Dianne Feinstein: I'm Sticking By Hillary
Senator Dianne Feinstein caused a big stir yesterday by suggesting that the drawn-out Dem primary was producing "negative dividends" and indicating that she would ask Hillary what her real game plan is.
But Feinstein spoke privately with Hillary today. And Feinstein is sticking by her candidate and affirming her right to stay in the race:
Feinstein talked with Clinton via phone this morning and erased any doubts about her own commitment to the campaign and that of the candidate. "I'm sticking with her, absolutely," she told reporters. "Her strategy is to win this. And she's entitled to her opportunity to try."The California senator said she heard "conviction" in Clinton's voice during their conversation. "She feels she owes a deep debt of gratitude to the people that support her -- who support her intensely."...
"I agree that she should take this for as long as she feels she has a chance to win it," Feinstein added. "And she says she will do nothing that causes the party any difficulty."
That last quote is key. The conventional wisdom has been that even if Hillary sticks it out, she'll dial back some of the harsh criticism she's leveled at Obama, both for the sake of future party unity and her own legacy.
Feinstein suggests here that Hillary promised as much to her privately. We'll see what happens.
Comments (219)
THen what the hell was that USAToday article about in which she said only she could get white voters?
May 8, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
They really need to tape some electrodes to her head and give her a jolt every time she mentions race.
May 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding? She can't help herself, she'd kill herself within an hour.
May 8, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. What could I have been thinking? ;-))
May 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
How horrid, Hillary appealed to white working class, rather than Hispanics, blacks, Jews, the religious right, Catholics, steel workers, farmers or women. Next thing you know she'll appeal to businessmen. That'll open the barn doors.
May 17, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
IS SHE GONE STUPID?
Barry won right? Tell me he did! Oh please, please, please say it's SOOOOOO!!!
(overheard from beneath Michelle's pillow)
Obama/Buddha '08
May 8, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're missing it. Even Feinstein, Hillary's long lost twin separated at birth, only goes so far as to say:
"Her strategy is to win this. And she's entitled to her opportunity to try."
lol. Praise doesn't get any fainter than that. Not exactly bound together at the waist.
May as well say: "her strategy is to fly off this cliff, and she's entitled to try jumping."
May 8, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Diane Feinstein said she had to know Hillary's plan to win. Now she's heard it, though she isn't saying so, and she's absolutely sticking with Hillary. I don't know what Hill's plan is, but I'm sure there is one and it's sneaky and it's dirty politics. It's a long shot, but she won over Diane Feinstein and persuaded her that it was worth the risk to the party. Obama's right to keep his eyes wide open. And we're all saps if we think he should be a gentleman to the little lady about the FL vote. Fl and MI are still part of her plan somehow even though she has her surrogates come out and say they aren't enough to help her. It's like when Karl Rove effectively campaigns for Hillary because he "admires" her and we're not supposed to know that he wants her nominated because he thinks he has the ammo to beat her. You know, we can really trust the Karl Roves of the republican party to have the best interests of the democrats at heart. We can also trust Hillary surrogates when they imply and say that Obama should give her this "little" Fl/MI thing to show he's for the party and to be a gentleman------There's a snake in the grass folks. There's a snake in the grass.
May 8, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finesein is fine for now but Hillary should consider to run as an independant. This masquarade of democracy must end we have to learn that no change in Washington would happen unless there are more competing parties. Hillary switched from Republican to Democrat and now she is the one who can really change the equation and make history!
CLINTON SHOULD Run as an Independant
Yes, we can! It can make a difference!
Instead of being humiliated, laughed at and pushed to the dustbin of history, Hillary can make history.
Hillary should and must run as an independent candidate in the presidential election and in a three way race she can win.
Clintons are a formidable force and their record speaks for themselves. They have more chances than Bob Bar, Ralph Nader, Ross Parrot and Pat Buchanan combined! Obama made history by becoming the Democrats Presidential Candidate which even he wins would not bring changes to American politics. Clinton running as independent would bring revolutionary changes to the American political system and Washington.
Anybody who really wants to change Washington must change the monopoly of power by two collaborating parties that has suffocated American Democracy.
Hillary Clinton should not permit to be insulted, ignored, derided and mocked by the Media Savoy Obama Democrats and rebuff them all by making history. From Obama’s speech in South Carolina it is Obvious there is no respect for Clintons and they would challenge her in the next Senate election. If In the next senate election 90 per cent of Blacks would go for Osama’s handpicked candidate, what would be left of her legacy.
