What the hell, Hill?
 

It's no news that I'm an Obama supporter, but still... watching Hillary make a blunder as stupid as this one still came as a surprise to me, just a few minutes ago... WHAT THE HELL was she thinking?!?! -- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_el_pr/clinton
Please help me understand her extreme stupidity.

She just let it slip that she's going to have Obama offed in June.

Wow. I can't believe those words came out of her mouth. I think even Stewie Griffin would say that was in bad taste.

um...

yeah.

up to this point, i had exercised no originality whatsoever and imagined that an obama/clinton ticket would be a very good thing.
i still think it would be, but a bit less so.

now i'm thinking about bulworth. i think that having warren beatty rap the last quarter of the film was maybe the last thing as stupid as this remark that didn't emanate from that special quadrant of stupid that we all know and love so, the "i know what it's like to put food on your family" place.

Never dreamed I'd be defending her, but...
I just now saw the videotape, and I fail to see why her comment is a big deal. She was only making the point that she is being told to get out of the race before June, and this call is a historical aberration. To reinforce her point, she reminded her audience that RFK had just won the JUNE 1968 California primary when he was killed. For me, and folks my age, her remark only reminds us that we have witnessed a Democratic primary race lasting into June, and it shouldn't be viewed as unusual.

Of course, I actually hope she takes it all the way to the August convention in Denver. Watching the Dems rip the hide off each other makes this old conservative smile...

I saw that and couldn't believe it myself. Regardless of her intentions or how her people try to spin it there was no way she could invoke Bobby Kennedy in a manner that wouldn't come off horribly wrong.

That is what I thought to. Or at least she was going to gain something if he was taken out by some redneck who thinks the south should have won 150 years ago.

But, it isn't 'really' what she said or was thinking. It is just everyone (including the unbiased media :rolleyes: ) jumped to that conclusion and are using it against her.

I don't care if she says in, it is her right to do so. Just deal with the issues, there are plenty of them.

"I'll still run because if someone murders Obama I'll get to be president."

Kinda tasteless.

...Wait, what?

Now granted I admit to having something of an infirm grasp of American politics. Maybe candidates have a shorter life expectancy there. But from what I'm understanding, she has stated that she will stay in the race even though she knows she's pretty much lost, on the hopes that some misfortune (ie assassination) will befall her opponent.

Where's the ambiguity here?

I rate it as only the second stupidest political comment of the week.

The winner.....someone at the Calif. Campaign for Children and Families following the Cal Supreme Court ruling that county clerks must begin to issue same sex marriage licenses:

Ask your county clerk if they were a Nazi officer during WWII and had been ordered to gas the Jews, would they? At the Nuremberg trials, they would have been convicted of murder for following this immoral order.

And a close third behind Hillary....Mike Huckabee when hearing a loud bang off stage while speaking at a McCain event:

"That was Barack Obama," Huckabee quipped, "He Just tripped off a chair. He was getting ready to speak. Somebody aimed a gun at him and he…he dove for the floor."

Incidentally, it was not an "off the cuff" remark. She made the same, exact reference back in March, in an interview with Time magazine.

I can't imagine she meant she was hoping for Obama to get killed. I understood that to mean that anything can happen, look at history.

Doesn't she get the same pass Obama does for "boneheaded" remarks? If not, why not? (I suspect it's because she pissed off a lot of the press and this is how they take their institutional revenge.)

It doesn't matter what she "meant." We all know that by now, in this campaign. "Pass?" What kind of "passes" have Obama been getting? Quite the opposite, if you ask me...

The Caucus, a blog in the NYTimes, wasted no time jumping on this:

Well, she apologized for it, at the very least.

I'm not sure she implied that she wanted him to be assassinated, however that seems to be the way everyone is spinning it.

She just stated the fact, which wasn't the smartest move, but everyone understands that it could happen.

Well, no, actually. She went a bit further than that. Stating the fact would be strange in and of itself, but what she did was state the fact in connection with her continuing to run. The implication there is that she is continuing to run because she considers such a thing a possibility and, as we can assume that she wants to win, that she's hoping for it.

I'm not surprised by a politician be selfish and/or callous. I am surprised that people are attempting to defend this.

The thought had crossed my mind that the possibility of assassination might be one reason why HRC was sticking around. That said, i don't think she's gained anything in the past 3 months. If something had happened to Obama, and she had dropped out in say, February, she still would have had a much better claim on the nomination than anyone else.

Or, could she be saying this to keep from being put in the VP slot?

I don't think so, because i don't think Obama wants her, but who knows what the party bigwigs have in mind.

P-E-O-P-L-E.... Alladin Sane's is probably the most accurate description of what happened.....what Clinton's intent was.... I was attending one of the final school days of my sophomore year in high school when, while waiting at the bus stop earky on the morning after, a classmate told me that Senator Kennedy had been shot in Los Angeles.

My reaction when I first heard what Clinton said, on radio news, was that she was evoking a memory common to people of our generation, a kind of "short hand"....notice how she made back to back references of the Califfornia primary, the one in the largest state, taking place in a time in the election year that has not even come yet. She used two memories, back to back, to make her point.....her husband's 1992 California primary campaign, and RFK's.

She is trained to make "sound bite", points. She, herself, her daughter, and her husband, have lived in a Secret Service protection "bubble" for 16 years. In 1996, while she lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., the Secret Service and it's parent agency, the US Treasury, took the unprecedented step, out of concern for the protection of the white house, to permanently close the closest portion of the avenue to vehicular traffic.

Clinton's comments were obviously meant to evoke a comparison of how early in the contest it actually is, compared to in campaign years most prominent in the collective memory of Clinton and her generation. She used the two examples of this that made the biggest impression on her. Her second example, the one referencing RFK winning in California, and then being shot even as he was declaring that victory, I "got".

