McAuliffe: This Race Won't Go To The Convention
On one of the morning shows today, top Hillary adviser Terry McAuliffe said that the Dem primary will not -- repeat, not -- be going to the convention:
"It'll be over early June," McAuliffe said. "We've all said we'll be together at the end. If Hillary doesn't win, Hillary, President Clinton, myself, we'll be over there helping Senator Obama. And, likewise, Senator Obama will come together to help Hillary if she's the nominee."
Some will be tempted to think that McAuliffe is deliberately trying to assuage fears of a floor fight in order to prevent party leaders and others from pressing super-delegates to flock to Obama in hopes of ending the contest. And this is certainly possible.
Indeed, today's Wall Street Journal reports -- albeit with very weak sourcing -- that Bill Clinton is privately urging that Hillary take this all the way to the convention. And on the trail today, Bill said that she could still win:
"We are gonna have to resolve Michigan and Florida and when we do she can win the popular vote," Clinton said...
The only thing I can add here is that I have not spoken to a single Hillaryland insider who believes that it actually will come down to a floor fight.
Comments (137)
Bubba is beyond sad at this point and it makes me wonder what he promised to the Colombians or the Sultans of Dubai.
He is like a gambling addict begging for his knees. Bubba will swim with the fishes.
May 8, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, the Clinton's must be sweating bullets knowing that the thugs are coming to get them now that they can't pay out on their promises to the Colombians, Chinese and Arabs. I hope Bill was able to get his Iron Man suit paid off!
May 8, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bubba sez:
Dat oughta be gonna hafta. Whadda yo-yo.
May 8, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
His stature has been so deminished in my eyes and in the eyes of millions of others by his actions in this campaign. I can barely stand to look at him or see his face anymore. It's a shame.
May 8, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHITE GUILT VOTE ANEMIA
As guilt ridden voters slouch to the voting booths to submit their contrition cowardly Superdelegates are handed an airtight excuse for Barry's certain defeat: "hey WE supported you"
(insert Michelle pouting here)
May 10, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama picks up Montana superdelegate:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/EXCLUSIVE_Montana_superdelegate_declares_for_Obama_0508.html
May 8, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great News!
May 8, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The money quote:
""There's no 'white working voter' problem for Barack here," Dahlman continued. "Yesterday, I was at the post office and I asked a retired welder - a union guy - if he was going to Billings tomorrow to see Bill [Clinton] and he said he didn't think he should since he's going to vote for Barack. And another guy - a young electrician - told me that he's supporting Barack and working hard for him. The people I see on the street are all white and they have no problem voting for a man whose father is black. It's what he stands for - he's authentic, he isn't pandering and he's telling us the truth - that's why people here are voting for him and that's why he'll win Montana.""
May 8, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paging idiotic!
May 8, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
!!!HILLMENTUM™!!!!
May 8, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
He'll win Montana because Montana has never seen a black person before.
May 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because once you see or know a black person you wont vote for one?
May 8, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This highlights another aspect of Obama's racial strategy. Every time anyone points out that race is a factor in this race, they jump on it as evidence that you're a racist for pointing it out.
The Democrats in Montana are more likely to vote for a black candidate not only because there are so few black people that race is not an issue, but because what few Democrats there are in Montana are guilt-ridden eggheads and limousine liberals who are anxious to vote for any black person just to prove that they aren't racist.
May 8, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. That makes about as much sense as white people voting for Hillary because she's not black.
May 8, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, because there are limos all over Montana. I couldn't even SEE a car the entire time when I visited there......
Nice use of labels. Does compartmentalizing and generalizing everything help you understand this race better? If so that's a pretty skewed viewpoint especially in trying to understand the wider tapestry that is America and this race for the White House.
May 8, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes your statement, and by extension you, an idiot, is that you made a blatantly racist statement, then had the nerve to whine that you got called out on it.
Twit.
May 8, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great discussion on race and the race for the white house can be found here (in video and words):
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june08/race_05-07.html
Love Kathleen Hall Jamieson (brilliant anaylysis as always!)
