# Is Clinton done?



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Some of us have been saying for a long time that she's all done. Now that Obama has won North Carolina and may come out winning Indiana, does that mean that Clinton is all done?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Nope. Look at the exit polls, which show that Hillary has a 20% advantage among white voters in both states.

She might lose a little momentum but this doesn't affect her argument to the super delegates.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Done as far as realistic nomination hopes? Yes, I think so. She's still going to try to persuade the super delegates Obama is unelectable in the general election because he is now losing among white men like he is with white women. Wright did what Bill failed to do in creating a ceiling for Obama among whites. I think the super delegates are stuck with Obama. He's won and if it is unfair it's only because the primaries were moved up and he won before the 'grass is greener' effect wore off. That's their problem. Republicans have the same problem with McCain and conservatives holding on to Thompson and Huckabee too long before rallying to Romney.

However, I don't think the Clintons see the nomination as the only end game in town. 

She stands to gain a lot more by staying in until the convention and/or making them deal than she does by getting out early.

I hear her current worst case scenario is Majority Leader. She's not even the senior Senator from NY, is she?

If Obama loses in November and Hillary is the one holding the line against McCain for four years that leaves her in a very good position in 2012. Harry Reid is not going to back McCain down on pork-barrell spending, healthcare, Iraq, or anything else. If he could he would have prevented the 'gang of 14' from putting Roberts and Alito through to SCOTUS.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

No, she's not done. She won one and lost one. Sure she lost delegates, but she'll stay in. Like ksinc said, she'll make sure to get something out of the deal: she is a Clinton after all.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Nope. Look at the exit polls, which show that Hillary has a 20% advantage among white voters in both states.
> 
> She might lose a little momentum but this doesn't affect her argument to the super delegates.


If that's the case you're absolutely right, however can you imagine how that argument would play in the press, "Pick me because white people will vote for me." Hillary will hang on to the bitter end. Then the Dems will have to come to the realization that they have nominated the love child of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. Someone with thin legislative experience who has cast almost as many "present" votes as "yeas" and "nays". Someone who on numerous occasions has changed his vote because he "made a mistake". Someone who sat in the pews for 20 years listening to a minister rant on even when Oprah Winfrey had the good sense to drop out. A man who is not troubled with having a politically cozy relationship with an admitted terrorist who even as I am writing this still has not grown up.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

You have to ask yourself: how many of the superdelegates do the Clinton's have FBI files for?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

She needs money to keep playing (competitively), and from what I've heard the Clinton campaign is nearly broke. I think the momentum is shifting back to Obama. Convincing N.C. victory and a very close race in Indiana. He's 200,000 up in the popular vote. That starts to add up, no matter what color those voters are.

In November, this will be the only thing that most democrats care about:

There are few policy differences between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. But there is a vast gulf between Mr. McCain and the two Democrats - and far too little difference between Mr. McCain and President Bush.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/opinion/07wed1.html?hp


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I hope she stays in all the way.

Who knows... yet another Obama bombshell could suddenly land.

The longer this campaign goes on, the less saintly he appears.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.


Ok, now what?


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

Relayer said:


> The longer this campaign goes on, the less saintly he appears.


+1! I don't like him that much but my mom's crazy over him and she's a delegate. I tried arguing with her about the Rev Wright issue and she told me Obama doesn't believe what Wright teaches but if he did that its OK for blacks to dislike whites just like its ok for Jews to dislike muslims.

For the record I am for McCain, Hilary's just too much of a snake for me, but you have to admire the Clintons and their never give up attitude.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

SuitUP said:


> +1! I don't like him that much but my mom's crazy over him and she's a delegate.


Funny, my mother is also a delegate for her home state, or would be if the delegates from that state were seated (hint, hint). She was supporting Hillary, but knows all three candidates, and has shocked me by saying she will vote for McCain over Obama, the first time in her life that she has ever voted for a Republican for president.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I think AK is going to serve me up some crow, as outside of career ending scandal, I think Obama is getting the nomination. I was sure Hillary was the next POTUS for some months but think we are safe from that particular evil.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

It depends. Realistically, I don't see how she gets the necessary 65%+ of the uncommitted superdelegates.

If the superdelegates suddenly became numb to the polls and decided to vote strategically, she may have a chance. But with all this talk of "stealing the election" and "race riots," I doubt if a significant number of them will display the necessary backbone.

For the past couple of months, she's led McCain in Ohio, Obama's trailed. In a strategic sense, it's a no-brainer.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Every news source in the UK is saying Obama. If Hilary makes it, it will be the biggest comeback since West Brom escaped relegation a few years back. :icon_smile:


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I was sure Hillary was the next POTUS for some months but think we are safe from that particular evil.


