[STOMP]

Originally Posted by Hector

If the Democrats used the same winner take all system the Republicans use, Clinton would have already won the nomination.

if my aunt had a bleep she'd be my uncle.

because the Democrat primary rules are the way they are, candidates are best served to use a different campaign strategy then if they were running as Republicans. Barack has run a very smart race and obviously looks to be the winner. Record numbers of Americans have registered Democrat in part because the race has continued and that looks to help him in the fall... you don't hear him saying she should call off her campaign.

STOMP

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Hector

If the Democrats used the same winner take all system the Republicans use, Clinton would have already won the nomination.

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...&dist=hplatest

The computer censor at work. For the 4 asterisks, insert the letters t w a t. It's a site that watches the market, you know?

Here is today's neutral AP coverage of the Clinton campaign. Same thing they've led off with for months--that she can't win. They never cover any issues, just that she can't win, she can't win, she can't win.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Chris Matthews was a Republican infiltrator in Majority Leader Tip O'Neil's staff around 1980. Matthews was rewarded with his TV show and hammered Clinton all through his presidency. Now he's hammering the female Clinton. That tells me the Republcan Party wants Obama as the candidate. I wonder what they have on him, like a sex affair.

What they "have" on him, is their belief that since he's black, republicans of any sort (and enough democrats) won't vote for him.

[Hector]

Today's news? Same as 6 months ago. As they have since last year, the articles intend to push down Clinton support. They ignore issues and go on and on about the inevitability of her loss. The change this month is that they have put their advocacy into each article's first sentence. Today's wireservice first sentences, followed by a blog that actually says something:
------------------
(CNN) -- Despite Sen. Barack Obama's commanding lead in the delegate count, Sen. Hillary Clinton campaigned hard Sunday, telling voters she's "running for the toughest job in the world."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/18/campaign.wrap/
----------------
BOWLING GREEN, Kentucky (Reuters) - With time running out on her White House campaign, Hillary Clinton plugged away on Sunday in her uphill battle to overtake Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCan...39956720080518
------------------
...Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory in West Virginia and the “bizarre” math that make Barack appear stronger....What just weeks earlier had looked to the Obama camp like an easy path to victory has been derailed following his confidence-shattering defeat in Indiana, a state conventional wisdom and his own campaign had projected he would win, and his disastrous showing in Pennsylvania in spite of outspending Clinton 3:1. The North Carolina win was expected, with a demographic that heavily favored Obama’s race-based campaign style, and is of no value strategically since it came in a state that will certainly end up in the Republican win column. In sharp and defining contrast, Clinton’s 41-point West Virginia primary victory is highly significant...It is difficult to see how Obama could win the general election without West Virginia; no Democrat, in fact, has taken the White House without West Virginia since 1916...Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have repeatedly taken the trouble to make clear they don’t need to force a decision before the end of June...

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05...oup/#more-2571

[STOMP]

Originally Posted by Hector

------------------
...Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory in West Virginia and the “bizarre” math that make Barack appear stronger....What just weeks earlier had looked to the Obama camp like an easy path to victory has been derailed following his confidence-shattering defeat in Indiana, a state conventional wisdom and his own campaign had projected he would win, and his disastrous showing in Pennsylvania in spite of outspending Clinton 3:1. The North Carolina win was expected, with a demographic that heavily favored Obama’s race-based campaign style, and is of no value strategically since it came in a state that will certainly end up in the Republican win column. In sharp and defining contrast, Clinton’s 41-point West Virginia primary victory is highly significant...It is difficult to see how Obama could win the general election without West Virginia; no Democrat, in fact, has taken the White House without West Virginia since 1916...Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have repeatedly taken the trouble to make clear they don’t need to force a decision before the end of June...

West Virginia is one of the smallest and poorest states in the country carrying only 5 delegates. Thinking/hoping that someone can't win the presidency without it is very silly. And besides, Barack still got about the same amount of votes their as McCain who won only 75% of the Republican vote despite having the advantage of having had all his opponents drop out... who do you think is more likely to pick up Hillary's votes in this traditional Democratic state?

Your article's recap of Indiana is equally ridiculous. Hillary was always tracking way ahead of Barack leading up to their primary. It was only the weeks leading up to the date that things narrowed below a double digit lead and most polling projected her to win decisively days before. It wasn't the Obama campaign who's confidence was shattered by the Indiana results.

I've never heard of this massively slanted source you linked (noquarterusa.net). Interestingly the ad beside the article features a book by Sidney Blumenthal. He was senior advisor to both Bill Clinton (during his presidency) and now to the Hillary campaign. Perhaps you heard that recently Blumenthal was revealed as the source of a series of annonomous mass spam emails circulating for the past year attacking Barack for among other things being a secret Muslim. There were also several other ads for publications attacking Obama on the same page... Nice link dude

STOMP

[Ed O]

Anyone who's halfway decent at math has known this has been over for a couple of months now. I actually think that Obama supporters have a much stronger beef with the media's preference for a horserace than Hillary's do with the alleged defeatism portrayed by the media.

Ed O.

[Dornado]

Originally Posted by Ed O

Anyone who's halfway decent at math has known this has been over for a couple of months now. I actually think that Obama supporters have a much stronger beef with the media's preference for a horserace than Hillary's do with the alleged defeatism portrayed by the media.

Ed O.

I agree... and nobody will ever be satisfied with the media coverage of their candidate... because, well, the media coverage is all entertainment based and generally stinks.

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by Ed O

Anyone who's halfway decent at math has known this has been over for a couple of months now. I actually think that Obama supporters have a much stronger beef with the media's preference for a horserace than Hillary's do with the alleged defeatism portrayed by the media.

Ed O.

Thank you. It's over, and it has been since March 3.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Dornado

I agree... and nobody will ever be satisfied with the media coverage of their candidate... because, well, the media coverage is all entertainment based and generally stinks.

I think the media has been pretty crappy all around. Bringing up pretty pointless things about Obama and Clinton, harping on Clinton, and letting McCain pretty much do anything he wants without talking about it.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by Stepping Razor

Thank you. It's over, and it has been since March 3.

It's over unless Obama makes a mistake of massive proportions or has some skeleton pop up that would cause a defection of the superdelegates to Clinton. Not much chance of that happening, but if she bows out there's zero chance.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

It's over unless Obama makes a mistake of massive proportions or has some skeleton pop up that would cause a defection of the superdelegates to Clinton. Not much chance of that happening, but if she bows out there's zero chance.

I'm not sure that's true. Suppose Hillary drops out. Suppose it is discovered that if you read Barack's books backwards they spell "I hate America and I am a Marxist-Muslim who has sex with guys on youtube. Tony Rezko owns me, and I fervently believe everything Wright has ever said". Then the party will have to choose another candidate. Who will they choose? It might or might not be Hillary, but I don't see that her dropping out makes her less eligible than others who dropped out earlier, or than those who never ran at all.

barfo

[Dan]

What would happen IF, say he was the nominee, and a week before the election he died or was assassinated? Would the VP he picked be the nominee?

What would happen if he won the election and the same happened? I only ask because how it's been 40 years since RFK was assassinated, and how much that changed the election and our history.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by barfo

I'm not sure that's true. Suppose Hillary drops out. Suppose it is discovered that if you read Barack's books backwards they spell "I hate America and I am a Marxist-Muslim who has sex with guys on youtube. Tony Rezko owns me, and I fervently believe everything Wright has ever said". Then the party will have to choose another candidate. Who will they choose? It might or might not be Hillary, but I don't see that her dropping out makes her less eligible than others who dropped out earlier, or than those who never ran at all.

barfo

The process of dropping out means releasing your delegates. Right now this sucker is 51.4%/48.6%, so it's not like it's a some kind of blowout. Right now, you need between 2,025 or 2,209 (depending on how Florida and Michigan are seated), and Sen. Obama has 1,715.5 to Sen. Clinton's 1623. So, both are still short of the total count.

If something happened to Sen. Obama or something was to be revealed and Sen. Clinton was out of the race having given up her delegates, the Party may turn to a third person (e.g., Al Gore) instead of to her. Without those delegates in her back pocket, it could become a backroom deal selecting, not electing, the nominee. She's worked hard for those delegates and her supporters have worked hard for her. Why should she step aside simply because it makes Sen. Obama's life easier?

This is a sports forum. We don't tell the Blazers when they're down in the 4th quarter to pack it in. We don't expect the opposition to stop doing everything they can to win even though it uglies up the game. The same should hold true here.

The most ironic moment for me was when Sen. Kennedy (and best wishes for a speedy recovery to him) called for Sen. Clinton to drop out. This call was from the same guy who took then-President Carter all the way to the convention despite being 700+ delegates down.