigan, that's all. The allocation of delegates already puts her up to 57%. If 'Uncommiteds' start to pledge for her as well, she'd be up into the sixties, maybe.

That's just absurd.

shell · 1 year ago

On the David Gregory Show yesterday, one pundit (Carney) said that Hillary had won Michigan and Florida. Really? When Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot (On one of them -- I think Michigan) . And no one corrected this blatant lie. Oh yeah, not a lie -- she DID "win" but she beat you, me, and Thomas Jefferson, too -- these names weren't on the ballot either.

tlsintx · 1 year ago

ericgoldman 14 minutes ago

it's the WSJ...consider the source.

Topher · 1 year ago

Bottom line is pretty simple: The candidate with the most delegates wins the nomination.

Just want to point out that, actually, the candidate with 2,025 delegates wins. If it were just a matter of delegate lead we wouldn't be in this position, the superdelegates would not exist, and then you could say that Mr. Obama is the "inevitable nominee and has been for awhile." The fact of the matter is that we do not know what the superdelegates will eventually do. So, while I understand the sentiment, the "bottom line" of this post is actually conjecture and positioned argument. Mind you, I think it is a well reasoned and morally satisfying position, but I think we'd all be better off trying our best to not present our hopes ( ie, "the candidate with the delegate lead should win the nomination") as alleged facts (ie "the candidate with the most delegates wins the nomination"). Personally, I think it would make the pro-Obama arguments stronger, and more in line with his message of a change in tone in American politics. Otherwise, wouldn't you just call it spin?

nsr · 1 year ago

How about this-- "If Hillary gives 110%, her robust game changer will throw the pundits under the bus." Oh, and hotcha, vo-do-deo-do.

Amicus · 1 year ago

I wouldn't use the word "inevitable", because of the overtones.

The people of any of the remaining states cannot vote in such a way that Hillary can win.

djhwood · 1 year ago

Hmmm....Is there anyone on here from NC? I'm really curious as to how Hillary could think that NC would be a "game-changer" for her when it is so clear that she will lose it. HOwever, me thinks that if they're following the Repugs tactics so far what would stop them from doing so in suppressing African American turnout? I mean they've alresdy been linked to the "phony" phone call campaign there trying to suppress votes. I'm just wondering if there's any foul play showing up in NC and maybe even IN with the new ID rules to vote. It would be typical "It's my rightful spot-win at all costs" HIllary campaign out of sheer desperation!!

shell · 1 year ago

This could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. With Hillary saying that she is BACK as the leader, and the pundits agreeing with her (and agreeing that the Jeremiah Wright affair will never be over), soon it becomes the truth.

We all read sane blogs. We know the truth. But what percentage of voters is that? What percentage of Americans?

I am truly sick and tired of hearing how SMART Americans are. Just think of: "I wanna vote for the guy I could have a beer with," "I don't wanna vote for someone who can't bowl well," "He orders orange juice rather than coffee?" etc. On and on. We may laugh at these goofy MSM lines, but too many Americans actually believe them. The latest is the gas tax deal. How many Americans just THINK for 2 seconds, and realize this is not a saving for them? Not enough.