Yes, and we can all look forward to experiencing a slightly different evil.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The Democrats have always been a queer coalition, but this time around you really have to wonder about their collective sanity.

If you had told me a year ago that Hillary Clinton was going to be represent the rural, conservative populist wing of the party, I'd have laughed at you to your face. But here we are...


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The Democrats have always been a queer coalition, but this time around you really have to wonder about their collective sanity.
> 
> If you had told me a year ago that Hillary Clinton was going to be represent the rural, conservative populist wing of the party, I'd have laughed at you to your face. But here we are...


Make's one wonder just how gullible democratic voters are. They seem very eager to buy into demagoguery.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Make's one wonder just how gullible democratic voters are. They seem very eager to buy into demagoguery.


Ha! You guys are awesome.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I can't see how anyone could accuse the party that promises everything to everyone, opposes "big corporations" and "special interests," and will bring "change" and "hope" to the country of engaging in demagoguery.

Wait, what's a demagogue again?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Ha! You guys are awesome.


Wait a minute. Look at Gore, Kerry and the new crop of Dems in 2008. They have all been demagogues. They have attempted to appeal to populist themes and this year dabble in racial politics to achieve their ends. Conservatives have their demagogues too but at least most are behind a microphone, not casting votes and running for office.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Tell me the truth-- did the top 1% put you up to this?


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

It's all been about 2012 since before Penna.

The Clinton Brothers knew they had lost, but wanted to make sure Barry is unelectable.

McCain is a one termer.

Clinton is president from 2012 to 2020.

Good Night Now.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

It's just a flesh wound. Hillary is invincible.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

I'm a pretty avid follower of politics, but I'm still scratching my head, wondering how Obama got states like Utah, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, the Dakotas and Alaska. I thought the few Democrats that were in these states were very socially conservative. Or has there been a shift in demographics to upper-middle class suburbia, like Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

AMVanquish said:


> I'm a pretty avid follower of politics, but I'm still scratching my head, wondering how Obama got states like Utah, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, the Dakotas and Alaska. I thought the few Democrats that were in these states were very socially conservative. Or has there been a shift in demographics to upper-middle class suburbia, like Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin?


Obama had the benefit of a lot of spoiler votes from Republicans and independents back when he was the underdog, and before anyone really knew who he was. I checked, and CNN didn't do exit polls for any of those states with the exception of Utah, where Obama won handily, but broke even with Clinton among white Democrats, with each getting 48%.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

AMVanquish said:


> I'm a pretty avid follower of politics, but I'm still scratching my head, wondering how Obama got states like Utah, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, the Dakotas and Alaska. I thought the few Democrats that were in these states were very socially conservative. Or has there been a shift in demographics to upper-middle class suburbia, like Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin?


I think there has been a change in at least some of these states. For instance Montana, where one of my sons lives, now has a Democratic governor and two Democratic senators. It's hard to give too much credence to this because it's a recent phenomenon, but across the country I think that the Fifty State Strategy is having an effect.

I should also point out that the Montana primary hasn't been held yet, but is scheduled for June 3.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Campaigning as a DINO is working very well for the "conservative Democrat" in my district, especially as it's a special election with ridiculous ballots that don't indicate party affiliation.


----------



## Garfield (Jan 29, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> If that's the case you're absolutely right, however can you imagine how that argument would play in the press, "Pick me because white people will vote for me." Hillary will hang on to the bitter end. Then the Dems will have to come to the realization that they have nominated the love child of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. Someone with thin legislative experience who has cast almost as many "present" votes as "yeas" and "nays". Someone who on numerous occasions has changed his vote because he "made a mistake". Someone who sat in the pews for 20 years listening to a minister rant on even when Oprah Winfrey had the good sense to drop out. A man who is not troubled with having a politically cozy relationship with an admitted terrorist who even as I am writing this still has not grown up.


I find it interesting that everyone rants on about his pastor, and especially now that Obama has denounced him, when John McCain publicly talks about John Hagee as his "spiritual adviser" and expresses his admiration for him. Of course, John Hagee has only publicly stated that Katrina was an "act of God" to punish New Orleans, and also wants to start a war with Iran, to bring about the "end times". Hagee was on record with those statements before McCain tried to get his endorsement, so what does that say about McCain?

No double standard there, thats for sure.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

No, the Hagee bit doesn't impress anyone, because the American people aren't _that_ stupid-- what did you expect? "Sure, he's not 1/10th as crazy or racist as Wright, but McCain thanked the guy for his endorsement-- that's the same as patronizing his church for 20 years!"


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

McCain actually went to him and asked him for his endorsement. He actually shows a pattern of cozying up to intolerant religious extremists, such as Hagee, Rod Parsley, and Jerry Falwell.