I don't like either democratic candidate, but I need to believe both are better than McCain, on their worst day. Everything Clinton says is not "about Obama". This wasn't......trust me.

The reactions of some of you seem absurd to me....alien (to my concerns and ways of thinking)....not well thought out, especially considering that Clinton herself lives an abnormal life in a security "bubble", with the memory of the tendency of her protective detail to err on the over protective side, every day for the past 16 years.

Some of the posted comments seem to come because of a visceral, negativity towards Clinton....thinking the absolute worst about her. She made a mistake, attempting to conjure up a reaction.....to make a strong point within just one sentence. Supporters and ambivalent folks close in age to her, instantly made the connection with what she was trying to get us to picture.

The cost was that those who suspected she is the "anti christ", an opportunist still "sticking around", because she hopes someone will "off" Obama....and then she can step in and take the nomination, think that she has publicly and loudly confirmed their suspicions.

The prime reason that issues like the following one are not dominating the campaign focus, but "Jeremiah Wright", "John Hagee", and the opinions voiced in thread like this are.....I think.... is because it is much easier to wrap your mind, and thus, your post, around a thread topic like this one's, than it is to wrap them around this:

People can't or won't wrap their minds around what the sentences above describe..... some even label it a "paranoid" subject, but the majority of the reactions about a "nothing" incident, are uniformly and comfortably embraced.

WTF ????

P-E-O-P-L-E.... either Hillary or Barak are equally our hope for confirming and reversing the condition of the removal of our right "to be secure in our papers", because we ARE NOT !!!!!!!!!!! Every email address, (and the subject line) you've written to or received messages from, every telephone number, date, time, duration, and every credit card transaction, internet search attempt, and web page visited, are the least of which have been "swept up".

Distractions and suspicions like this thread and almost all of it's posts ain't bringing us closer to retrieving what has been taken from us.

The reaction of unnamed people represented as being close to Obama, in reference to how comments made by Hillary are about Obama, as distributed in a "news" article, are as supportive of your suspicions about Hillary's intent, as you permit them to be.....

Me ???? I want my fucking fourth amendment protection back, god damn it!!!
Why aren't Hillary, Obama, Obama's unnamed aides, and the press talking about that?

Really???????

How big of news is it that this messiah, this Saviour, this great soon to be president....... stated there were 57 STATES...... that's right people 57 states in the US of A. Not 50.... last time I counted there were 50.....

Can anyone name the 57 states??????

Here's the link WATCH IT and make excuses for this man then.


A link talking about how no major news agency carried this:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...uayles-potatoe

But this says it best:

We read about all these every day..... headlines these are...... demands for clarity are made from all the major news sources........ ummmmmm yeah.

Look at how Bush was teated for his mispronouncing words.... I called him the village idiot..... but Obama makes him look like a Rhodes scholar.

Where is the news coverage of all Obama's gaffes, mistakes and idiotic comments?????????? WHERE?????????

Ohhhh yeah, only from right winged news sources that take all of these out of context..... but Hilary and McCain say something and EVERY news agency jumps on it and makes sure it's blown way out of proportion.

WOW.... I fear for our country.

Whoa....we need clean up in the Politics aisle...another meltdown!

But thanks for taking out the OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) reference, pan!

BTW, for presidential voting, there are in fact 51 "states"....Washington, DC is counted as a "state" for electoral college voting.

50 states, 1 district that is a far cry from 57.

No problem..... but now that you mention it...... how many OIC members are there?

damn...dude.

Im not excusing the flub...but most reasonable people might conclude he meant he visited 47, and as noted in the video, he has one to go..not counting AK and HI.

And if education is your sole criteria for determining qualifications for Pres, I would take a guy who graduated at the top of his Harvard law school class (and was editor of law review) over a guy who graduated in the bottom third of his class at the Naval Academy.

Ummmmmm unless you were born like ummmmmm I don't know before 1959 and never went to school, read a newspaper, watched tv or travelled.... I can see how maybe you might believe there are only 48 states...... and Michigan and Florida don't count because he didn't campaign in those states....

I think you are truly stretching and trying to find an excuse.

But again, where is the news coverage? That was my point, there slick.

And, no the person I want as president doesn't have to be an overly intelligent man..... but being able to state 50 states, with no need for excuses. Hell, I would want the president to know all 50 states and the majority of state capitols.

And then there are all those other gaffes and misstatements that I have listed that haven't gotten hardly any press at all....... but had it been anyone other than the anointed one, the messiah, the great Saviour, Barack Hussein Obama ..... the press would have jammed each one down our throats until every last one of us had heard about them.

(Oooopsie please forgive me, I used his middle name.)

BTW again, how many countries are in the OIC?

Capitols are buildings.....cities are capitals.

And there are 57 muslim nations in the OIC....and I am not surprised that rightwing rags (and you) would suggest some hidden meaning in Obama's slip.

If he wins, do you believe he will take the oath of office on a Koran or that he is secretly a muslim and stopped wearing a flag pin because of some muslim belief?

Its this kind of bullshit that he, unlike other candidates, has to encounter at every stop.

_dux, the talking points framing this on salem talk radio was, "Here is Obama when he is tired....he doesn't even notice he has misspoken and that the crowd is laughing at him"....a president cannot "get tired" or be off his mark in crisis.....(Remember the look on the decider's face as he sat paralyzed in the classroom with the Pet Goat book in his hand?)...and "what kind of a president admits that his staff tell him where he can and cannot go?"