Clinton has a tested brand-name, a loyal following, name recognition, an agenda for Middle Class Americans, all she needs to declare that “ the real Change in America needs the breaking of the corrupt two party system which has brought a once prosperous respected America to its needs by conspiracy against the middle class”.
Bob Barr could be the Libertarian Candidate and Joe Lieberman can thumb his nose at Democratic Party, win as an Independent and take Democrats hostage, then why Clinton has every right to split with the party that is trashing her and the whole Clinton Era.
She should have the gut to start a new party or refurbish the Green or Libertarian and become its candidate. She might win in a three way race.
In all Western style Democracies from Israel to India, from Italy to Canada when one side notices a fundamental injustice, then it immediately start a new Party.
Hillary Clinton, whose supporters are Middle America and women, has a constituency that might follow her and vote for her as a third party Candidate!
It seems that Obama Mania has blinded the so-called Democratic Party that is a hodge-podge of varying interest group. The time has come for Hillary to take a stand and make history. Splitting the Democratic Party would actually bring Democracy and real Change to Washington. The New splinter group can unite with other splinter groups and voiceless independents from the Republican Party, Green Party, etc and become a viable Party. Who knows what Blue Dog Democrat would do, they might join her too!
Hillary Clinton has more followings and more assets than Joe Lieberman, who defied the Democrats and survived as an independent candidate.
Hillary should not tolerate the daily attack, mockery, and the force of confused young intellectuals that are voting for Obama's Hope message!"Until there is a two party system in America there would be no hope and no change is going to happen in Washington" Bob Barr declared today.
It is high time that instead of being fooled by snake oil salesmen, left or right, starting a new Party, who would defend the interest of hardworking American and would save our Democracy.
Hillary's can only make history by becoming a revolutionary and bring a Real Change to American society. Only by this revolutionary act she would make history rather than be mocked by historian.
May 16, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you clean up her campaign, is there a campaign left?
May 8, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! That, my friend, is the question.
What does Hillary have to offer other than nastiness?
May 8, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does she have to offer besides nastiness? Well thought out and solid plans on healthcare and foreclosure policies that are far more progressive and well thought out than Obama.
She's at like 4th and 20, but this is her last chance to show she should be president and I'm riding with her until a Democratic nominee is named.
May 8, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like the Gas Holliday plan of hers?
May 8, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am ambivalent about the gas tax holiday as it wouldn't benefit me much, but would help out other struggling folks somewhat. It's not an irresponsible give away like McCain and is paid for by a windfall profits tax. But I do know Hillary's long term energy strategy is far more thorough than Barack's and he has no moral authority on the gas issue seeing as he voted in favor of Cheney's energy plan written by the oil and gas industry to give them billions in giveaways on subsidies and incentives. Why would he want to make his friends pay the burden of 8 billion dollars of the federal gas tax this summer?
But I do believe in true universal healthcare rather than Barack's half-assed "universal access" plan that has so many holes that would destroy the system.
I do believe in the federal government bailing out qualifying homeowners with subprime mortagages at a discounted rate from lenders and working to renegotiate the rates directly rather than forcing people into bankruptcy court to try to save their homes. I believe in a 90 day freeze in foreclosures to help people catch up on their payments and a temporary freeze on ARM rates. All things barack is against by the way.
May 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, golly, where to start.
Obama's energy plan is just as good as hillaries, if not better.
Hillary's gas tax holiday was a pure pander. If you think Dubya would pass into law a windfall profits tax on oil companies you are on crack. And there would be virtually no benefit to anyone other than the oil companies in any case.
Hillary's health care plan is not a truly universal plan. The only truly universal health care plan is a single payer plan, and none of our serious candidates even proposed that, and rightly so because it would NEVER get through congress. To propose such a huge plan would be pandering.
I respect your right to support Hillary. She is not as bad as McCain, I'll give her that. But she is not ellectible. Nothing would energize the GOP like having the name Clinton on the ticket.
Have a good night:)
May 8, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither candidate offers anything close to a "true universal healthcare" plan, because neither plan purports to set up a government-sponsored, single-payer system. Hillary's plan seems analogous to auto insurance mandates. With that said, nothing is more frightening than McCain's proposed healthcare plan. Under his plan, if you have any sort of pre-existing condition, forget health insurance...even John McCain himself would be ineligible for coverage under his own plan! (Lucky for him, he is covered by the government.)