May 8, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quote from above link:
"When the media focus on "the black vote," "the white vote," and then they start to particularize the white vote within that, they invite us to see race as a defining category of analysis. That simplifies, distorts, and heightens a concept that probably is best left not discussed in this broader, complex arena, because it's missing a whole lot of what's happening with this electorate."-- Kathleen Hall Jamieson
May 8, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, why is it best left undiscussed? Why not sort through the complexities?
May 8, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
because there in lies insanity, i think. no one has anything to go off because we don't even know what these statements, labels, figures mean. especially when looking at the U.S. as a whole, you can't base everything on a state to state basis. oh, he did bad with whites in PA, must mean he has a problem with whites. WTF?
Basically, to me, this comes down to two phrases my dad always said. "Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one and everyone thinks everyone elses stinks" and "assume-ing: makes an ass out of you and me".
Assumptions, based on race of all things, is a horrible idea. Yet that's all we've been getting from the media- their assumptions on race. it belittles black, white, class, and the U.S. as a whole by categorizing all this shit.
IMHO. I just appreciate the PBS discussion because it really fuels deeper thought on race, the media, and this contest.
May 8, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we should parse it out - but by "we," I mean knowledgeable people, like economists and demographers. Because what's happening here is that race is being conflated with economic factors. That's actually important stuff to piece out and for the campaigns to understand, but it is complex. When the PA race ended, I spent a good long while, breaking those data down and looking at how he fared county by county and how it broke down by median household income, education level, etc. What I think it comes down to is not race, but the economy. Jobs. I'm not saying that race won't be an issue in this campaign for some, but I don't believe that it has been the driving issue in these primaries - at least, not to the extent that Clinton would have us believe. There are analytic methods that can tease that out and I hope that there are some brilliant minds out there taking a good hard look at this.
May 8, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument there. I totally agree. The problem is nobody is bringing in class, age, region, and other demographics. Instead we are using labels like bluecollar to break things down. What is bluecollar? Furthermore, we have talking heads tossing these things around without fully discussing them in the their full context. I believe that's the problem. Unfortunately, nobody really puts these people in their place. Ultimately, we are the ones who have to accept them at face value or not. I don't. Clearly, you don't. Probably most here don't. Enough, unfortunately do, and they drink the cute euphemistic beverage.
I'd also like to add that Hillary is tossing these things out so we will parse her (or her campaigns) words. They are not being racist. They are leaving it up to us to discuss ad nauseum and to insinuate it's racist or not racist, etc. That's why these statements are so divisive. We're doing their dirty work for them.
May 8, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
to sum up of our statements, the current discourse from the media is simplifying, generalizing, and labeling WHEN in fact it SHOULD be (as you suggest) be further explaining and detailing these figures out.
I, for one, and really sick of "blacks" being lumped into one demographic like there is no diversity amongst that group.
Thanks for your great input, Carol! Glad I'm not the only "highminded", "egghead" on here today.
May 8, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, Demconwatch had Dahlman in for Obama a month ago.
May 8, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
MORE GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY CLINTON!!!
(sorry, couldn't resist.) :)
May 8, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm assuming that she made this calculation using her new math, which counts ballots cast by African Americans as three-fifths of a vote, rather than a whole.
May 8, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was in poor taste.
May 8, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
it might be in poor taste, but it seems the only way that the Clinton's can claim victory...
They're the ones saying that Whites prefer Hillary, ignoring the facts: Those under age 64, no matter their race, prefer Obama 60% - 40%.
May 8, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ride is about to end for Clinton. They're getting desperate. Can't we just ignore this garbage , or at least respond without '3/5' barbs?
May 8, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll stop making comments like this when she stops implying that African Americans aren't hard working. Deal?
May 8, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spare me the fake outrage. Every comment turns into a exercise in interpretive gymnastics. As one of the few people here who is actually black and has had to battle racial stereotypes, I trust my ability to judge when someone is calling us lazy. Senator Clinton's comment merely pointed out that working class white voters supported her in much larger numbers. Does every statement discussing demographic groups have to be prefaced with a statement about how hard working we are? Give me a break.
p.s: Its jerks like you that make it harder for people to overcome racial tension. When every comment is viewed through a racial lens, seeking out only the worst possible interpretation, it makes it harder for people to actually discuss the issue without getting defensive and falling back on their prejudices.