I have to agree with pan.....some of the posts here seem so invested in Obama the phenomenon, the larger than life figure, who, despite a generally hostile press treatment, soldiers on....to unity and victory in a new age of racial and political harmony.....

whoa, _dux....kinda harsh, especially since Abaya's "pass, what pass" post was ripe for pan's response. I don't expect you're wearing a set of patented Obama blinders, too?

host..I think I am grounded in reality and understand how the rightwing hacks will play up every Obama miscomment....and as i noted, how he has to deal with questions of his patriotism and religion at every stop.

That hasnt detracted from the millions of new voters that he will bring to the election this year...something that neither Clinton nor McCain can match.

What I really look forward to are the possibility of McCain-Obama unmoderated town meetings (as proposed by McCain and accepted by Obama) and the moderated debates.

Just FYI (although I see this thread has already degenerated in the direction I expected), if Clinton somehow gets the nomination, I'll fuckin' vote for her. However, that doesn't mean I can't still be critical of her mistakes as a candidate. I am an Obama supporter first and a Democrat voter next, at least when it comes to this election. But I still find it appalling that Hillary, so carefully schooled in the art of soundbites, made such a grievous error.

abaya, what motivated you to embrace your conclusion so strongly that you also created and structured this thread, in the manner that you did?

Isn't there enough of this issueless "stuff" coming from the other side?

Consider what a difference two days and a sound bite from Clinton made on the opinion of this pundit:
Why are you more upset by Clinton's remarks than the republican sympathizer, Randall Beck, an eyewitness to Clinton's statement and it's context, and RFK Jr., the son of the assaasination victim who Clinton referred to?

What influenced Bill Burton to say anything at all? He makes a condemnation of Clinton, of behalf of the Obama campaign, based on.....what? Isn't it on the spin of third parties who have interpreted what Clinton said, but who were not present?

We don't need to do this. What is the point of it? We are united in our goal of voting out the republican control of the executive branch, in 2008.

Both democratic candidates have battled to the point of exhaustion. I think we agree that Hillary can blame no one more than herself for her present, almost hopeless position.

Obama has run a better campaign, is more likeable, more exciting, and seems like he is going to win the nomination. I see no need for the negative gesture I perceive in doing thiis thread. I couild have doen a "57 States" thread, but that's something for the other side to feature.

I heard the sound bite, with Obama saying it like he meant it....I decided that he was tired....that's it....not unpresidential, just tired from campaigning. I'm not anti-Obama.....I'm impressed by him, but not inspired, and I am worried that he can't beat McCain, and I've posted why.

I think that Clinton has a better chance of beating McCain. I've posted why. Let's agree to leave it to the other side to attack both Obama and Clinton, and to vote in November for whoever is the democratic candidate running against McCain. Deal?

I agree with you. I think her remark was completely out of line. She's been pushing this "he might get assassinated" BS for a while now. I find it kind odd the press gave her a pass for so long. But if given the choice between Hillary and McCain I'd have to hold my nose and vote for her.


I see a big difference between repeatedly bringing up RFK's assassination as one reason you'd continue in a mathematically impossible battle and gaffing one time on the number of states. Seriously when you start adding up the number of actual primary votes I'm not so sure you couldn't end up with 57. Let's see 50 states, plus D.C. then add in American Sonoma, Expats abroad, Guam and their voting and campaigning today in Puerto Rico. That's get you to 55 primaries, just off the top of my head perhaps I'm missing two? I don't know and granted they're not all states, but they all have votes in the primary. I see this a lot less of issue then Hillary's repeated inappropriate remarks.

Edit:

I forgot about the US Virgin Islands. They held a primary right? That brings the total to 56. If the Northern Mariana Islands, another US commonwealth, also holds/held a primary then you have 57.

i'm way more offended by her fudging the facts about her husband's nomination. he had that puppy all but wrapped up in March

Maybe he made a mistake and spoke to soon about his plan to take over Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mexico and Canada ;) and make them into states.

Aren't there 57 Islamic states? ;)

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

There's also Heinz 57..... maybe he thought he was John Kerry.

The US seems to be already working on Iraq and Afghan. And the they took nearly half, if not more(?), of Mexico years ago. Also there's a reason they're called the "US" Virgin Islands. Plus we already have Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Marianas'. So, that just leaves Canada. Once the removal of oil from shale is perfected... Well, I'll let you do your own math on that one.

"War Plan -Red"...from the 1930s and declassified in the 70s.
Hillary can stand on the tarmac at Toronto airport and claim how dangerous it was to face incoming mortar fire.
("I remember landing under sniper fire...")

And McCain can walk the streets of Montreal..proclaiming it safe, while wearing a flack jacket and being surrounded by armed US guards in humvees. ("..you can walk the streets of Baghdad safely.")

I think "57" is really the spirit of some lost soul being channeled by limousine-liberal presidential candidates. There may be actual evidence.

Here's the classic Dukakis "Beetle Bailey" picture.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3078/...830ce452_m.jpg

Now here is a picture that was taken from that same photo-shoot recently featured on SciFi's Ghost Hunters.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2262/...1612f042_m.jpg

Did you notice the eerie image appearing in place of Micheal Dukakis's face? Is it a coincidence?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3160/...d809fc7943.jpg

Perhaps the curse will finally be lifted ... like for the Boston Red Sox. Very mysterious.

To me...the President is supposed to be elected by the will of the people. If people are pushing her out... you'd think she'd be aware that maybe people don't want her as President. You can't become president just because you want the title, despite the lack of national support - We're not a Divine Right country.

Maybe she's just not willing to become British to be the next Queen Elizabeth.

Clinton hopes out loud someone might shoot Obama, backtracks later...
 

What a disaster for the Democrat party this woman is.

It is getting to the point that it actually seems she is working for the Republicans. She seems determined to damage the movement and the party as much as she can, even at her own expense.

She has no path to victory for at least a month, but still she is here slinging mud at the Democrat candidate.