May 8, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you're wrong. She's not at 4th and 20. Her quarterback has been sacked and he's on the bottom of a huge pile-up. Even a 100-yard Hail Mary pass is not going to help her. I am absolutely astounded at the poor math skills of Clinton supporters. It is simply not mathematically possible for her to overtake him, and staying in at this point is ludicrous and utterly self-serving (especially with her wonderfully inclusive comments this morning about "hard working white people"). I am really disgusted with the sense of entitlement that the Clintons have (Bill exhorting people this morning to not let this be taken away from her? WTF is up with that? It wasn't hers to begin with!!!)
Yes, she has solid plans, but in my opinion they are no more progressive and well thought-out than Obama's, and her gas tax holiday pander (and her calls to obliterate Iran) are just as bone-headed as they come.
May 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is indisputable that Hillary's economic policies are more progresive than Barack's. Name one that is not?
Second - she's at 4th and 20 and clock is ticking down. It is not mathematically impossible for her to win unless Baracks is at 2,025 already. Please note I am using the intial # of delegates to clinch (2025) not the new one that the clinton campaign is trying to use now taht includes FL & MI because I am being intellectually honest. You should try it sometime rather than falsesly claiming it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win.
May 8, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is mathematically possible for Clinton to win if the superdelegates disgregard the electorate. It is mathematically possible for Clinton to win if enough superdelegates commit to Barack, and then change their minds at the convention. What is your point? It is also mathematically possible for us to win in Iraq if we just hang in there long enough.
May 8, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You assert this, over and over.
When it is pointed out to you exactly *how* Hillary's health care, foreclosure, and energy plans are nothing but corporate giveaways to her corporate donors (something, mind you, that basically every serious economist on the left other than Krugman realizes), you just continue to assert otherwise. When asked to support your assertions, you say "see all my previous posts", which are... surprise surprise, nothing but bare assertions.
Please, support what you are saying with some facts. Any facts. Just once. I'll even take made-up facts, but please just make some argument that isn't entirely naked, unjustified assertion. Please. I can't take the silliness anymore! Y'all are killing me here.
May 8, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't want me to do that. I have spent endless hours debating with folks over Hillary's more progressive policies and no one has EVER been able to illustrate that Hillary's are less progressive than Barack's. More difficult to get passed, perhaps. But certainly not less progressive. Try the following links :
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/obama_pokes_fun_at_hillarys_sh.php
May 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I read all of that. Here's a sample:
"Hillary is the only candidate that has been actively pushing for direct assistance to homeowners facing foreclosures that would have if implemented been a stabilizing factor on the housing market. They didn't listen so instead we are bailing out Bear Stearns investors rather than the people being thrown out of their homes and the housing market is still a mess."
Again: This is [i]not an argument[/i]. You are asserting that her "direct assistance" would have been a stabilizing force. Not only do you not support your assertion, or support the further assertion that this "stabilization" would have prevented "needing" to bail out Bear Stearns, but you also haven't addressed any of the consequences that usually make things that sound like a good idea at the time into disasters.
This is just one representative example. Again, I'll ask: Where is your [i]evidence[/i] that, in this case, her plan would have stabilized the housing market and not had horrible consequences? Can you find anyone making an actual argument with actual facts on this? I can't. In fact, even Krugman--the only economist on the left who actually thinks her Social Security "plan" isn't an outrage--thinks her foreclosure plan won't accomplish a damn thing.
Not to mention that the cornerstone of her "plan" is a commission headed by Greenspan... the very bubble-spinner that destroyed the market to line the pocket of his Wall Street friends in the first place! Are you [i]kidding[/i] me?
May 8, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/housing.html
Wil this do it - a fair and balanced assessment of all three candidate's plan. Regardless of whether you agree or disgree Hillary's economic policies are more progressive.
May 8, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that won't do it. That's just a list of the main points of their plans, not an evaluation or analysis.
Her main points are a foreclosure moratorium and a 5-year rate freeze, which utterly ensures that:
1. People keep paying longer than is in their best interest on loans that they will eventually default on anyway. Hello, finance industry giveaway;
2. Terms will for the rest of time be horrible for anyone with less than perfect credit, as lenders hedge against the precedent of the government rewriting contracts at will.
Her other big idea? Having the FHA guarantee more loans on their current terms. What does this mean? The loans of not just people who were had by shady lenders, but of *thousands of multimillionaire speculators*, will be paid by the government. Another handout to Wall Street, that again likely only delays the inevitable. By contrast, Obama proposes the FHA converting subprime loans to 30-year-fixed loans. What's the difference?