There are really two reasons that McCain's affinity for these guys has not been as big a story as the Wright story. First, the MSM are in the tank for McCain and any negative information has a hard time getting through. Second, the wingers and McCain supporters love to keep pounding on the Wright story because it's a way to make Obama's race an issue without talking explicitly about Obama's race. Just keep pointing out that one of the people that supports Obama is an Angry Black Man and people will get the message. He's this year's version of Willie Horton.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Should have been an easy win*

Bush, the war, the economy, 2008 should have been an easy win for the Democrats. The fact that this race might be competitive, the fact that McCain might have a chance of winning, really makes me wonder how serious the Democratic party is about winning elections.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yes, they're trying to make Obama's race an issue... by pointing out his long history of supporting and intimately associating with a vicious racist.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jackmccullough

Trying to equate McCain's relationship with Hagee to Obama/Wright is too ridiculous for even the left leaning media to try at this point. Not that the Democrat party won't try to spin it just as you do come the fall.

McCain was never a member of Hagee's church for 1 day (much less 20+ years Like Obama/Wright)

McCain never gave money to Hagee''s church (Obama gave tens of thousands to Wright's church)

McCain's wedding ceremony was not performed by Hagee (Wright performed Obama's)

McCain's children weren't not baptised by Hagee (Yep, Wright baptised Obama's). 

Surely you can do better. If you want to claim McCain should not have sought the Hagee endorsement, then you might have a point. The rest is pure nonesense.

Obama's pastor and spiritual adviser made and continues to make statements that have brought race to the forefront.

The real issue here is not Wright's sad, pathetic, racist, and America hatingviews, but why Obama the great man that would bring everyone together sat in the pews for 20 years listening to them. 

If anyone wants to hear a milder version of Wright, but with the same underlying tones, I suggest you listen to a few Michelle Obama speeches. Whoa!


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

If you enjoy politics, it will be fascinating to watch this play out. Hillary probably doesn't have a realistic chance for the nomination, at this moment. Momentum gone, and a $10,000,000 campaign debt, with $6,000,000 of her own money into the campaign. She and Chelsea were both booed, at a rally in West Virginia, yesterday. Usually, not a good sign.

She is probably hanging on to see if another Rev Wright issue emerges. Obama still seems a bit vulnerable.

An interesting article in WSJ today split up the electoral votes, and Hillary seems to have a better chance against McCain than Obama, strictly based on the electoral vote. (eg she could likely beat McCain in Fla, and Obama probably couldn't.)

There is also the problem that many of the supporters of Hillary and Obama say that they will switch to McCain, or stay home, if their candidate is not nominated. It's hard to believe that this will be the case in November, we'll have to see.

The Democrats clearly have a lot going for them, and it's difficult to believe that they will let this vitriolic contest for the nomination deny them the victory in November.

One way to be sure that they pull together, is to convince both Obama, and Hillary that she must be the VP candidate, for the good of the party.

This may be distasteful for both of them, but it is hard to see them ignoring pressure from party leaders to avoid defeat.

Someone mentioned Hillary as Senate majority leader. Maybe. You still have to figure a way to make Harry Reid agree, and it is hard to see that she would see this as a great consolation prize.

If indeed, Obama becomes President, and she becomes his VP, it would seem that his first appointment would be to seek out a food taster.

Fascinating stuff...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Nice job of trying to change the subject.

You don't think that McCain's seeking out of Hagee's endorsement, knowing his intolerant positions, and his cozying up to Falwell and flip-flopping on Falwell's positions, raises any questions about McCain's character?

I guess it's time for you to line up for the Kool-Aid.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I guess you read only parts of my post you wanted to read. 

Let me help ..." If you want to claim McCain should not have sought the Hagee endorsement, then you might have a point."

Is it a huge deal to me... NO, although I have other issues with McCain.

You tried to draw parallels between the two relationships and they are completely dissimilar.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Intrepid,

I agree that this talk of voters of one Dem candidate not supporting the other in the fall probably wont come play out that way. Too bad, though.

God forgive me, but I'd rather have Hillary as Pres than Obama (excuse me while I go wash my mouth out)... but as you said, highly unlikely. But with Obama (and Michelle)... who knows...?

I never really understood that in the Dem party, it was unltimately the party bosses (aka super delegates) and not the regular voters who decided who their candidate would really be. So much for democracy, huh?

It will be very interesting.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Relayer, the "superdelegate" situation came into being after the Democrats nominated a candidate that did very poorly (eg george McGovern). The party leadership at that time came up with the superdelegate concept.

Theoretically, if a candidate moved through the primary process, the superdelegates would have the power to negate this process, if the candidate appeared to be weak, with little chance of winning, at the time of the convention.

It's easy to understand why they designed this process. Most of the superdelegates are officials that need a win at the top of the ticket in order to perpetuate their own situations; congressmen, governors, etc. 