The 57 state thing was very clearly an example of misspeaking. There are only a few options here: 1) Obama actually thinks there are 57 states (one would have to be as much of an idiot as they apparently think Obama is in order to believe this, considering his educational background (graduated top of Harvard Law) as well as career background (professor of constitutional law at another prestigious law school, University of Chicago)), 2) Obama let slip that he he's a secret Islamic plant (in which case, one would have to be a major conspiracy theorist and probably even more of an idiot than in option 1, and 3) Obama was tired, meant to say 47 (which fits perfectly with having one more state to go, not counting AK and HI), and said 57 instead. It's amusing that he didn't notice his mistake - well worth a joke or two on The Daily Show - but nothing more.

Pan: There's really no sense in anyone here going through each of Michelle Malkin's points one by one. You've reached a point now where you're quoting someone who is so far on the right wing fringe that John McCain is completely ignoring her, even while pursuing (and, to his minor credit, eventually rejecting) such crazies as John Hagee. Now think about that: John McCain thinks Hagee is more worth his time than Michelle Malkin. Fox News Commentator and frequent O'Reilly Factor guest Geraldo Rivera dislikes her so much that he said he'd spit on her if they were in the same city. That's how crazy she is.

And if that doesn't drive the point home enough:

You'll have to forgive me for not thinking anything Michelle Malkin says is worth my time or effort.

I'd hit it.


wait, what? oh crap, politics! RUN!

is the above a joke?

or is there seriously a movement to boycott a coffee seller because they ran an advert with a woman wearing a black and white scarf?

Is this from theonion or something?

I hope it is. I really do... Nobody can be that delusional or stupid.

Nope! People really are that dumb. Malkin's cut from the same bolt of fabric as the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh et el. Say whatever lunatic thing that comes to mind as long as it will help sell books and keep your face in the news.

I don't care about Malkin, and yes she is a cut below Ann Coulter.... my point was that was the only article demonstrating Obama's gaffes that were not shown in an major press.

Now if you want to tell me those gaffes were not truly said by Obama or show me the context in which those gaffes were said..... I'm willing to listen.

But if he said those, and they are in that context, then something IMHO is wrong with the man.

pan....the fact that you didnt bother to find out about the context of Obama's "gaffes" yourself...but rather chose to post Malkin...and declare that Obama is a "fucking idiot"... made your position crystal clear.

It says to me that you posted Malkin because it was the only thing you could find to reinforce your pre-conceived opinion.

Ditto.

actually, I suggest that if you think Malkin is wrong, you show she is wrong. Saying you don't like Malkin doesn't mean that what she said isn't true. She wasn't stating it as opinion, she was gathering what was presented as facts. Is she wrong in her research or not? She might be, but you haven't shown that.

Some things are true even if Michelle Malkin says them. If she said the sun rose in the east you wouldn't say it didn't happen merely because someone you disagree with politically said so.

actually, I suggested that if pan thinks Obama is a "fucking idiot"..he should prove it with something beyond "gaffes" that every candidate makes during a course of a campaign (misstating the current location of a speech, misstating numbers, etc).

Such gaffes are commonplace and far different than intentionally misleading the voters:

Clinton: "I remember landing under sniper fire....(in Bosnia)"

McCain: "You can walk the streets of Baghdad safely...." (while wearing body armour and surrounded by troops and blackhawk helicopters....his proof that the surge was working.)

loquitor....do you think any reasonable person would conclude that Obama was referring to the 57 states in the OIC (because he is secretly a muslim) as Malkin/Limbaugh inferred when he misstated the number of states he had visited?

I would suggest the Malkin (Limbaugh, et al) puts out crap like that "57 states in the OIC" inference (or the Rachel Ray wearing a keffiyeh in ad ad) for one purpose...to feed the ignorance and/or prejudice of their readers/viewers, who jump all over it (including pan, who initially posted the "57 muslim states", before wisely deleting it.)

Yeah, sorry but I've done enough fact checking on Malkin's comments and statements. At some point I simply can't trust anything the lady says. It's been around 120F daily here for weeks. If I heard Malkin announce the sun would be rising again tomorrow, in the east or west, it's likely I'd run out and buy an alternate heating source.

And no I don't think Ms Ray is wearing anything in the DD ad to support the terrorists. Asinine, simply asinine.

Here ya go, _dux. IMO, compared to the unwavering attacks on Clinton, if you only compare Obama's background vs his media coverage to the Clinton's White Water land "deal", Obama has gotten a free ride. He is no more straightforward or ethical than Clinton. At least we all know and admit to ourselves who and what she is...... the Kool-Ade induced comments I am reading on this forum and all over the web, related to Obama, baffle me.... it's quite a con. I'm too cynical to take a sip. Hope and unity are not enough to ignore this. Be sure to watch the NBC video, re: the Obama residence and Rezko's lot. It cannot be sold, and it was never intended to be, when Rezko purchased it, IMO. The "kicker" was when he sold a portion of it to Obama, after the double closing on the house and lot. It is as if that was done to make double sure that no one would ever be interested in buying Rezko's remaining share.....blatant bribe, or total stupidity on Rezko's part? I doubt it.

<h2>Obama, "I did not have realty relations with THIS INDIVIDUAL !"</h2>

Can you not see that Obama's debate answer is akin to Clinto and Monica, and Bush claiming he hardly knew "Kenny-Boy", Lay? Vote for Obama, reluctantly, as the lesser evil of the shittyest candidates we could ever imagine, but stop pretending that he is above the fray. He's just another greedy, elitest, politician, selling out his constituent's interests in the interest of his own.
The Obama Rezko real estate "deal" stinks:

host...personally, I think the Obama/Rezko connection has been blown out of proportion...there is no quid pro quo. I would agree with you if we were discussion Blagojevich.

