[MARIS61]

She's gone off the deep end now, supporting Ferraro, going for the redneck vote which will send her down in flames of charges of promoting racism, and assure she'll not get another chance to run in the future.

She's shot herself in the foot. We're about to see her mood swings again, which rival McCain's.

[mook]

Just read this quote in a blog comments section:

Saying that Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/200...24/8172/24#c24

[Stepping Razor]

The fact that she is now in a public sparring match with Sinbad (and that Sinbad is winning) cannot be a good sign...

At this point, she can't win. All she can do is drag down the Democratic Party with her as she falls. It's time for her to pull the plug on the campaign before she embarrasses herself further or ruins the party's very good chance to win a landslide realignment in November's elections.

Stepping Razor

[crandc]

In fact, and I say this as an independent, a healthy primary battle could help her party by focusing on issues and keeping media attention on the candidates. But a s***-slinging does the opposite. I once thought (although I disagree with her too much to vote for her) that Hillary Clinton would make a pretty decent president. She is smart, has a good command of issues, and is good at "nuts-and-bolts". And as a woman of the next generation, I understand the frustration when a woman works her butt off for years and when it's time for the big promotion, some younger man gets it. And yes, her campaign has faced vicious relentless sexism.

But there is no "right" to be president.

It's not just her, where is the leadership of her party? Why have they not met with her privately and forcefully said they will not suppport someone who seems determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

And sadly, it may work because racism does work.

[It's_GO_Time]

Strange . . . I thought Hillary was still in this thing. If she is, I hope she keeps on going. If she can't win, then she step aside.

Personally, I hope she is still in it because I'm not sold on Barrack . . . and it would be nice if Oregon's vote meant something for once.

[crandc]

She is still in, KMD. That's why it's so disturbing that she and her surrogates have resorted to character assassination and race-baiting. (Note the color of all the women and children in the 3AM ad.)

Why not run on her background and qualifications and let the chips fall where they may?

[SodaPopinski]

I'm watching this Michigan and Florida situation pretty closely, because I think both of those states are Hillary states. If they're allowed to count in the race for delegates, this race could get even more interesting. They're talking about doing a revote by mail, which should be interesting to see what sort of participation they get. I would tend to think that less affluent and less educated voters (Hillary's camp) would be less inclined to participate, but then I also could see younger voters (in Obama's camp) not participating.

I think Pennsylvania right now is trending toward Hillary with the strong blue-collar vote, but with six weeks of campaigning, Obama can make a dent in that base. Hillary will likely carry the blue-collar and low-income and low-education vote. And Obama will likely carry the educated, middle and upper class democrats and the African American vote there.

At any rate, it should be interesting. Hopefully the party will unite after the convention in August, because I think either candidate can beat the senile old guy running with the "more of the same" message.

I will say, however, that if Hillary wins the nomination, she's going to have to repair some bridges. I've lost a lot of respect for her with the way she's campaigning. Hopefully Obama wins the nomination.

But more importantly - hopefully we end the stranglehold the GOP has had on the executive branch for the last 8 god-awful years.

-Pop

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by Kiss_My_Darius

Strange . . . I thought Hillary was still in this thing. If she is, I hope she keeps on going. If she can't win, then she step aside.

Personally, I hope she is still in it because I'm not sold on Barrack . . . and it would be nice if Oregon's vote meant something for once.

She's "still in this thing" in the sense that she's still running.

She's not "still in this thing" in the sense that she has a chance to win. Without cheating, anyway.

Right now she's behind by more than 150 delegates. Her "big win" in Ohio netted her +9 delegates, and in Texas Obama actually won more delegates than Hillary did. (They have a really weird system in Texas, but Hillary won the Texas Primary, 65 delegates to 61, while Obama won the simultaneous Texas Caucus, 38 delegates to 29. Net Texas result = Obama 99, Clinton 94.) So despite the people on TV acting like last week's result was some kind of crushing triumph for Clinton, over the course of the day's voting in all four states, she ended up with a net gain of exactly 6 delegates. By contrast, in the last two "small state" contests in Wyoming and Mississippi, Obama is a net +7. So Hillary has made up precisely zero ground on Obama this month.

Since the Dem primary delegates are all awarded on a proportional (not winner take all) basis, Clinton would need to win all the remaining contest by something like an 80-20 margin in order to catch up. There's just no way that's going to happen; she hasn't won one single state so far by a margin even approaching that. Barring some kind of crazy revelation like Obama kicking it with Spitzer at the Imperial Club, the math just doesn't add up. (I would say the Blazers are many, many times more likely to win out the rest of the season and make the playoffs than Hillary is to catch up with Obama in the elected delegate count.)