1. Rich speculators, who may have used shady leverage but didn't take out "subprime" loans (because they had good credit and/or collateral), aren't rewarded;
2. There is a one-time negotiation with the mortgage industry on the conversion. This is still, sadly, a bit of a handout to them, but it's a one-time hit rather than a continuing revenue stream for the Wall Street thieves. And since it actually *changes the terms of the loans* to something reasonable it has a chance of accomplishing the goal of keeping regular people in their houses (rather than just having the government pay their inflated, unaffordable mortgages for a few years until they finally default).
Is this making any sense?
May 8, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No because:
1. The reason SOME people are defaulting is because their ARM rate skyrocketing can almost double their monthly payments. Freeze arm rates temporarilly, for those homeowners that can afford to renegotiate their homes the federal govt can buy out the loan at a reduced cost and renegotiate the terms directly with interest rates far more reasonable so homeowners don't get foreclosed. It is better than the bailout of bear stearns because A. the banks still lose money because they are selling the loans at a loss to the govt. B. People get to stay int heir homes rather than continuing to create all these vacant foreclosed homes particularly in areas like MI, MD, GA all over the country but the inner city and minority areas were the hardest hit because that's where predatory subprime lenders preyed. Hillary's plan gives far more help to these folks than Barack. He would just allow them to keep getting the boot or allow them the opportunity of bankruptcy to force the bank to renegotiate rates (which by the way is also part of Hillary's plan). The banks because they got rid of the troubled loan to the govt rather than being saddled with another foreclosed upon house benefit somewhat, but not like the homeowners who get a chance to save their investment.
2. Hillary's plan is not intended to help the mortgage companies - it is to help communities that are suffereing from massive foreclosures neighborhoods with multiple vacant homes on each block. That doesn't help the economy or the housing market or interest rates.
3. Hillary's plan EXCLUDES speculators and only applies to homeowners versus flippers, but the lies.
4. Obama's plan gives "incentives" to lenders to renegotiate rates with homeowners, versus Hillary cutting the lenders out of the process at a loss. Both provide financial compensation - Hillary does it directly and ensures that the homeowners get a fair deal.
5. SOME people were given mortgages they could never have afforded by predatory lenders. In Hillary's plan they would not be eligible for renegotiation & there is not a lot of options for them. They will likely lose their homes.
Secondly you criticized Hillary for recommending that Pres bush convene an emergency panel on mortgages before the election with Greenspan. To be factual, you should mention she recommended "a non-partisan group of eminent leaders like Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and Bob Rubin – each of whom supports one of the remaining candidates in the Presidential race." She doesn't want to wait until January next year to tackle this problem. she wants to do it now. her call for this panel came before the bear stearns buy out. why are we using tax $$$ to help the housing industry if is not also helping homeowners directly. It makes no sense at all.
and in terms of interest rates for loans being harder to get - guess what we are already there. we are trying to stabilize the market and that's not going to happen if more and more people are defaulting and beign foreclosed upon. hillary's plan is repsonsible and undoutedly MORE PROGRESSIVE than Obama. Whether you agree with it or not, it is more direct intervention from the gov't for the good of everyone.
May 8, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is an old Washington whore bought and paid for by lobbyists from whom she has collected more money than any other candidate in the race, including McCain.
If you believe that she is going to take on any of them, I have a bridge to sell you. If you think that she is going to take on any of them and has the political skills to get the 60 votes in the Senate needed to pass anything, I have two bridges to sell you.
May 8, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
A better metaphor: The score is 35-17 with ten seconds to go and the only way the losing team will eke out a win is if the other team is immediately arrested for child pornography and escorted from the field, thereby forfeiting the game.
May 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO!!!!! Thank you - that scenario was WAY better than mine!! ;)
May 8, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think many of Hillary's supporters are aware of the math. A friend of mine is a Hillary supporter and she thought that Hillary was behind but could catch up if she wins the next few primaries.
Now my friend is a very intelligent person but she hasn't been following the delegate count (with Slate's delegate counter for example). Like a lot of other Clinton supporters, she tunes in to Hillary's stump speeches. So she really only gets Hillary's point of view of where things stand.
And all she hears from the media is that people want her to drop out because Obama's way ahead.
She said "what, just because she's a woman and she's behind, they don't think she can win? That's not fair."
