I got a little news for you. Just because Obama is finally questioning her experience does not mean that McCain would not HAMMER her on it. That ad would be very effective against either Hillary or Obama coming from McCain. Hillary's "35 years of experience" is such a crock of shit, especially when you consider what she includes in that 35 years as being legit experience. McCain has around 25 years of ACTUAL legislative experience, and I'd say his time in the military is a hell of a lot more important as far as the commander-in-chief role is concerned than her time as a corporate lawyer or being on the board of Wal-Mart, both of which she includes in her 35 years. Barack has played nice and given her a free pass on this up until yesterday, but McCain will not.

As for Donna Brazile, she has said she will quit the party if the superdelegates overturn the will of the people.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/dem.delegates/

"If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this," Brazile said.

Florida and Michigan will have their say, but Barack will get his chance to campaign in those states. There will be another primary. I am confident of this. In fact, there was a big meeting in Congress about it last night. The only fair thing to do is to allow each candidate to campaign there and each candidate to actually have their name on the ballot. If you don't, then you've got to penalize the states if you seat them. Take away 25-50% of their delegates. Hillary will likely still win but not by the margins she did when Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and wasn't able to campaign in Florida.

It's funny that she wants to change the rules only after things aren't going her way. It reminds me of some of the kids I went to grade shool with. If she really didn't approve of the superdelegate aspect of the nomination process, why didn't she speak up before the primaries began?



(The "will of the people" nonsense being spouted in this regard is especially hilarious! )

She's a Clinton supporter.

That's an interesting reduction. Ms. Brazile is a bit more than that in the Democratic party...

Well yes, I'm just saying she has more ties to Clinton than Obama. She just wants the popular vote to win the nomination regardless of who it is.

I would be willing to bet that if the tables were turned and Hillary was the one ahead and Obama were making this argument, the Hillary supporters would be screaming that it's wrong for the superdelegates to ignore the will of the people.

I mean, how undemocratic can you get? The people vote one way and the insiders veto the people's choice and put in their own insider candidate -- thus confirming Obama's comment that Hillary is just another Washington politician who won't bring change. I think if that happens, you are going to see a real rip in the democratic party, and a lot of these people who are excited about politics will just stay home or worse yet vote for Ralph Nader in protest.

March 4 is over guys, time to migrate over to the other thread.

A shot at what? She will not overtake him in pledged delegates.

Read this article:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/page/2

Even under a pretty optimistic scenario for Clinton, he would still beat her in pledged delegates. She has a shot no matter what due to superdelegates, but she will not beat him in pledged delegates at this point.

Hey Hillarys a hypocrit? Who knew?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080306/pl ... ediplomacy

Why am I not surprised???

First of all, they both cant have around 1800. Assuming Hillary wins everything 60-40, Obama would be 1680 and Hillary 1640ish. OBVIOUSLY, she isnt going to be winning by 60-40.

Theres no guarentee fla and michigan revote,corpse. no matter how badly clinton needs them, they broke the rules. i know you want her to win but you cant act like they dont exist.

Quote:

redfirebird: She will win MI and FL. And I expect her to win them by double digits. Especially in FL. Maybe greater than she did before because she'll claim she helped get their voices heard.

Very doubtful. This was before Obamania really set in and she only took 50 of the florida vote anyways. Florida would be a 6-7% win for hillary. Michigan has a ton of black people, it would be close. She won Ohio by 10%, black population factor in Id say hillary takes it by 5%.

Quote:

And if neither of them have the 2025 needed (2024 according to some Dean math), it's very possible she will have the Popular Vote lead with a win in PA (should win easy, GOV supporting her, conservative/moderate DEMS and NO REPS OR INDS ARE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE VOTE IN PA), and FL and MI. That, plus OH, Fl, PA, MI, CA, MA, NJ, and NH is going to be too much to pass up. Because it's clear if she wins PA, and the re-do's in MI and FL that she is stronger than Obama in the states that decide the elections.

She won Ohio by 10% and it was due to bama sitting back and playing defense. If he plays offense, like he will not and did pre feb 5, shell get hurt. I would be surprised if she takes penn by more than she did Ohio.

Quote:

OH - Will be close as usual I'm sure, but NAFTA killed Obama there, and it'd continue to haunt him. And OH is all about the Economy. And Clinton wins when it comes to NAFTA and the Economy. So she stands the best chance to take OH, not to mention the GOV's support who is loved in OH.

too bad hillary has been caught having done the same thing-telling canda to take her claims with "a grain of salt" but of course its leaked AFTER the primary. Gotta be some hions who wanna take bavk their votes now

Quote:

FL - This state is nearly perfect for her voting demos. She will cut into McCain's older vote, and get the Lationo support (who's voting numbers have been increasing every election). And FL is all about older voters and latinos.