May 8, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Name calling. Awesome. Nice avatar, though.
I'm clearly not the only one who interpreted it as a dig (see: JackandJillpolitics.com), but whatever. I'm not going to stop making jokes because of some plea for high-mindedness, but your words are duly noted.
May 8, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
As another one of the few commenters here that is actually black, I agree with much of what you say. However, I think that you may want to look at Senator Clinton's comments in context. The inclusion of "hard-working" when blowing the racial dog-whistle (whether black, white, asian, whatever) is specifically intended to signal that WE are indeed hard-working and deserving of special treatment while THEY are the product of undeserved special treatment. Senator Clinton's use of the word was directly to support the "affirmative action is the cause of all my problems" crowd. This is as true as Reverend Sharpton's use of hard-working to support the "the man is keeping me down" crowd. Both are used and both are wrong. In the context of Senator Clinton's remarks it was the use of the term "hard-working" that provided the wind for the dog whistle and, thus, it is a valid topic of discussion in this instance. Of course, this is just my opinion. YMMV.
May 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I denounce and reject your avatar change! But I guess it *is* Change I Can Believe In. :)
May 8, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kenny will be back soon. I promise.
May 8, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please no. We know a guy who's boyfriend looks like Kenny Loggins. We can not even hang out with these people without singing Danger Zone. Guess what's been running through my head almost daily for months because of your avatar? And if it's not that, it's Footloose. I want it to end!
May 8, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton has gone out of his mind. Somebody take away the car keys.
May 8, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill's comments, sadly, are for the gullible! The ones who want to buy snake oil. The ones willing to be hoodwinked! These people prey on the uninformed.
We need to clear the stage here. Honestly, if I were Barack, I would not want bill out stumping on my behalf! No way!
May 8, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is good news.
Hillary will probably stop campaigning after May 20, and then concede around June 3.
Or, maybe sooner, if enough Supers would get off their asses already...
Best Case Scenario for Obama: enough Supers endorse by May 20, that Oregon puts him over.
How many Supers need to declare for Obama to make that reality?
May 8, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the problem. They haven't defined what they would count as actually declaring a nominee. Which leaves wiggle room. Which, with these folks, is not a scenario I would trust.
May 8, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any "victory" that disenfranchises the voters of Florida and Michigan is by definition illegitimate, and it will lead to certain defeat in November.
May 8, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
FL and MI disenfranchised themselves. Why don't you understand that? You break rules, you get punished. otherwise, you get anarchy. Hillary agreed to these terms months ago. Only when they could've helped her out did she cause this stink. Hypocritical of her? Absolutely.
If FL and MI wouldn't have been chomping at the bit to be heard first, they would've found that their primaries would've been at very important times this year as originally scheduled. they screwed themselves by moving them up.
May 8, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"FL and MI disenfranchised themselves."
States don't vote - only individual citizens vote. And so you're a liar for suggesting that the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan disenfranchised themselves by voting in a legal election. They did their duty as American citizens - you are the one refusing to count their votes in order to make your vote worth more than theirs. That is called voter suppression, and it is against the law.
May 8, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
well thanks for calling me a liar for stating my opinion. what i'm suggesting is that MI and FL disenfranchised themselves when their elected officials voted to move their primaries up. THEIR state moved THEIR primary up. get it? not anyone else.not obama's campaign. not the DNC. them. they broke the rules. they were warned. they did it any way. actions have consequences. they took a gamble. they lost. end of story.
if you wanna blame someone blame those states elected officials, and the voters who could've wrote to their elected officials and told them not to do it, not anyone else. not obama. not his supporters.
seriously, what's your argument here? i've never understood why this is such a big deal. it would be like saying: oh well florida decided to vote before everyone else in the general election. shouldn't that not be allowed? no, it should not be allowed. then they go ahead and do it anyway. should those votes be counted? i would also say no, because they broke the rules for that particular vote. they before they were supposed to. elections are held when they are held. not before. rules are rules. same with the primaries.
every vote that is lawful and legal should be counted. in democratic primary terms they broke the "law", what they did was not legal. not fair game. vote not counted.
i'm not trying to suppress the vote here. i'm just trying to ensure people follow the rules. what are we without our rules?