If I were a candidate, I'd feel an obligation to level with my supporters about the objective reality of the math before I asked them to donate more money.
May 8, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people aren't just fair weather fans, they stick behind a person or cause they believe in, even if they aren't winning. Hillary speaks to people that view the need for government to play an active role in their lives and in the economy. They don't care about sending someone to WA that will sit down with republicans and corporate interests hoping to "negotiate."
You short sighted people keep focusing your ire on Hillary, which seems hard to understand.
It is a sad time, we have a chance for Democratic gains and a Democratic president--and the likely nominee is someone that does not even propose universal health care coverage in his policy.
May 17, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's still got some of those "I'm Not Bitter" stickers left.
May 8, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even that's got an edge to it. She'll need to amend them to read, "I'm Not Bitter But I Can See Why Others Might Be."
May 8, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Her strategy is to win this. And she's entitled to her opportunity to try."
With all due respect Hillary had her opportunity and she blew it.
I really don't care if she stays in though, as long as she doesn't spend all her time trying to destroy Obama so she can run again in 2012.
May 8, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Her strategy is to win this."
Now..... where have we heard that before??? Oh, right... bush's Iraq strategy!
Hmmmm
May 8, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you Thera,
I've posted this before but it bears repeating for our honored Hillary supporter:
Hillary is a master at projecting a persona that does not fit the facts. The election showed her strong point was the economy. The economy! The loyal incompetent campaign manager for her uncontested senate seat blew through 30 mil, enraging her donors. So she decides to make this person her campaign manager for her presidential run? Hmmm who else appoints incompetent cronies to high ranking positions.
Not that Hillary cared. What she cared about was loyalty and Patti Solis Doyle had that in abundance. Hillary took her at her word that things were going great, until someone finally alerted her to the fact that they were broke after IA, hence the 5 mil loan.
(update: didn't get much better personal loans now over 11 mil)
Kind of makes you wonder what kind of president she'll make. Who will she have advising her?
Here is the stark comparison of GWB prep of the Iraq war and Hillary's campaign:
1. Both were arrogant enough to think that they will just walk over the competition.
2. Both had the unfounded confidence that once they beat the so called opposition they will be greeted with flowers, no matter what it takes to win.
3. Both did not do any grass root work to find out what the ground reality is.
4. Both are adamant that their strategy was sound.
5. Both never anticipated a long drawn out battle.
6. Both surround themselves with 'yes-men' and appoint loyal cronies to high ranking positions.
7. Both are reluctant to change their strategy because that would be tantamount to accepting that there was/is something wrong with it in the first place.
Admire her all you want, but I think you have a very low bar set for those you hold in esteem.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?ref=opinion
May 8, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've posted a link to an April 2007 Time article describing all the issues the Clinton campaign was edealing with, how to handle the tough threat from Obama, his advantage as the fresh candidate, slurs from the press, likeability issues, etc.
Hillary never assumed it was won. They certainly made some blunders, but she had her work cut out for her on Day 1. And like a Clinton, she seems most effective when she's backed into a corner.
May 17, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's over Hillary. Go away.
May 8, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No surprise there. As soon as I heard Feinstein's comments yesterday, I saw the next day retraction looming. Hillary will not go quietly. Why would she? This is her life's ambition and as long as she's got a 1 percent chance, she's going for it. At some point after May 20, it'll start to look really, really pathetic.
May 8, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok so, translating... Feinstein told her "If you're going to hang in there till the last dog dies, you better stop destroying our nominee, capische?" and Hills said "Yes ma'am" with her fingers crossed behind her back.
May 8, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess they talked.
Hee hee....
May 8, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
(The following is a Public Service Announcement brought to you by the TrollCritic 3000 Foundation and faithful viewers like you. Thank You for Your Support.)
Hi. I'm TrollCritic 3000 - and this little guy is Fogu2. Every day, thousands of Caustic Simpleton Trolls like this one are left wandering The Intertubes, pitiful and homeless, desperately searching for the love of an audience just like you to feed their crushing Attention Deficit Addiction. Trapped in an ever tightening Shame Spiral that chokes the very life from their Tender Trollus Souls, they lead a dark, shadowy existence in search of the next Inflmatory Rhetoric fix they so desperately need to find the next high.
But it doesn't have to be like this. For less than pennies a day, you can make a difference in the life of Fogu2 and other trolls just like him. The Attention Deprivation Foundation was established to help trolls all over The Intertubes treat their addictions with cutting edge Deafening Silence Therapies that help little guys like this one find the Golden Clue that will help them in their quest for a hospitable bridge to rebuild their lives under.
