Obama has been my favorite candidate for some time now. I hate Hillary's slime game. And I think that John McCain is the least qualified of anybody and should not even be considered. I had even contemplated not voting in November if Hillary usurped the nomination from Obama in a type of internal coup d'état with the superdelegates.
However, I have reflected on the following and I ask everyone else to bear it it mind. First, if Hillary does become the candidate, I will be forced to vote for her. Why???
Because of the SUPREME COURT. Judges will be stepping down in retirement and new judges have to be appointed. If more judges like Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas are appointed and approved by the Senate, you can kiss the last vestiges of any checks and balances system GOOD BYE. You can kiss the United States of America as a great nation GOOD BYE.
Ask youselves the following: what kind of supreme court judges would Hillary select? Were it not for the Supreme Court factor, I would not vote in November if the nomination is stolen from Obama and the American people..... the average every day run-of-the-mill citizen who are the essence of the country.
PLEASE BE ULTRA MINDFUL OF THE SUPREME COURT APPOINTEE FACTOR IN THESE COMING YEARS.
Is the Media's Pursuit of Horserace Coverage the Reason Sen. Clinton is Still Considered a Viable Contender for the Democratic Presidential Nomination?
That's the provocative thesis of this article by Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen in The Politico. And at Slate, Christopher Beam gives a similar answer: "Today's the New York Times A1 piece on Hillary Clinton, 'Clinton Facing Narrower Path to Nomination,' is an exercise in understatement. It nudges the candidate ever closer to the cliff but, maybe because of politeness, or business savvy, or maybe even a perceived need for objectivity, refrains from pushing her over." See also Josh Marshall.
Now, with news of Clinton's campaign debt and an admission by her staffer that she has no more than a 10% chance of securing the nomination, expect these stories to proliferate.
Could it be that the media has kept the story alive? I think that's an overstatement. Of course Clinton can't catch Obama, but it is also true that Obama cannot formally clinch without the superdelegates. So long as Clinton has the hope of an Obama implosion or major gaffe, she has a reason to remain in the race. So don't blame the media; blame the DNC's system for leaving this in the hands of superdelegates---something the DNC surely must reconsider for 2012 and beyond.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The fact that the media is openly supporting Republican candidates McCain and H. Clinton might be a factor too.
You'd have to be dumber than a bag of hammers to believe the media has been fair or decent to Ms. Clinton.
Of course there's a media horse race running on a terrain of syllables at once dissectable and predictably sensational between brief pauses of commercials. It becomes a rather foolish pasttime when you realize how many more national problems are playing out hourly at a crisis level far more valid than hourly polls.
(I just love your long titles that lead directly to a black or white answer.)
YES.
In part it's the "horserace" angle but in part it's that the manipulations of the Clintons are hard to discount. Obama may win more delegates and more popular votes and still have the nomination wrested from him. The scaremongers have all sorts of "reasons" why this should happen. I highly doubt that it should happen and I know there would be hell to pay if it did happen but nonetheless I wouldn't consider the race over because Clinton, just like with states she lost, will not concede.
Two of the headlines on the Huff's media page today are that MSNBC is enjoying record ratings as a result of the long road to the Democratic nomination and that Katie Couric is desperately trying to get a debate in North Carolina because she does not want to be the only anchor who didn't get to host one. And that's just two of the outlets, but you better believe that CNN and the others are thrilled that there is finally some news that Americans are interested in following (because coverage of the war turned out to be a bust as Americans largely decided that since we didn't seem to be winning they would just declare their opposition to opinion pollsters and get back to worrying about more important things like the status of Britney's mental health or the kinky details of Elliot Spitzer's sex life). The media definitely has a ratings and financial incentive to make it appear that Hillary Clinton still has a good chance to overtake Barack Obama (when in fact her path to the nomination is similar to that of a snowball trying to navigate hell).
Remember...standforpeace
Just check the 1996 bill submitted to congress by Hillary Clinton and look who saved all America's butts, which includes all our children. Please begin your learning experience here:
Congressional records of Hillary bill
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1998/dec98/psrdec98.html
Maybe the reason she is still in the race is BECAUSE SHE CAN STILL WIN.