Nothing like McCain's inserting language in a bill for a land deal to benefit Suncorp Development Co./Pinnacle West or the Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership

actually, I'd cut Obama some slack on the 57 thing...... he's been keeping 18 hr days for 18 months, it stands to reason he'll make small slip-ups like that.

I wonder how many hard working white people think that Obama is so stupid he doesn't know how many states there are and how many latte liberals think Hillary is so evil she's hoping for a timely assassination. These important issues are probably good for a few more news cycles.:confused:

Maybe it felt like 57.

That's the point...... If you are President of the USA and we are in crisis and you are up working hard with your advisers/congress/whomever...... I want someone who has ice in their veins can make a decision and right or wrong stand by it.

"Obama was tired, cut him some slack for this, anyone in their right mind would know he meant 47...... this is just all political"

18 hr days for 18 months????? come on f/t college students that work do that.... mothers do that....... some average Americans do that.

And exactly how hard is an Obama 18 hr day? Is he digging ditches? Is he out there writing these speeches by himself? How much of that 18 hr day is truly out in public and the rest in a comfy cozy private jet, hotel room, drinking espresso with a Time Magazine reporter?

To say he was too tired to know that there were 50 states, and excuse that???? Come on now, that's sheer idiocy.

<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24798368#24798368" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>


I don't watch TV and I only read the newspaper about twice a month, so as you can imagine, I'm clueless to most of what is going on in the world. A friend was telling about what she said and played this video for me. And when I saw this thread I thought I'd share it.

I listened to this and thought "Wow. He's a great speaker."

The delegate count has moved higher for both but the song and dance remains the same.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e...max/hillee.gif

Hillary Clinton will stay in the race as long as possible because of a purely self serving interest in becoming President of the United States. She appears to be driven by an ideology that somehow this office is duly hers and that she is rightfully entitled to the Democratic nomination which is merely a speed bump on the way to a coronation she's been planning for at least 8 years.

In December she was ahead in pledged delegates (super), polls, and money. Now she trails across the board and it's clear she is incredulous and more desperate at the idea that an upstart with no real political metal has upstaged her at the very moment she's been waiting and planning for in all these years.

Instead of bowing out with grace, dignity, and a noble or perhaps stately intent cognizant of the fact that even if she splits the remaining delegate count she simply cannot win the nomination she chooses to lumber on in the hope that somehow the numbers and fate can twist in her favor. In typical Clinton fashion she continues to ride this failed campaign while attempting to weave any possible scenario that will give her the nomination she so desperately covets.

Michigan and Florida voters got the shaft by the Democratic Party. Clearly the Clinton’s party influence under estimated just how important those two states would be to the coronation they once felt so surely would be bestowed upon the Mrs. Had they a clue that a once seemingly insurmountable lead in the polls would be blown out of the water in South Carolina they may have played the Michigan and Florida cards differently. They assumed that Michigan and Florida were irrelevant then and were unwilling to fight the party bosses to let their delegates be seated and be counted. They may have even ran a slightly different campaign perhaps even geared toward solving the problems faced by the United States instead of this ideological food fight that even if at one point was saleable because of the Clinton name obviously would not hold up to the fresh face of change. Change from the name Clinton. Change from the name Bush. Change from 16 years of business as usual that has us in a pretty tall barrel of pickles.

Hillary Clinton is a very sad and tired story that should wrap up soon for the sake of the Democratic Party. Women deserve a better chance at the highest office in US politics and that day will come soon.

As for the ongoing ideological food fight we have no real idea who Barack Obama or John McCain really are as potential presidents but this is absolutely true: The next President of the United States will face the toughest opening act a sitting president of this country has ever faced.

We are at war in two countries with the kind of religious fanaticism that knows no end. We have no real or identifiable energy policy that is actively managing a reduction in dependence on fossil fuels. We have an education system that is producing the 16th rated student scores in math and science in the world relative to other countries at the very time when those aspects of education hold the very to our economic existence. We have an aging population in the form of “Baby Boomers” whose impact on Social Security and Medicare threaten the very economic life blood they worked so hard to create. We have a porous border patrol and emigration policy that has allowed a significant portion of our economy to become dependent upon a labor force that some would expel because they perform low wage jobs without benefits that other Americans simply won’t do. We have countless other issues that deserve far more attention than Reverend Wright or Monica Lewinsky or any of the other nonsensical mud that these campaigns insist on slinging at each other.

The next President of the United States, be it man or woman, black, white, Latino, or Asian, Jew, Catholic, or Muslim will have to have the imagination, dedication, and fortitude to push the needle forward in ways we have not been able to in conjure in the last 16 years.

"You cannot take your place in the long line of those who came before you simply by sitting in front of a screen or at a keyboard. Life away from the keyboard, the PDA and the cell phone is a life in which you connect to the websites of your personal convictions, and that is an obligation you must carry with you the rest of your days." -- Tom Brokaw, Author – "The Greatest Generation".

holy shit, I don't think i've seen a proper asschewing in a very long time, and that, my friend, delivers, and then some.

Olbermann's special comments usually are an ass chewing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16270176/

So are mine...SHEEESH !!!!

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...28#post2457128

IMO, the point is that there is not a candidate (any time in recent history) who would meet your unreasonable standard of NEVER making a "gaffe" in a campaign speech or face being called a "fucking idiot".

There are certainly reasons why many will not for vote for Obama, but this one is based purely on emotion and a vitriolic dislike for the man. Thats cool, you can vote for or against any candidate for any reason...just dont try to pass it off as a reasoned approach to your decision making.

There is just no rationale for this argument unless the same standard is applied to all candidates...in which case....why not suggest just calling off the election....they are all "fucking idiots,"

and there we have it. The knockout blow.

Again, the gaffes I pointed out came from my answering this Abaya question

I proved that he got passes for each of those because the only place they were found were in an article in which you reemed the writer BUT have not once denied that Obama said any of those.

So you can say whatever you wish, to me I do not like Obama Sam I am..... I will not vote for him in a car, nor in a voting booth near or far.... I will not vote for him Sam I am.

It's not because of the gaffes.... it's because he HAS gotten away with too much, it is because he is new and no one knows jack about him, it is because for 20 years he sat in a pastor's sermons and then denies he did denies he heard any of the negative things.... and if anyone says ANYTHING against the man they are deemed racist and hateful.... but everyone else running has to be very careful and gets crucified for everything? Come on now even the village idiot can see this election is becoming a fix. If McCain gets crucified for everything he says, Hilary, anyone that speaks out against the man.... and yet the man can say anything he wants and noone better say a peep against him....... fuck that bullshit, someone wants him elected badly, the question becomes why? So there you have it, why I will not vote for Barack Hussein Obama.

I guess I will be saying McCain in '08...... I'd rather say Hilary, Edwards, Biden, ANYONE but Obama.

Pan, all the candidates get passes on some things, and none of the candidates get passes on all things. There's no reason for the press to report on things like the 57 states mistake because 1) it's just plain not news, period, end of story, but also 2) they were busy reporting on things that are more newsworthy, such as Rev. Wright. I don't agree with a lot of the reporting, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize the Rev. Wright story is 1000x more newsworthy than Obama accidentally saying 57 instead of 47.

Or if you want to talk about Obama admitted to not knowing about something that was related to a bill he voted on... first off, the bill - based on Malkin's own description - didn't relate exclusively to that particular location, and it's entirely possible to vote on a bill without knowing every single nuance of its effect. I don't disagree that, ideally, votes would be cast only after knowing every last detail of what a bill does and does not do...but I also like to spend some time in this zone we call "reality" and acknowledge that every lawmaker does, and has to do quite often, what Obama clearly did. It's why they have staffers who help them do research and report back to them, because there is just not enough time for every lawmaker to personally research every bill that comes up for a vote. It's also why presidential candidates take time to travel all around the country, so that they can have first hand experiences exactly like Obama had.

And let's not forget to mention, Clinton has also gotten a pass in the mainstream media when it comes to having not read the NIE before voting on the Iraq resolution. As for McCain, the list of passes he has gotten is already excruciatingly long. The time he misspoke and Lieberman had to correct him got relatively little airplay considering McCain's #1 argument for his candidacy is that he's the best option for our foreign policy.

it's because you're a racist, pan. duh.

I hope that is in jest, but to be honest, I don't give a damn anymore. I have stated here before how a few years ago if you spoke out against Bush your patriotism was called, yet the argument was and the fact was speaking OUT was patriotic.... You can disagree with the president and government in this country and still love it.......

Somewhere along the line though, some seem to have forgotten that and now if you speak out against Obama..... you are a racist, you are a hater, you are a divider, you are the enemy of the state.

Yet, if you speak out against Hilary or McCain it's ok you are not an ageist, a chauvinist, etc. You are a patriotic American and practicing your right to free speech.

Does no one else see that as scary, sad and wrong?

There are plenty of valid ways to express a negatiive opinion about Obama. There are also plenty of complaints which have strong racial undertones. To deny that the issue of racism is very present in this campaign is to be ignorant of the facts. It hasn't been reported much - partly because the Obama campaign doesn't want to draw too much attention to the issue - but there have been many instances of racist vandalism and hate speech directed at campaign headquarters and volunteers. I've also seen it firsthand, in an area where I wouldn't necessarily expect it (Chicago suburbs, congressional district that voted for Kerry in '04): the democratic headquarters where I've been volunteering lately (not for Obama, but for the area's congressional campaign) was vandalized with "nigger" written on the windows. It's worth mentioning that not only does the office have Obama signs in the windows, but the Democratic congressional candidate for the area is also of mixed ethnicity. The racism is very real, and it's very present...most people have just learned to express such opinions in other ways ( ). The funny thing about racism is that someone who is racist, pretty much by definition, is incapable of recognizing that fact. That's how you get people who say things like "I'm not racist or anything, I just can't vote for a black man." Uh...yes...yes, you are racist. Most people have learned to have a little more tact with their racism though, so instead there's the focus on his name, rumors about how he's Muslim, or when that doesn't work there's always the "look at the scary black man!" approach.

Pan, those "criticisms" are racist. If you want to criticize Obama, talk about his voting record, or talk about his policy proposals, or even talk about something to do with his personality. Personality traits are certainly fair game - I think Clinton is a terrible loser and incapable of admitting defeat, and that's not something I want in a president. Some people think Obama is arrogant - I disagree, and I happen to think McCain's ego far surpasses that of Clinton and Obama combined, but if you want to talk about why you feel Obama is arrogant and therefore don't think he'd make a good president, that's fine. But no amount of feigning innocence after talking about "Barack Hussein Obama" can change that there's no reason to bring up his middle name unless you're trying to emphasize something.

Similarly, there are plenty of valid ways to criticize Clinton, and plenty of sexist ways to do so. As for McCain, I don't think it's ageist to express concern over his age, considering he'd be the oldest first term president ever elected, but I also don't think there's much to be concerned about there so that line of criticism is a waste of time.