Won't you help? The next time you find Fogu2 or another playful troll frolicking on the TPM stage, take a moment and offer him the Cold Shoulder he so desperately needs to shake the grip of his Cognitive Affliction. You'll be glad you did, and you'll be making a real difference in the life of a Cherubic Inbred like this little guy here. And that's something we can all feel good about.
May 8, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, stick to where your talent is.
Back to the rating shtick for you.
Buckawwwk!
May 8, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, sir.
May 8, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen to that.
May 8, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant!
May 8, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question. Will the foundation pay to have trolls neutered and spayed? I have some personal trolls I collected here at TPM. I can't feed them anymore, but I don't want to turn them out into the blogosphere until they've been fixed.
May 9, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is they feed and then spay the females, but let them go without fixing the males.
May 17, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the FL/Mi will bring Clinton 111 delegates closer to Obama in the official count.
Hee hee...
May 8, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the FL/MI seating will bring Clinton 111 delegates closer to Obama in the official count.
Hee hee...
May 8, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
And unless the Party intends to hand her the nomination on an openly racist pretext (her newly-assumed identity as The Candidate of White America), then 111 delegates down is still a loss by any measure.
May 8, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
No she will only be about 50 down.
And I predict this will be the count going into May 20.
Hee hee.
May 8, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you figure that, genius?
May 8, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Dianne, at least rearrange the deck chairs before you go under.
May 8, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Folks, it's going to be a bumpy end to Spring! Yesterday, HRC's trusty surrogate - Stephanie Tubbs Jones, when pressed, refused to state that Obama was strong enough to be President.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/05/20080507_a_main.asp
May 8, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Obama surrogate Al Sharpton told Hillary it was all over.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080510/ap_on_re_us/sharpton_s_money_9;_ylt=AmgFTFJl.Slkx3dohbi8ul0E1vAI
It appears the Reverend Sharpton has been a little crooked with his taxes.
Now what I'm trying to figure out is how a man who has been evading US, NY and NYC taxes to the tune of $1.5 million in personal taxes can get on the stage with real candidates for President and get a pass from the press.
And then he has the unmitigated gall to tell one of the candidates that they should end their campaign.
May 9, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack's got hope.
Hillary's got hwwp.
hard-working white people.
May 8, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Help me out with this. How would you describe the working class people who are voting for Hillary over Obama?
Would it have been better if she said the problem with Senator Obama is not many working class Americans will vote for him in the Fall?
Personally, I think that's the way she should have put it. Would that have been better?
I think so. Let's try it here.
The problem with Senator Obama is not many working class Americans will vote for him in the Fall.
Or how about this?
Most working class Americans won't vote for Senator Obama in the Fall.
Or even.
The vast majority of working class Americans won't vote for Senator Obama in the Fall.
Better?
May 9, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just so baffling, how otherwise intelligent and admirable Democrats will not only tolerate but actively support destroying the party's chances of winning in November in service to Hillary's ego.
May 8, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can't win the general election and if he is nominated and loses please don't try to pin the blame on Hillary. Hillary has every right to speak to the super delegates and let them know they are electing a candidate that is going to have serious issues in the general election. polls show it. swing states show it. the republicans haven't even had a crack at him and he's at 40% negatives. He hasn't been able to sway Hispanic voters in large number, many of whom feel McCain is an independent conservative who will be for a responsible illegal immigration policy - not rounding up folks and deporting them like Tancredo.
Obama can win the democratic primary, but can he win the presidency? Pre- Rev Wright I knew Obama might technically be more "electable" than Hillary because her negatives were hi. I am a die hard democrat, but either of them would win handily because of anti-bush sentiment. I can honestly say I think Obama as nominee = President McCain. If you doubt the ability of the american people to make tragic election mistakes, look no further than GWB with his sub 50% approval ratings in 2004 getting reelected.
Hillary has every right to use her last dollar if she must to prevent another deomcratic presidential kamikaze nominee.
May 8, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary said he could win the general against McCain. She said it. Yes yes yes! In Pennsylvania.
May 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love Hillary but I don't take everything she says at face value. I put my own independent thought into it. I do not believe he can win.
