• comment on a post The lifeline strategy over 6 years ago

    After lying repeatedly about her Conquest of Bosnia With Her Bare Hands, I don't think Hillary's credibility is going to be sufficient to get many superdelegates to go with her, no matter how much fancy math her supporters come up with.

    And don't I recall that it was those of us in the Obama camp who were dismissed as members of the "math club?"

  • comment on a post What Wright has wrought over 6 years ago

    If the choice is between a guy whose Pastor gets a little riled up once in awhile, and a woman who voted to authorize Bush to assault Iraq and then repeatedly defended her decision, then it's an easy call for me.


  • comment on a post What Wright has wrought over 6 years ago

    This is an incredible letter from a military veteran who was there in Tuzla when Hillary made her heroic landing under heavy enemy fire.

    This might be the one that ends it for HRC...

    http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.c om/my_weblog/2008/03/bosnian-vet-acc.htm l

  • "This is probably an obvious point, but how would being shot at on a tarmac in Bosnia count as substantive foreign policy experience even if the story were true?"

    http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=943#co mments

  • IMHO, the idea that Edwards would endorse HRC is something the Clinton team cooked up in order to keep hope alive among her followers.  I don't have the quotes handy at the moment, but the stuff Edwards said about Hillary while he was still in the campaign is just devastating.  There is no way he could be on record criticizing her to the extent he did and then turn around and offer his endorsement. Obama is leading by every metric at the moment, so Edwards would be taking a considerable risk to get behind HRC, especially in the light of Bosnia-gate.  Plus, Edwards supporters have gone over to Obama at a rate of 2-1 since he departed the race.  And further, Edwards' state of North Carolina is looking like a 20-point blowout win for Obama. So for me, all of that adds up to a pretty clear signal that no endorsement is forthcoming.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob5qevO5H XE&eurl=http://ruralvotes.com/thefie ld/

    Ouch. This is painful to watch.

  • comment on a post Open Thread over 6 years ago

    Hillary's problem with her lies about the landing in Bosnia are twofold-

    Unlike the Pastor Wright flap, she is speaking for herself.  She is not being tarred with the words of someone else.

    Second, she repeated the story at least four times.  You can't wish that away by claiming that you 'mis-spoke' or that you were sleep-deprived.
    Even our dipshit MSM isn't falling for that stuff.

    She got caught telling us that she came in 'under sniper fire.'  What a crock.  There is video of her standing at the landing zone doing photo-ops with little children.

    It's time for HRC to concede gracefully before she renders herself useless as my Senator.

  • comment on a post Open Thread over 6 years ago

    Breaking News!

    (FAUX News) March 25, 2008

    New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has introduced legislation in Congress that would annex Mexico, Belize, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Panama to the United States.  She urged her colleagues in Congress to expedite the legislation and present it to President Bush promptly so that the newly acquired territories could become part of her firewall in the hotly-contested Democratic primary contest.

    Trailing Sen. Barack Obama by every electoral metric, Clinton gave due credit to her strategic team led by Mark Penn for coming up with the exciting and ingenious approach to electoral politics.  Speaking by phone, Penn noted that "the newly proposed states have a significant Latino population, and Sen. Clinton fares very well with that demographic."  He also indicated that he hoped to appeal to imperialistic sentiment within the Bush administration.  "It's a win-win scenario," Penn declared.  "With this legislation it becomes clear that Senator Clinton is inclusive, and believes in the notion of a Big Tent. Within the Republican Party there is still lingering frustration over America's policy failures in Latin America during the Reagan administration.  This is an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together in common purpose."  Responding to Republican concerns that the inclusion of the vast new region populated exclusively by Latinos might shift the balance of power in the general election, Penn affirmed his willingness to compromise by suggesting that the 40,545,745 newly-enfranchised voters would be confined to voting in the Democratic Primary only.

    Penn dismissed concerns that annexing an entire region might be problematic for American diplomacy and would require a significant military effort by the United States.  He noted that Senator Clinton is already on board with the idea of invading sovereign nations, and she would use her status in the Senate to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans and Independents like Sen. Joe Liebermann to craft the bill.