May 8, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never mind.
He would need to pick up about 116 Supers in the next two weeks. (I'm giving Hillary major victories in KY and WV, with Obama gaining 6 delegates from Oregon).
Even I don't think that's very likely to happen...
Looks like Obama will have to wait until June 3 to get 2025.
May 8, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good news, this. Surely a bitter convention battle serves no democrat's interests well. I am glad to read Clinton campaign officials agree on that point.
May 8, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Minor thread drift:
In a breathtaking display of arrogance:
"Not long after the polls close in the May 20 Kentucky and Oregon primaries, Barack Obama plans to declare victory in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080508/pl_politico/10184_1
Even though he will not actually be the nominee yet. Even McCain is not this arrogant.
Rude awakening dead ahead. This guy is in it for him, not for America. His deceptions will soon be as apparent to those myopic supporters as it already is to everyone else. But likely too late.
Clinton must still be supported in the hopes that a revelation will blow this egomaniac out of contention.
May 8, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think McAuliffe is being sincere. Somehow, I think there is more to gain, for Senator Clinton and the party, if unity is the new way forward.
May 8, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, your wife having a shot at this nomination is the biggest fairy tale I've ever heard.
May 8, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great news!
Now if we can stop Garin and HRC from continuing to talk about the racial divide in the primaries, we'll all be able to begin the healing process toward Democratic unity for the general election.
May 8, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not talking about the racial divide will not heal or change the racial divide in the party or in the nation.
May 8, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone can heal the racial divide of this country, it's Obama.
Obama is a quick learner. If he can beat the Clintons, I have no doubt he can beat McCain.
May 8, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've seen how Obama's candidacy has healed the racial divide by polarizing black and white voters.
May 8, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last time I checked, it was Hillary that did all the polarizing.
Aside from the fact that this is just within the democratic primary. I have seen no polls on how whites will vote for Obama vs. McCain.
May 8, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious! Obama's candidacy is creating racial polarization.
Of course, that's what Hillary and her people would like the American public to believe.
Chant on, Monkey Boy. But, you've got the wrong audience here.
May 8, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your first comment made a little sense; your second exposed you as an Obama-bashing Troll.
May 8, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is what they said all along.
Get off the kool aid.
May 8, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't drink Kool-Aid. I like TANG!!!!
May 8, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm partial to PowerAde myself...
May 8, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Choosing orange juice! IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
May 8, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Us Obama supporters are latte and kool-aid drinkers? That's not a good combination.
May 8, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take some Imodium.
May 8, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's not over yet.. NOT OVER TILL JUNE3... HE WONT BE NONIMATE..ONLY HILLARY CLINTON IS
May 8, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was over after super Tuesday. Please check your in-box for the memo.
May 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reflections begin ... what an amazing story we've lived (are living) through:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html
May 8, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I think the Time article is a good overview, I think the NYT and Atlantic did a better job at disseminating Hillary's fall. With the horrible mismanagement and failure to look ahead it is amazing she has gotten this far, or duped her supporters so completely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle
May 8, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
she hasnt got this far.
shes been lost for a very long time.
the fake media kept her alive with their fake acceptance of her ever changing fake chances.
May 8, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's for damn sure. One thing I've noticed in this obituaries for the Clinton's 3rd term campaign is the lack of media culpability of their role in keeping the Clinton's viable. They did it since after NH. Then when they started whining about the "poor media treatment" which was no different than the dismissiveness Mitt Romney received after Super Tuesday, the media then bent over backwards to give Clinton free press. Every website breathlessly posting every fucking conference call or stupid ad the Clinton's rolled out.
The Clinton's should thank their lucky stars the media, once again, played the role of trying to decide the vote for the American public.
May 8, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill needs to spin this fantasy to convince the suckers still out there to open their wallets and give him some of his hard earned money back.
May 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that what Bill really thinks or will she eat his balls for breakfast if he says anything different?
May 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wouldn't remind him of Monica if she did.
May 8, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enough with the scorched earth tactics. Bill wants Hillary to be President in the worst way.
May 8, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons are veering back and forth between the bargaining and denial stages of grief.
They're out of control
May 8, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm ... seems like she Dahlman may have already endorsed back in March.