May 8, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can't win because his negatives are at 40%? Hillary's are at 50%. The GOP hasn't had to go at him her campaign was doing a good job all on their own. The idea that alot of Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama just doesn't make sense, forget the state the country is in do you really think all of those women will vote Mcain and watch him have a go at a woman's right to choose or send our children to iraq for the next hundred years or offer NOTHING when it comes to healthcare. We are all democrats supporting the candidate we think is best for the job, and if we remain true to that Obama should have no problem winning in the fall.
May 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are talking about the same country that elected President Bush in 2004? When his approval ratings were sub-50%? Based on a campaign that painted John Kerry as a liberal, anti-American fake war hero, anti-military, etc etc etc. Yes, I believe this country is dumb enough to elect John McCain over Barack Obama based on his own self-inflicted wounds over Rev Wright.
May 8, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please tell me how her 50% negatives isn't than his 40%? Is this some Hillary math you're using to confuse me?
May 8, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's been in the public much longer than Obama. 16 years. Obama's had fawning media coverage with the exception of the Wright fiasco which is his own doing. His unfavorables are climbing and the republicans have not begun to fight. If you think Hillary is dirty - please remebr they turned John Kerry war hero into a liar who stole purple heart citations based on all lies. Obama's given them cold hard facts with reverend wright. i don't see that turning out well.
May 8, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must say, I am amazed at your logic. Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, think that the Republicans won't go after Clinton with everything they've got; that they won't drudge up every piece of shit allegation and rumor; that shit she's pulled during this campaign against Obama won't come back to haunt her? That they won't use the specter of Bill back in the White House to rally their troops? I am firmly of the belief that they are salivating over the prospect of Clinton running against McCain so that they can destroy her the way they tried to destroy her husband. Rev. Wright is NOTHING compared to the shit they will try to smear her with. Come on, really - I have never been for a Hillary Clinton candidacy because I know what they will do to her. It will be the nastiest, dirtiest, most low-down campaign ever and she will NOT be able to fight back effectively. Obama has already shown that he can have shit thrown at him and come back swinging - actually, come back stronger than before.
May 8, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The republicans can't throw anything at Hillary that she hasn't addressed before. NADA. Besides the Obama campaign has already tried that with the stupid ass argument WHAT'S SHE HIDING IN HER TAX RETURNS! Turns out they got nada, just like the republicans. The Republicans can try to INVENT an issue to throw mud at Hillary, true. Somehow I think that will be far less effective than one handed to them on a silver platter Barack Obama as a member of an out of the mainstream black nationalist liberationist church that he chose willingly with the reverend wright as a spritual leader that he would go to to stay in touch with the black community, etc etc etc. How could a man who believes in racial unity go to a church like that? Who is he really? etc etc etc. Yeah, Hillary is far less electable than Obama.
May 8, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans will frame her as a radical feminist baby killer and all those older working class white Catholics who voted against Obama are just as likely to vote against Hillary once the right-wing slime machine gets in high gear.
May 8, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans will paint him as a daishiki wearing black nationalist who goes to an out of the mainstream curch who only distanced himself not because he disagreed with them (since he initially defended Reverend Wright) but because he wants to get elected. He preaches unity, but in secret he is a bigot. He hates America. He says he is part of a 50 state strategy, but in a meeting in san fran when no one's listening he puts down rural white working class voters. he's a sham all image and marketing and you can't believe what he says.
Brought to you by the Swift Boat Reverends Against Obama
May 8, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are there really any straws left to grasp? You herald yourself as an independent thinker, yet every statement you make is a Clinton campaign talking point, regurgitated in tortured blog-comment syntax and masquerading as bold and brave truth-telling. Spare us.
And, for the record, I ain't buying your bogeyman: the Big, Scary, Republicans and How They'll Eat Up Obama. All of that can be met, tit for tat, thank you very much. That Scary Republican phobia you carry with you from one election to the other is your problem, not Obama's. Get counseling. Obama's been handling his bogus "controversies" quite effectively, even telescoping them into his NC victory speech. And he's done it without pandering, triangulating, equivocating, or crying.
Face it, Obama has forged a new path for politics: he's built an astonishing fundraising apparatus, stimulated grassroots organizing unlike anything seen before, and inspired millions around the country and the world. And he's done it while waging a nasty campaign against the MOST powerful Democratic couple in decades.
So, please, lecture us all some more about what Obama can't win.
May 8, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If fundraising is the only metric of success, then Ron Paul would be the Republican nominee. Howard Dean who was the most liberal candidate in 2004 again was raising $$$ hand over fist. So those on the fringes of the party get voters the most excited and give in greater number. How does fundraising = electability again? I thought Barack's view was the money should be left out of the campaign. Campaign finance reform. Public financing of the general election. For it before he was against it. Another example of words not translated into action.