He DOES NOT HAVE THE DELEGATES NEEDED TO WIN, SO IT COMES DOWN TO POPULAR VOTE WINNER.
There are ONLY 750,000 VOTES SEPARATING THEM. She will cut that IN HALF after PA.
Also, IN KY WV NC all show here LEADING in polls. Yes even in NC. If she wins ALL those is she still just "desparate" or is this the candidate MOST PEOPLE WANT.
And yeah, the voters in MI and FL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.
Maybe you should read the rules. In the convention, popular votes don't matter. Delegates do. It's the superdelegates who will likely end up deciding this race.
If Senator Clinton was so concerned about the disenfranchisement of voters in Michigan and Florida, why didn't she say anything before those races?
Also, please note that just because you put something in uppercase letters DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.
Maybe you should read the rules too. The rules say you need 2025 delegates to get the nomination. It doesn't say you need to be leading in delegates which seems to be the standard most Obama supporters like. Also, Clinton is not the issue with regard to Michigan and Florida. It's not her fault or the fault of the voters in Michigan or Florida. It's a intra-party game of chicken that's gotten out of hand. The path to the nomination cannot exclude those two states. Do you guys want to win in November or is defeating Hillary your one and only objective? Because only a fool believes any Democrat can will the general election without winning at least one of these two states. I know it's conventional wisdom that once Obama has the nomination, he will charm the good people of Michigan and Florida and they will fall in line to vote for the new messiah. It's a pipe dream. Republicans will spend the next several months reminding voters all over but especially in Michigan and Florida that Obama didn't want to hear from them in the primary. So, by all means let's stick to the rules. All of the rules, not just the ones that favor Obama.
Ahhh, and when no one can cross the finish line with pledged delegates, it results in a draw. It only matters who's closer in horseshoes. The superdelegates have a choice to make and pledged delegates are only one measure of a candidate. As an example, if you discount all the red states' votes for either Democratic candidate, Clinton is ahead in delegates. That matters in the General Election. And, the fact that she has won all the big states by a wide margin over Obama also matters in the General Election. If you just look at the Electoral College votes, Clinton is ahead. That matters in the General Election. For the Democratic Party it will not be "who we like" or the "beauty contest", but who can win in November. I think we've seen what Hillary Clinton does when the going gets tough - she fights harder .... Barack Obama goes on vacation to sip on Latte's in Aruba. Hmmm, now who would you choose? Add all the Reverend Wright anti-American, black liberation philosophy that Obama obviously condones by has continued association with the man and the Church, and he's a loser in the General Election. It was admirable that he chose to support his pastor, but in so doing he chose not to be President! Hillary Clinton will prevail.
northeast...:
I pray Floridian and Michigan voter will NOT Tolerate their votes not being counted!! They have every right to demand it! What has happened to the American spirit to fight for their rights?
Who is Howard Dean... or that Republican Florida governor ... to imagine.. they have the power to deny American citizens their votes? Is this America or... is it a couple of men... ruling the country - and rights don't exist anymore? Why are they not fired or asked to step down immediately? Is the public afraid of them? If they are... that's a very very scary thing.
Of course. Any realistic investigative report would conclude that HRC's nomination campaign is now DOA.
By her campaign's own standards -- MUST win both OH & TX -- she lost. The small gains she ultimately made that day were overrun by Obama's victories in MS and WY and the ongoing conversion of superdelegates.
Hillary's simply being intellectually dishonest, and selfish. She has destroyed her case for being a progressive leader on every level of her campaign, including the endgame.
nazgul:
Had Americans been made aware of Obama's relationship with Rezko and Wright beforehand... he would never have received the votes he did.. not to mention the media publicity machine that promoted him (and still is) for the last 4 months.
As for your accusing Hillary of being intellectually dishonest and selfish? Where exactly is she being that.... and while we're at it.... Obama's racist - anti White mentor.. and his 20 years of being taught by this bigot.. and hiding THAT TRUTH from the public.... is not only intellectually dishonest... it's heartbreakingly morally dishonest.