I'm not saying that this is right, or wrong, but that is how the present situation came into being. 

It won't happen, but if Obama was the clear winner at the time of the conventon, but because or problems that emerged for him,appeared to be certain to lose in the general election, the superdelegates have the power to then nominate, someone else, such as Gore, Nancy Pelosi,etc., take your pick.

If you are intensely interested in our political process, it is fascinating to watch things unfold.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I've been saying for weeks now that the obvious answer to the $64,000 question 'Why did he stay in that church?' is Michelle Obama. Based on her previous comments I bet $1 she buys the BLT, anti-American, anti-White thing hook-line-and-sinker.

I notice no one in the campaign is in a hurry to let her get near a microphone lately ...

Regarding McCain:Hagee vs. Obama:Wright

#1 McCain is a politician. The problem for Obama is he claimed he wasn't.

#2 McCain was not a member of Hagee's church. McCain:Hagee is closer to Obama:Farrakan not Obama:Wright.

I still give the edge to McCain on the Hagee thing because he came out immediately when he was asked about it which doesn't make it 'ok', but it gives other political/media people 'cover' so they don't have to attack McCain for it and thus distance themselves; such as this Bennett conversation.



> Transcript
> BENNETT: I've got to ask you about something, as a Catholic. This was something a lot of Catholics were talking about. A couple of weeks ago, senator, you received the endorsement of San Antonio Pastor John Hagee. He's written about my church, "there's a clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews." He's called the Catholic church "a great prostitute," except he used a stronger word. He's called my church a "cult." Your comment on this. There's actually been a lot of talk about it.
> 
> MCCAIN: Well, obviously I repudiate any comments that are anti-semetic or anti-Catholic, racist, any other. And I condemn them and I condemn those words that Pastor Hagee apparently&#8230;that Pastor Hagee wrote. I will say that he said that his words were taken out of context, he defends his position. I hope that maybe you'd give him a chance to respond. He says he has never been anti-Catholic, but I repudiate the words that create that impression. I will say, I'd like to say on his behalf, he's been a very strong supporter of the state of Israel and when we were doing the No Surrender tour, he came and spoke on behalf of not surrendering in Iraq. So, but any comments that are made that are in anyway offensive then I repudiate those for all of the obvious reasons, Bill.
> ...


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Garfield said:


> I find it interesting that everyone rants on about his pastor, and especially now that Obama has denounced him, when John McCain publicly talks about John Hagee as his "spiritual adviser" and expresses his admiration for him. Of course, John Hagee has only publicly stated that Katrina was an "act of God" to punish New Orleans, and also wants to start a war with Iran, to bring about the "end times". Hagee was on record with those statements before McCain tried to get his endorsement, so what does that say about McCain?
> 
> No double standard there, thats for sure.


Nice try! Keep fishing.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

ksinc said:


> *I've been saying for weeks now that the obvious answer to the $64,000 question 'Why did he stay in that church?' is Michelle Obama. Based on her previous comments I bet $1 she buys the BLT, anti-American, anti-White thing hook-line-and-sinker.*
> 
> *I notice no one in the campaign is in a hurry to let her get near a microphone lately ...*
> 
> ...


I agree with this. She seems to me to be a potential problem for her husband. I'll predict that somewhere along the trail she'll slip again and her angry black woman side will come out and wind up a campaign issue, much to his regret. Another character issue question for him to deal with.

_But then again, I could be wrong..._


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> *Nice job of trying to change the subject.*
> 
> You don't think that McCain's seeking out of Hagee's endorsement, knowing his intolerant positions, and his cozying up to Falwell and flip-flopping on Falwell's positions, raises any questions about McCain's character?
> 
> I guess it's time for you to line up for the Kool-Aid.


This actually made me laugh at my desk. We have a thread that Jack started titled Is Clinton Done?. So the subject of the thread is obstensibly Clinton. His aim, of course, was actually to try to whip up support for his guy Obama. When someone brings up Wright, Jack's guy's current Achilles' Heel, Jack does a stunning move of trying to make crazy religious folk about McCain. When the complete fallacy of the comparison is laid out, what does Jack have to say in a thread *that he started, about Clinton?*



jackmccullough said:


> *Nice job of trying to change the subject.*


:teacha:

:aportnoy: Good work Jack. Blog-o-sphere ahoy!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Hillary won West Virginia with 67% to Obama's 26%...

Obama didn't win a single county.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

*to the tune of Frankie & Johnny......*

Barry & Johnnie are sweethearts
Been holdin' hands all along









She thought he was her man
(Though he's not very long) 
And now he's doin' her wrong









(Need a lyric here. Anyone? "Maybe after the thaw"?)
They can menage a trois









Oh de lady, Oh de lady, Oh de ooooooooo-Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


----------