May 9, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is 100% insane. Nobody has said a *word* about Bill's scummy dealings with murderous dictators for the past eight years; deals which funded her campaign.
Nobody has said a word about any of her own dealings, for that matter.
The Republicans have dump trucks full of *new* dirt, both fanciful and actual corruption, on the Clintons from post-Pres-Bill. Anyone who doesn't believe this is dangerously delusional, or just not paying attention.
FFS, he's going on trial for defrauding a business partner as we speak. Seriously. Whatever your opinion of the case, it illustrates that there is plenty of new crap to fling a the Clintons... and the GOP is sitting back, laughing, hoping against hope she still gets the nomination so they can make it a long, hot, ugly summer just like 2004.
Her negatives are already 25% higher than Obama's, and anyone who doesn't believe she would get *hammered* in the general election campaign is either a troll or a blind fool.
May 8, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong:
Since Bill left office he:
Tried to sell our ports to Dubai at the same time that Hillary was "working" against it in the senate.
Bill trying negotitate trade deals with Columbia while Hillary is "working" against it.
Lets not forget NAFTA which Hillary was against from the beginning (too bad video doesnt back up that assertion)
Hillary has shown herself to be a liar and panderer. Worse yet, as she tries to paint herself as a little guy, she has been selling out to lobbyists.
There is soooo much the republicans can throw at her that is recent. Whatever they throw at Obama can be shown to be patently untrue. This isn't the John Kerry swiftboat generation. The people are just not falling for it anymore. They want someone who is decent and honest.
May 8, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Barack loses in November I will pin the blame on Hillary. As a Democrat of some standing, she has strong credibility with a large number of people. When she attacks him with Republican talking points, the criticisms stick with her supporters in a way they wouldn't if they were just coming from Fox. You expect people like McCain to say Obama is elitist or not fit to be Commander-in-Chief, etc., but you don't expect a fellow Democrat to do so. And you don't expect a former President to pile on as well.
Clinton (and her supporters in the public eye) has seriously stained Obama when she could have come to his defense as a fellow Dem. If you think that's not going to have a lingering effect, you're just not being honest with yourself or us.
May 8, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, he attacked her with Republican talking points on healthcare and foreclosures, calling her unelectable and divisive and dishoenst from the start of the campaign. Talk about positive campaigning. His campaign sent out memos on Bosnia sniper story. His campaign argued for weeks for Hillary to put her tax returns public so they could dig through them only to find nothing. hardly positive campaigning to me. But am I complaining? No because that's what you do in a campaign. You talk about why you are the better candidate and your opponent is not. DUH. Any criticism directed at Obama is unfair or racist or old politics, but any criticism of Hillary is fair game? Grow up.
Second, Hillary didn't come out with Reverend Wright. That was totally self-inflicted by Obama. Could Hillary have ignored it? maybe, but the meida wasn't going to. and neither will the republicans if he is the nominee. it is a problem no matter how you want to put your head down in the sand and he is the only one responsible for it.
If Obama thinks Hillary was tought, he needs to take a look at the swift boat ads. Hillary never did ANYTHING approaching real negative campaigning in this primary. If he thinks that's negative then he is not ready for prime time.
May 8, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sure?
Lets hear it from Hillary herself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_mcgO3Iva0
May 8, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh but Hillary doesnt have any problem with negative mailers. The first one sent of the campaign was from Hillary.
This pro choice mailer in combination with her war mongering won NH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BB4Vvgn_4k
This was right after her devastating loss in IA. She set the tone for the campaign and did not stop. Obama had to debunk each and every lie that came out of her mouth from that time on.
How about Canada NAFTA debacle that she tried to pin on Obama when she was the one doing the wink wink. Don't believe me? Again lets go to the tape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOLEK2lr3CM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BrPZYbCdJ4
May 8, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
all based on issues issues issues. you really think negative campaigning is talking about nafta. the republicans have it to an art form. mccains secret balck baby. john keery as fake purple heart. howard ford playboy bunny commercial. give me a break. hillary's been playing patty cake. and obama's told plenty of lies and false attacks in his mailers like this one
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/in_fundraising_letter_obama_at.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/obama-going-negative-mail_n_97225.html
it's called campaignng and it's gone both ways. if thats what you call negative again obama is not ready for the gop
May 8, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink