Sounds like she's got a problem with Bill.

Do all women who go to Wellesley come out as raving mad harpies like this woman and the lady Clinton? Yikes.

I have not been overly interested in this race, but I have paid attention to some extent. I have heard a couple interesting things that I am not seeing addressed here.

Namely, that Hillary is winning the states that are likely to be won by Democrats come the election, the big states with the votes that mean the difference between winning and losing. Wyoming is not going to be won by the Democrats, but Ohio might. Also, the popular vote is not really known because of the caucuses, and it is in no way certain that he has that. These are apparently issues the "Super Delegates" are apparently supposed to consider in this bizarre and arcane system.

At this point. if I were a betting man, I would be putting money on McCain. This election is the Democrats to lose, and damn them for doing their best to do just that. With all that has happened, there is no way McCain should be polling this high.

Minotaur029 wrote:Obama has also 1) won twice as many states as her 2) leads the popular vote 3) does better than Clinton in every head-to-head poll vs. McCain.

The only way she wins is through a backroom deal that secures her more superdelegates than Obama.

(emphasis in original)

I'm looking at recent polls and I don't see him doing better in every poll.

I also don't completely understand how her winning the superdelegate vote would be a backroom deal. Those individuals are free to choose whatever criteria they deem necessary as reason for their vote. To have them vote as a unified group for the person who "received the most votes" or "won the most states" or is nowhere in the rules; to order them to do so would be changing the rules in the middle of the game.

With Ferraro, it's clear what HRC's newest plan is: help the right-wing paint Obama as an angry, radical black muslim so when the convention rolls around, he'll have a delegate lead but will no longer be seen as "mainstream" or "electable."

Is it any coincidence that Ferraro went on both John Gibson and O'Reilly to prolong this? Interesting that now ABC and Fox News are running pieces on Obama's "radical African-American" church in the same news cycle.

alandeus wrote:
I also don't completely understand how her winning the superdelegate vote would be a backroom deal. Those individuals are free to choose whatever criteria they deem necessary as reason for their vote. To have them vote as a unified group for the person who "received the most votes" or "won the most states" or is nowhere in the rules; to order them to do so would be changing the rules in the middle of the game.

that's true, but it's a dangerous game to play. If superdelegates ignore a candidate with more votes, more states won, etc, and favor a candidate that is runniing behind (for whatever reason that may be, friendship, bribery, etc), then they are playing russian roulette with the americans.

If the superdelegates choice presents wonderful results, heck, no one will ever give a damn, and no one will remember this happened.

But if things go sour, if the candidate chosen by the superdelegates (based on other criteria than more popular support at caucases), gets into a big scandal, then people wil sit and take notice, and demand responsabilities.

People will cry "but he/she is not the person we voted for! what is going on here?"... The superdelegates must be aware that people will be watching.
If this candidate were to get into trouble, then not only would the superdelegates be massively discretited, but the whole democrat party would be taking a severe blow in terms of public opinion.

If the superdelegates ignore public opinion, it is at their own risk. If their candidate gets into trouble, people will demand "blood" because their vote was not taken into account. The Democrat party could lose a lot of its credibility. Just like when Bush was elected by "court/trial" maneuvers, leading to the result that many americans would feel that "voting" is pointless, because legal manouevers and backdoor negotiating would always prevail over their choice.

Hillary supporters unleashed.

Oh God, I really can't watch the whole thing.

connor wrote:Hillary supporters unleashed.

Oh God, I really can't watch the whole thing.

This has gone too far.

Clinton really needs to keep her supporters in line.

First Bill, then G.Fer, now this.

I feel sick.

connor wrote:Hillary supporters unleashed.

Oh God, I really can't watch the whole thing.

I turned off Cheep Trick to watch that... CURSE YOU!!!

To the guy leading that pathetic excuse for a rally:

Sir (ahem):
They have an outlet now for brainless, frustrated, no-talent hacks with supersized egos and bigtime showbiz aspirations: its called American Idol. Please take your queeny rap there and leave the real voters of the amerika out of it. Trust me, more people will care and learn about you there then they ever will at a HRC rally.

Sure ain't no Barack OBollywood.