Typical White
Dear typical white......unfortunately you are showing what a typical white person thinks...all blacks are to be feared and hated. Why are you in your small mind not considering the association of Wright, Rezco and the Clintons? Even if these trumped up allegations against Obama hadn't come up you .....and people that unfortunately think like you ....would have found other reasons to hate Obama. When in reality it's the color of his skin that bothers you...nothing else.
Horserace? Sure, always, but it's worse than that.
I watched Morning Joe for a while this morning; had to bail out. Been there, ad nauseam, for two weeks. Nothing has changed. It's all Rev. Wright all the time this morning on Morning Joe.
Astonishing. There IS NO OTHER NEWS. McCain's appalling ignorance on display in Iraq? Hillary's fibs about her record as First Lady? Didn't happen.
Apparently the corporate media has no plans to deviate from the relentless effort to make this a contest about nothing but race with the endless beating to death of three clips from thirty years of Rev. Wright's sermons.
Hillary Clinton was caught last week in a series of lies. Outright, campaign-ending lies. Lies that are contradicted not only by her schedule but by video.
Possibly the most shocking, aside from her assertions that she opposed NAFTA and negotiated the peace in Ireland and Kosovo (without a national security clearance), may be the seriously unnerving claim, repeated as recently as last week, that she landed in Kosovo under gunfire. This is untrue, but it remains one of the dramatic highlights of her stock campaign speech. She still says it happened. It didn't. There's video.
A presidential candidate is caught on tape in a ridiculous and embarrassing and easily refutable lie. There is VIDEO: both of her thrilling version of running for cover ducking whizzing bullets upon landing in Tuzla; and video and news coverage of the actual landing and the welcoming ceremony Hillary claims was cancelled because of the whizzing bullets, where she is greeted, accompanied by Chelsea - and Sinbad - by a small girl presenting flowers.
Accompanied by Chelsea? She took Chelsea along, on a trip she claims was "too dangerous" for the president? Does anyone believe that?
This is some scary stuff. It qualifies, in my mind, as news.
Seems to me we should consider the possibility that Hillary may have gone around the bend. No? Then how about a cursory examination of alternate possibilities?
Does Hillary really believe she landed in Tuzla under fire and negotiated the peace in Kosovo when she and Chelsea were met by a little girl with flowers and they left within 24 hours?
Does she think we are all stupid out here?
Or does she know that the MSM, apparently including Huffpo, won't report it?
rbrooks:
You are obviously much too young to know what was going on in Bosnia at that time. Hillary handing out flowers to that little girl, was in itself an act of courage at that time. So go do some homework and go do some growing up and then come back to thank Bill Clinton - for being the only one to have the courage to end that war... and then come back and thank Hillary... for being the only first lady to ever go into a war zone.. Go find out what Bosnia was... and then wash your mouth out with soap.
Whether it was courageous or not for her to go to Bosnia, the version she tells of running for cover while bombs were bursting in air doesn't square with the video of a little girl meeting her on the tarmac holding flowers. And it certainly doesn't square with dragging her adolescent daughter along to be shot at either. As someone old enough to remember the Clinton years in the White House, it does square with the lies they told back then and the ones that they are still telling today.
Of course Obama is electable. Both democrats are now that people understand that the war was a mistake, except if we can stabalize Iraq before the ge, in which case controlling the wells will be a stategic plus and a whole new ball game. But the war and oil industries have already hedged their bets by building an uneducated coalition of red State folk and young people to elect a naive poser like Obama. Red State people have always ignored the rule against bearing false witness; and they cut themselves off from the enlightenment long ago. Young folk were taught rhetoric instead of logic and don't know much about the world yet. Niether group can reason their way out of a paper bag, and they are easily manipulated by Professor Harold Hill, I mean Barac Obama.
Of course, no one else would be given such a pass. But the worst part is the destruction the Clintons leave in their wake. It has been obvious for some time that their exit was not ever going to be gracious--but increasingly, who would be enthusiastic about backing them or anticipating them back in the whitehouse and leading the Democrats?
No thanks, been there, done that . Don't want to go back no matter how much they stamp their foot, pitch a fit and wreak the party because they can't sit at the head table.
Abo: What destruction are the Clinton's leaving in their wake? You Obama supporters keep screeching that... but the only divisiveness and destruction I've seen to date... has come from Obama and his followers! Mind you it's making a lot more sense, since the Wright sermons have been made public. Hateful - divisive accusations against those horrible 'typical whites' is a very effective way to control people isn't it.
Yes.
Wow! I've never seen such a bunch of sore losers! Talk about the "L" word! Hillary agreed MI and FL wouldn't count on top of the fact that some of her supporters were responsible for MI moving their primary up in the first place. MI Democratic "leadership" risked having their delegates un-seated to give Hillary's "inevitability" an early boost. They didn't plan for a close race. Neither did Hillary. Just like so many things Hillary has decided wrongly in this campaign.
Do Hillary and her supporters LEGITIMATELY care about this country or only about Hillary. If she wants to prove it, she'd better do it soon.
Elka,
What a false choice. Hillary either quits now or she doesn't care about the country. Is your worldview so far out of wack that you honestly believe this garbage? Telling people in Michigan and Florida that they can't be involved in this election because it will upset the situation for Obama is not a winning strategy come November. Seriously, Obama supporters like to live in this fantasy world that is completely devoid of Republicans! Unfortunately, Republicans are very real. If Obama wins the nomination he will lose to John McCain. McCain and his friends in the wingnut intelligencia will define Mr. Obama as a thin skinned, underqualified, over ambitious political hack who's accomplishments never match his rhetorical gifts. Obama can't win in states with mixed demographics. He'll carry California and NY but he's going to win Ohio, Pennslyvania, Michigan, or Florida. It's not even going to be close. But none of this seems to register with the Obama faithful.
For most of you, it's not really about winning in November, it's about destroying the Clintons.
You're right Elkabong. Theh Clintons are big guns in the Democratic Party. They KNEW those elections wouldn't count. If they had strenously objected their influence would have changed the DNC decision. So now that they have lost- they are just grasping at straws
WTF???
"They KNEW those elections wouldn't count."???
The Clintons are responsible for this too? And poor 'ol Obama was just a lowly United States Senator. Give me a break. Shorter Opus:
"We want to bypass the voters of Michigan and Florida and blame the fallout on the Clintons". Nice try but it's not going to work. People are not a stupid as you imagine.
It's obvious to anyone outside of Keith Oberman and Chris Matthews which candidate is trying to bypass the voters of Michigan and Florida.
I totally agree with you but would add that anyone who is confused about what the rules were back in 2006 and 2007 should get ahold of the video that was on CSPAN Easter night that shows HOW the rules were made, discussed and voted upon. Whether or not the delegates are seated or their votes are counted is NOT the job of any candidate, no matter what their history in the democratic party might be! For Hillary to come out and DEMAND the rules be changed mid-stream is ludicrous! For her supporters to offer to PAY for a re-vote sounds like a voter-fraud issue to me. I'd think Michigan and Floriday voters would applaud Barack Obama for keeping out of this issue. What Hillary Clinton is doing shows her desperation, that's all. I'm sure Barack would be taking the same stance if he were the one with the most votes- you have to let those who are responsible for the rules settle the issue....period.
Ashall:
And you believe that 3,000,000 Americans votes not be counted is democracy? I doubt you'd be crowing that nonsense... if they were Obama's votes, you hypocrite.
Some observations. Much of what Rev. Wright said that people were offended by was actually a quote of Ambassador Edward Peck, who is white and a lot of it was true. If holding Senator Obama responsible for these statements is all that his oppenent have, they're grasping at straws.
It's true. The horse race is a media fabrication. The race was pretty much over after Super Tuesday. She had to blow him out. She didn't; in fact, she actually lost. Had he gone on to lose as many in a row as he won, he'd have been forced out of the race; no question.
The time for this infighting is over. We need to get behind a nominee or we risk losing in November. Most of the Super Delegates know this. More and more pressure will be brought to bear on Senator Clinton to gracefully withdraw, preferably before PA. Will she listen? The evidence is not good that she will, which is just evidence that she cares little for her party and its chances in November.
Posted March 22, 2008 | 12:44 AM (EST)