May 8, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's a matter of figuring out whether or not Bill Clinton thinks we're all a bunch of idiots...
...it's just a matter of how long it's going to take for us to prove him wrong.
May 8, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Judging by Obama's supporters, he's already been proven right.
May 8, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh.
hillaryis404.org
Go home.
May 8, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wolfson is now saying on MSNBC that West Virginia is the only state that matters. Typical asshat behavior.
May 8, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all need to back so fat off of this... Obama is showing what a consumate gentleman he is, and there is no other way to respond. Senator Clinton truly needs to be able to save face in a way that is not distructive. Any energy assisting that will only make it easier.
May 8, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It might help Obama if all the egggheads and limousine liberals didn't viciously attack Hillary and everyone who supports her every time she or they open their mouth. Sadly, they just can't help themselves.
May 8, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
TOAST
May 8, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would also help if Clinton and her supporters didn't say jaw-droppingly stupid, Orwellian and divisive things every time they open their mouths. Sadly, they just can't help themselves.
May 8, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And calling people limo libs and eggheads shows you to be truly a voice of moderation and reason.
May 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, up above you said "He'll win Montana because Montana has never seen a black person before."
Now, I didn't attack you before you opened your mouth there. You said it, I listened respectfully, and now I have a question: Just exactly what do you mean by it?
We're listening again...
May 8, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This highlights another aspect of Obama's racial strategy. Every time anyone points out that race is a factor in this race, they jump on it as evidence that you're a racist for pointing it out.
May 8, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon, it was a fair question: What exactly did you mean by "He'll win Montana because Montana has never seen a black person before."
I'm not pre-judging your intent or meaning. I'm just asking for clarification. What did you mean by that statement?
May 8, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me repeat: TOAST
May 8, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen, it was a long, tough campaign. People had some feelings hurt. It's going to take a few days for things to calm down.
Frankly, I just feel a little sorry for her now. She really did run a hell of a campaign, and without a doubt, if Senator Obama hadn't run such a great race, she would be fighting McCain now.
As an added bonus, I think EVERYONE is sick of hearing about the Reverend by now.
Really, give it a few days. Things will get better.
May 8, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that Obama actually isn't a good candidate. He doesn't know how to debate, he can't connect with working people, his blatant ageism has alienated retired people, and his racial strategy has alienated Hispanics and white people. The only reason he's ahead is because he's black, a huge advantage in a Democratic primary, and because he has five times as much money. But that isn't going to be enough to win the general election.
May 8, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's why he won MN, WI, WY, ND, and on and on....
May 8, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does it hurt more that such a horrible candidate beat Hillary from the beginning? I mean, it has to, right?
May 8, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point that you don't seem to get (because you cry "racist" every time anyone brings it up) is that if Obama wasn't black, and if he didn't have the support of 90%+ of the African American community (and the economic support of 90%+ of guilt-ridden limosine liberals) he would have had to drop out of the race before Tom Vilsak.
May 8, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cry racist? Care to point to an example, please?
But this game is fun. Let me try: if Hillary wasn't Bill Clinton's wife, we'd never have even heard of her.
Your turn.
May 8, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if Hillary was black!
May 8, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just blew my mind...
May 8, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "The only reason he's ahead is because he's black"
Yes, it's been such a huge advantage that we haven't seen a white Democratic candidate in decades.
Yeesh, do you think about what you write before it comes out? Do you realize that despite your protestations, you actually do make racist pronouncements over and over?
"He'll win Montana because Montana has never seen a black person before."
I believe stemper asked you a question about this little gem of yours. No answer??
I'm starting to think you are part of the Operation Chaos cabal here -- gotalife, etc. -- and not a real Hillary supporter.
May 8, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Sharpton was the last dem nominee right?
May 8, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
But who was the last non-black Democaratic nominee? It's on the tip of my tongue, but I just can't place the name.
May 8, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you actually type "isn't a good candidate" with a straight face?
I'm sorry it upsets you, but really, the definition of a good candidate is the one who wins elections. Obama won twice as many elections. He won more delegates. And he won more votes.
If he's not a good candidate, then the person who lost to him must really suck.
May 8, 2008 3:02 PM |