Most importantly, it's not the Obama camp which cries racism every time someone criticizes him - they're doing everything they can to keep race out of the picture, even when it means playing down the numerous acts of racist violence the campaign has experienced. Instead, it's Clinton who claims it's sexist - demonstrating that she doesn't own a dictionary - that some people think she should withdraw. People aren't saying she should withdraw because she's a woman (that would be sexist); people are saying she should withdraw because she lost (at least by the metric most every previous presidential candidate has used to decide when to withdraw). I've been working with a number of Clinton supporters in my area's Congressional campaign, and they understand this...one has to wonder, why doesn't she?

um, I don't think Hillary Clinton was referring to the possible assassination of Barack Obama when she made that comment. I just don't see it. She's referring to the fact that there was still a race in June which is why she has ignored calls for her to quit. And people have been pushing her to quit, we had a discussion about it right here a few months ago when some Democrats made public statements suggesting it.

I am an Obama supporter, but I will vote for Clinton if she pulls off the nomination. And if you're going to vote Democrat, you're going to be voting and supporting one of them. And it may not be the one you want. So you may want to prepare yourself for that possibility and not shit on her now.

I will never understand the vilification of Hillary Clinton by people in her own party. I just don't get it. She's just a politician like many before her. I don't see any glaring dissimilarities from any other Democratic politician. Let it rest, please.

If she were to miraculously pull off the nomination, I'd probably vote for her, but it really deserves to be said that she was not (and has not been) pointing out facts at all, not with regards to history, nor her chances of winning or deserving the nomination.

I completely agree she wasn't referring to the possible assassination of Obama (though, Olbermann has it right that assassination is not something she should have brought up in the first place), but that's not what's most offensive about her statements anyway. What's offensive is her own twisting of the history, and assumption that we're too stupid to notice. The 1968 primary season didn't start until mid-March, and so her "June" is really the equivalent of this year's early April. And then there's her husband's nomination, which she has little excuse for misunderstanding. That primary season began in early February, so her "June" is really this year's May. Not to mention that while he may not have clinched the nomination until the CA primary in June, the other candidate's saw the writing on the wall and got out of his way (for the most part, and anyone that didn't was entirely negligible). For her to ignore these facts, and twist the history to make it sound like she's not doing anything unusual by sticking around even though it is almost a certain impossibility for her to win, and worse yet, to sometimes insinuate that it's sexism that is driving people to want her to get out of the way, like most previous presidential candidates have had the decency to do once the writing was on the wall, is offensive. At a certain point, her Baghdad Hillary moments go beyond normal political spin and it becomes very difficult to maintain the same level of respect for her.

Well, I agree with you that those factors make a big difference in the efficacy of her comparisons. Thanks for the rational illumination.

And no, I don't think that sexism is necessarily behind all criticism of her, but I think it is behind a great deal of it. Especially when it comes to this (what I interpret as) irrational dislike of her, similar to what we see in regards to Obama...

Yeah, it depends on the individual. Personally, over the past three and a half months I've gone from only slightly preferring Obama over her, to being mildly annoyed by the way she's run her campaign, to now actively disliking the idea of her as president (though not nearly as much as I dislike the idea of McCain as president). My own experience shapes my perspective, I'm sure, but I get the impression that most people who are actively upset at her right now went down a similar path to mine. At the very least, I know that my friends and other people I've talked to face-to-face have gone down this path. Those opinions aren't rooted in sexism.

There are also people who have disliked her from the beginning, and I'm sure sexism plays a role in a lot of that. I'm just not sure I agree that that's where the majority of dissatisfaction with her is coming from right now.

I'm going on the last, mostly, two years in which her candidacy has been hinted at and what I considered to be over-the-top negative comments about her propagated by citizen Democrats. Starting with that 'other place' I used to hang out at and carried over to here. It was so bad that sometimes you couldn't tell a Democrat from a Republican quoting 90's Newt Gingrich. And it's always puzzled me because it seemed, then and now, to come out of nowhere and was based on NOTHING. She wasn't even running, yet.

I don't know. But everything fucking confuses me anymore.

Count me in that group as well. I had absolutely no problems with Hillary up until a few months ago... but right around the same time that the whole Reverend Wright thing blew up (the first time), that was when the tide shifted for me. I started leaning towards Obama from an otherwise neutral position between him and Hillary, and I've just kept leaning more and more heavily towards him as time goes on.

My problem with Hillary is the same problem i had with Bill. Both of them are too willing to compromise and triangulate for what they think are political gains. The House of Clinton's Gingrich-era thinking help make the countless meaningless deaths & 4 trillion dollar Iraq debacle possible. What's more, it didn't help Hillary a bit. Just the opposite; had she opposed the war, she would have the nomination wrapped up by now.

I don't believe for a minute that Hillary C. really believed the bullshit that Bush & crew was peddling. I think that she thought that Bush was dealing from a position of strength, and that the best way to survive was to join the sales force.

Oops.

A year ago I would have damn near did an "any of the above" on the Dem side. Simply don't think we can continue down the massive unnatural disaster that is the Bush Administration and the GOP. Sometime during the past six to nine months as I watched Hillary and Co. run her campaign I started leaning toward Edwards or Obama. When Edwards tanked that left Obama. Do I think he's prefect? Umm, No. Would I vote for her over McCain? Hell yes.

Well Tully, I'd have to agree with you. But I was so hoping to not have another "lesser of the evils" election. . . .

Daniel Schorr had a good, quick commentary on the situation today on NPR's All Things Considered: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...64878&ft=1&f=2

IMHO, every election is a "lesser of two evils." Comedian Groucho Marx used to say "I'd never be a member of any club that would have me as a member." I think he was talking about politics. Anymore by the time most of these people get to the point of being elected they've sold their souls.

Marx was a comedian? :)

Yeah, it's amazing how much of the soul most be sold. But even more so is the fact that America is still willing to put up with it. One of these days we are gonna have to do something about it. . .