    The Clinton plan provoked mixed reactions in the media and within the Democratic Party hierarchy.  Executives at MSNBC, FOX, CBS, and ABC appeared to be delighted at the prospect of an extended primary campaign and the enhanced viewer ratings and advertising revenues that they could expect.  Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean vowed to remain neutral and let the process play itself out.  

    The Obama campaign expressed little enthusiasm for the plan proposed by Clinton.  They noted that there would be significant logistical problems involved with creating congressional districts in the newly acquired territory, and that HAVA legislation requiring contemporary digital voting equipment would add layers of complexity in the more remote locations in Latin America.  Representatives from the Obama camp also pointed out that few of the superdelegates from the newly annexed region would be likely to be fluent in English and familiar with the basic terminology of the American political system. The Clinton team dismissed these concerns as yet another attempt by Obama to game the system and take advantage of arcane delegate selection rules.

  • Todd wrote-

    "...which is why the Clinton campaign has dispatched Ace Smith, who spear-headed Clinton's California and Texas victories..."

    C'mon Todd, stop doing HRC a favor by repeating that spin.  She had a whopping big lead in Texas a month before Mar. 4, and in the end Obama walked away with something like +9 delegates from that state if memory serves correctly.  Her popular vote in TX wasn't that big, either, given the size of the turnout.  And let's recall that just days before TX we were being told by every pundit in the busniness that Hillary needed huge, 20-point blowout wins to keep her campaign alive.  What ever happened to that narrative?   How in the world does a loss of nine delegates in a state that she was supposed to have a substantial lead translate into a big success for her operative Ace Smith?

    She came out of March 4 basically even, and then Obama picked up 4 more delegates out of CA the next day as a result of their final certification, and he also got 3 new superdelegates that same day.  So for the March 4-5 dates, Hillary actually lost ground, yet somehow the media spun that into encouraging news for her.  WTF?  

    Why do the goalposts continue to be moved for HRC?  The expectations are constantly being lowered to make her appear more competetitive.
    I can understand why the MSM promotes this stuff--it affects their bottom line.  But why you, Todd?

  • This is a bad year to be in the business of being a Republican political consultant.  I can't wait to wake up the morning after in November and see what the new makeup will be in the House of Rep.  That's where we will make the big gains.

  • comment on a post Obama Begins Pennsylvania Push over 6 years ago

    All I wanna know is where Hillary's next firewall state is after Pennsylvania?  Guam?  The Solomon Islands?  Maybe the Galapagos?

  • comment on a post Open Thread over 6 years ago

    Did anyone watch that PBS special tonite about how the administration lied us into war with Iraq?
    Unbelievable.  High ranking military, intelligence, and national security people looking right into the camera and saying straight out that Bush and Cheney and Tenet lied and cooked the intelligence reports.

    The amazing thing is that the citizenry appears to be immune to shock.  What kind of news is it going to take to actually get the people riled up?  I'm starting to think that all the pharmaceuticals loose in the water supply are finally taking effect...

  • comment on a post On the rules over 6 years ago

    I'm in agreement with Jerome and others who make the case that the superdelegates are part of the equation, and that indeed, Hillary could win the nomination if the SD's decide to give their support to her.  I happen to believe that would have catastrophic consequences for the Party, but that's a political view.  If there are Obama supporters saying that somehow the SD's are bound by the rules to honor the pledged delegate total, then they are wrong.  There wouldn't be any point in having superdelegates if they were confined to simply ratifying the pledged delegate count.

    And if we're going to play by the rules, then Hillary can forget about Florida and Michigan.  The rules were laid down by the DNC, and they were very clear.  So let's stick to the rules, and everything will be just fine.

  • comment on a post Open Thread over 6 years ago

    "All this sex stuff in the news lately just goes to prove that the whole world is backwards. I mean you've got Democrats, who are supposed to be poor, paying $5,000 an hour for sex, and you've got Republicans, who are supposed to be rich, cruising airport bathrooms trying to get it for free."  

    - Jay Leno  

  • comment on a post Open Thread over 6 years ago

    Ouch -  Looks like another superdelegate defection from Hillary's camp is in the works...

    http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=932#co mment-11008


Advertise Blogads