No, its not perfect. Florida is also loaded with young people-tampa, miami, gainsville, orlando, there a ton of huge colleges all over that state. while hillary will win, itll be another close 3-5% one.

Note, all of these wins by 10% arent too much to brag about. It just shows that if Hillary wasnt in the race, Obama would have just as much if not more support than she does right now.

Quote:

PA - Similar case with OH. The DEMS there are more conservative than most, which favors Clinton over Obama. She has the GOV's support, just like in OH. And to think Obama can win here too, is immature. Kerry barely beat Bush here in 2004, and it was because of the conservative/moderate DEMS who didn't like how liberal he was. And Obama is the more liberal of the two (Clinton and he), and Kerry has endorsed him.

We shall see...every state has shown one thing: hillary starts off big, and obama either closes the gap or over takes her. If she leads polls by 10% or more now, it means obama will probablyt lose but it will be under 10%, possibly 5.

This is a must win state for hillary simply because if she loses it, it would be literally impossible for her to get close to his vote and delegate counts.

Quote:

MI - Will go DEM either way, so it shouldn't matter here. But the terrible Economy means Clinton will fair better. Not to mention, she will claim she was a leading cause in getting their voices heard when they do their re-vote this summer.

Michigans also loaded with blacks-al sharpton won the primary there years ago.

Quote:

CA- Will go DEM either way, but Clinton should fair better due to the Latino vote.

she beat him by 10% on feb 5th, it wouldbe under 5% now. there difference honestly isnt big enough to listen to.

Against Obama, McCain could easily challenge him in OH (especially OH, and if McCain won OH, well, no REP has ever lost the general election when they won OH.). McCain could fair better in FL, due to Obama not being able to attract as many Latino voters, and his lack of older voter support. FL's two most important voting groups. And in PA because he is too liberal. It's just TOO much to leave to chance to nominate Obama. Losing any of them could be disaterous.[/quote]

corpse what you fail to understand is just how poorly hillary matches up against mccain. they are troo similar, except hillary is the polarizing one who turns people off. Those people will vote for mccain just so she doesnt win. What literally everybody is seeing-including democratcic delegates- other than clinton supporters is that Obama wins people over, gets them on his side, and brings them together around him (or in this case, the democratic part in november) much easier than hillary does.

btw obamas mauling him in polls, so theres not much risk. Butr you know whatis risky?? giving the less popular candidate (clinton) the nomination.

Big "oops" for Hillary in Mississippi. Good thing for her it's one of those states that "doesn't matter."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -comments/

"I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress," Clinton told the Des Moines Register in October. "There has got to be something at work here. How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."

Oops!

She's laying the groundwork to say they don't count. Only states she wins count.

Well she did apologize for the remark but the damage has been done and Obama's harping on it. Luckily for her it's not a bigger state.

you realize corpse, the reason hillary probably wont ever catch him, is because she ignored these states that "dont count"

So yeah,

Virginia, Nebraska, Iowa, Washington state, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, etc. don't matter.



In the same polls, Hillary won Florida and Obama didn't, yet all those "worthless" states that he can compete in and she can't add up and he actually beats McCain by a slightly larger margin than her. And when you consider the number of states he is able to compete in vs. her number, it's staggering. Even in Florida, he loses to McCain by 2%. 1% in Texas.

It's true.

Then why is it that she currently trails McCain in Nevada and he beats him there? Or why is he winning New Mexico by a bigger margin than her against McCain? Seriously, you are pretty short-sighted if you think the primary is any indication of how a candidate would match up with someone from the other party, particularly when she lost the delegate count in Nevada (aka VERY close race) and won New Mexico by like .5% of the vote (incredibly close race). It's not like she blew him out in those states. If SurveyUSA is on crack for doing early matchups, then you're incredibly short-sighted for thinking the primary means anything regarding how the candidates would match up with McCain, especially in close races like New Mexico and Nevada.

And likewise, you are being ridiculously short-sighted to think that the primary means anything in a general election matchup for either candidate against McCain, especially when you start bringing up close primary races like Nevada and New Mexico.

There's the disconnect. If Clinton beats Obama by 0.5% in New Mexico, what the hell does that mean for John McCain? It means nothing. You can't connect a primary with how a candidate will do against the other party. This goes back to Clinton's ridiculous argument that somehow Obama wouldn't win New York or California against McCain. Right, they're gonna go against the much more liberal candidate just because Hillary's not on the ballot? Yeah, I'm sure those New Yorkers and Californians are really wanting a 100 year war in Iraq!