The associated press has officially released the tally that we've had for a few days now, making Obama the official nominee. Hillary is expected to bitterly concede tonight, or continue to be stubborn and become the next Ron Paul. :thumbsup:

To no one's huge surprise, she mentioned nothing about conceding last night. What really struck me though, was the contrast in how they praised each other. While Obama was extremely respectful and showed great admiration for Hillary's hard work, her speech said very little about his accomplishments and was purposely vague. In fact, it was phrased in such a way that sounds like what she would have said if she had won the nomination. What a narcissist.

Ah, I'm just glad it's finally over. Let the REAL campaign begin, now!!! :thumbsup:

Obama's speech was jaw-droppingly flattering to Hillary. I found it interesting how he recognized all of her accomplishments as the first woman running for president, etc... but she didn't mention anything about the historic nature of HIS nomination.

I also don't understand why she has to hold out on conceding, as some kind of political leverage to getting the VP slot?... Why can't she just concede, and then let the VP deal be a separate issue? I guess I'm missing some part of the technicalities, here.

No, you're not missing any technicalities... that's just how they play the game. She hasn't given an inch throughout the entire campaign and even tried to change the rules in her favor, so it's not surprising. Using it as leverage is exactly what she's doing, and if she doesn't get her way, I wouldn't be surprised if she refuses do endorse Obama at all.

I really hope he doesn't tap her for Veep. Though, over McCain, I'd support, donate and vote for that ticket.

Her behavior in this election has left me some what ill.

The more I think about this, the more pissed off it makes me. She has now officially lost, and she is still in denial. If you go to her website, it asks you to "Stand with Hillary" and send a message of support. Is she serious? Not only is she asking people to feed her ego, but to "stand with Hillary" as if it were still her against the rest of the Democrats. She hasn't even hinted at uniting the party against John McCain... it's still all about her.

dirtyrascal7: and if you sign the pledge to stand with her, it asks you for more money. It's really sickening.

She needs to try and fill the $10m hole she's dug herself.

I "stood with Hillary" and sent in a message hoping that she will help remind the shrieking Hillary fans that have popped up on youtube recently that they're still Democrats.

I SERIOUSLY hope that she's taking this time to work on how to undo the damage she's done and return her "silenced 18 Million" to the Democratic fold. That's the benefit of the doubt I'm giving her.

That doesn't make it any less disgusting. She's now lost by any metric you can use, and she's still trying to dupe her supporters into giving her money. If she were to say "hey, I've got a lot of campaign debt from fighting for you, can you help me pay it off?" I wouldn't have a problem, but that's not what she's doing.

I got an email from Hillary at 2:00am this morning, presumably because I put myself on a list when I submitted my comment I mentioned in pos #88. This is VERY GOOD NEWS.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/margins.swf

Oh my god. Just... god...

Hillaryis44.org is run by lunatics. seriously, if you didn't see the URL or the banner, you'd swear it was a neo-con website. how can so called democrats pile on that much BS and vitriol against Obama?

She's become the kid on the play ground who threatens to take her ball and go home if the game doesn't go the way she wants. Someone needs to explain it's not her ball and it never was, it always belonged to the voters. Now, largely due to her actions and behaviors, there's a large number of voters out there that are, rightfully or not, upset.

I'll be interested in seeing how she handles things in the coming months. Though at this point I don't expect much. In fact given the way she ran her campaign I will not be surprised to see her begin her 2012 bid on Saturday.

Wow, that is pretty damn awesome. I've read all the exit poll data before, but it's still very interesting to see it arranged like that.

Pretty incredible to see the overall demographic differences, and the regional preferences as well.

The shift in preference according to age is pretty encouraging. I definitely think we'll have a minority president in our lifetime, but I still have doubts about one in our grandparents' lifetime. Old people love to vote, and there are a damn lot of them.

One other thing... the fact that the less educated people preferred Clinton over Obama has me somewhat worried. Educated people would probably be more likely to base their vote on logic, while less educated people would probably base it on emotion or previous biases. So if those Clinton voters feel somehow cheated or wronged... are they smart enough to realize how irrational it is to vote for McCain over Obama just because Clinton lost? I think Obama supporters would generally notice that and shift their support to Clinton, but I have some doubts about Clinton supporters doing the same for Obama.

I'll break it down:
More men voted for Obama and more women for Hillary
All blacks (by state) voted for Obama and most whites voted for Hillary
Young people voted more for Obama and older people for Hillary
Upper class voted for Obama and middle for Hillary
More education for Obama and less for Hillary

Holy crap does that communicate biases.

Thanks for the link. That was interesting. I would have liked to have seen more detail (e.g. gender within race, etc.).

Agreed. I see this more as a case of "you take what you can get".

How is that at all surprising?

That was their reported support bases throughout this entire debacle.

It's disenchanting to see this level of bias. Clearly people still aren't ready to vote yet.

The site shows clear biases based on gender and race (no surprise there), but it also shows that the whole thing about Obama having a problem with the working class is a load of crap.

Both Clinton and Obama each had 12 states where they won the under 15k demographic. Clinton won 15-30k in 21 states while Obama won it in 12 states...that's not a terribly large difference all things considered (and 5 of Clinton's 15-30k wins were within 10 points, while only 3 of Obama's were, so it could have reasonably ended up 19-14 in that demographic, or even 17-16 Obama). It's important to remember that those 15-30k voters are also of a particular race and gender. What the site data shows is that the biases, at their core, lie in race and gender.

The fact less educated people support Clinton isn't a bias, it's just a demographic trend. That Clinton easily won the 60+ vote and Obama easily won the under 30 vote...that could be a bias, but I think it's more likely just a demographic trend. At the very least, it'd be tough to convince me that the under 30 vote is biased against Clinton's age, but I'd be willing to consider that the over 60 vote is biased against Obama's youth. Nonetheless, I don't see it. Get to the core of it all and it's race and gender.