So, as I said, she has no chance to win. Without cheating. If she cheats -- which I would define as retroactively counting her voters, who she earlier pledged not to count, from Florida and Michigan, where the primaries were not accredited by the party and where Obama didn't campaign and where (in one of the two states) Obama wasn't even on the ballot; and she tries to steal away some of Obama's pledged delegates at the convention; and she tries to strong-arm all the superdelegates into reversing the will of the people and voting for her instead; then she might just barely be able to negate Obama's big lead. But if she does that, she will destroy the Democratic Party. That's why I think she should drop out. She has no *legitimate* chance at winning fair and square.

Stepping Razor

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by SodaPopinski

At any rate, it should be interesting. Hopefully the party will unite after the convention in August, because I think either candidate can beat the senile old guy running with the "more of the same" message.

-Pop

I think that a race between either Democratic candidate and McCain is going to be a lot closer than folks on either coast might think. Pop, folks like you consistently make the mistake of thinking that your way of thinking about things is the norm in America. I don't think that's true or else a guy like George W. Bush could never have defeated John Kerry. The Democratic party carries the burden of accommodating the extremes of our culture, and those extremes often don't play well in middle America.

[SodaPopinski]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

I think that a race between either Democratic candidate and McCain is going to be a lot closer than folks on either coast might think. Pop, folks like you consistently make the mistake of thinking that your way of thinking about things is the norm in America. I don't think that's true or else a guy like George W. Bush could never have defeated John Kerry. The Democratic party carries the burden of accommodating the extremes of our culture, and those extremes often don't play well in middle America.

Bush won in 2004 because Karl Rove and his campaign team mobilized the ultra-conservative religious voters more than the Democrats mobilized their young voters. Rove is an *******, but he's also a very shrewd campaign manager.

I find it interesting that you say the democrats carry the burden of accommodating the extremes of our culture. I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder, but I believe the ultra-religious Christian groups and the anti-abortion groups and the racist groups and the sexist groups and the anti-gay groups are all extremists, and those groups are strong GOP supporters.

I look forward to the debates this year. McCain is really going to be taken to task and forced to either align himself with or separate himself from the Bush policies. On the economy, on the war in Iraq, on phone-tapping, on clean energy, etc.

If you ask me, middle America is already leaning away from the GOP because of the last 8 years (and the recent votes for congressional candidates have backed up that theory), and they have more work than the Democrats do to win the swing vote for President.

-Pop

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

I think that a race between either Democratic candidate and McCain is going to be a lot closer than folks on either coast might think. Pop, folks like you consistently make the mistake of thinking that your way of thinking about things is the norm in America. I don't think that's true or else a guy like George W. Bush could never have defeated John Kerry. The Democratic party carries the burden of accommodating the extremes of our culture, and those extremes often don't play well in middle America.

You make the mistake of not discerning Obama and Clinton as 2 separate candidates. They are different as night and day, while Clinton and McCain are practically political twins.

This is why Hillary will be absolutely crushed by McCain if they are the candidates. The only marked difference between the 2 is their gender and their length of experience. They are both war-mongerers, both owned by powerful lobbies, and both support non-party views if it helps them hoard personal power. Neither has accomplished anything to speak of for the common American in the many years we've paid them silly money and both have lied and broken promises.

Obama, on the other hand, is quite the opposite of McCain in most respects politically and would win easily a race which would become a choice between a hopeful Prince of Peace, and a maniacal madman with a death wish.

[mook]

there's not a chance of the earlier Michigan and Florida votes ever counting. it's just not going to happen.

a re-vote probably will happen, but it probably won't help Hillary enough.

she won only 50% of Florida in the first election when nobody campaigned there. she's not likely to do much better than that once Obama starts running ads. assume she (very generously) wins 60% of the vote. there are 210 delegates. she gets 126 delegates to Obama's 84 for a net gain of 42 delegates.

she won only 55% of Michigan when she was the only one on the ballot. assume she's able to pull that off again with Obama campaigning heavily. of the 156 delegates, she'll get 86 and Obama will get 70, for a net gain of 15.

now assume she wins Pennsylvania by 60%. of the 158 delegates, she'll get 95, Obama gets 63, for a net gain for her of 32.

so if she runs the table on these three huge states, she'll have a net gain of 89 delegates. right now she's down by about 130 delegates. she'd still be down by around 40 delegates.

it's simply not possible for her to win by just re-opening Michigan and Florida. she's got to not only win Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania by massive leads, but also strong-arm far more super delegates into coming to her side.

super delegates are her only hope. but even that probably won't work:

• there hasn't been a single defection away from Obama in super delegates. there have been many defections from Hillary.

• not a single party leader has come to her defense in her claiming McCain is a stronger commander in chief candidate than Obama. that kind of party sabotage isn't going to win fans of Hillary.

• you'd have to be a moron not to hear Rush Limbaugh go on about how eager Republicans are to run against Hillary. many of the super delegates are elected leaders. I doubt any of them want to run on a Democratic ticket in an election where Republicans will be coming in droves to vote down Hillary.

you add it all up and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign is a lost cause that seems intent on taking everyone in her party down with her.

[rocketeer]

Originally Posted by MARIS61