May 13, 2008 8:50
To Slightly More Interested Parties
It's true HILLARY CLINTON HAS WON WEST VIRGINIA. Total game-changer, people. And here's some snippets from the Obama team's push-back:
And for perspective, while 28 pledged delegates are up for grabs this evening, Obama has won the support of 27 superdelegates in the course of just the last week putting him less than 150 total delegates away from clinching the Democratic nomination.[snip]
To understand a potential general election match-up between Obama and McCain, the only analysis and data that should be considered valid are the current head-to-head National polls rather than extrapolating irrelevant assumptions from exit poll data in Democratic primaries. [AMC note: Though, curiously, they don't cite any recent general head-to-head polls. Okay, not that curiously.]
There's also a bunch of MYTH v FACT juxtapositions, that do kinda extrapolate a bit, but are still quite interesting!:
MYTH 1: The Primary has left Democrats divided. FACT: Democrats are united behind Barack Obama, even more so than Republicans are united behind McCainMYTH 2: The Primary campaign has hurt Obama with swing voters and Republicans:
FACT: Obama is winning the swing voters against McCain by a wide margin.MYTH 3: Obama cannot perform strongly enough among white voters:
FACT: Obama’s is running as well or better than past Democratic Candidates among white voters.MYTH 4: The race against Clinton has compromised Obama’s position among women:
FACT: Obama has begun attracting the support of a broad coalition of women and is poised to win historic margins.MYTH 5: Obama cannot win working class voters:
FACT: Obama is already winning working class voters
Go to the jump for the polls they do cite, and some historical context.
TO: Interested Parties
FR: The Obama Campaign
RE: West Virginia and Obama’s Strong Position in the Race Ahead
DA: 5/13/08
West Virginia
There is no question that Senator Clinton is going to win by huge margins in the upcoming primaries in West Virginia today and Kentucky next weeks. She has poured resources into both states and she, former President Clinton, and Chelsea Clinton have all campaigned extraordinarily hard there.
The Clinton campaign has already been touting their margins in these states – In fact, Bill Clinton said that Hillary can win West Virginia with 80 percent—and the West Virginia Senate Majority Leader said Clinton needs to win by “80-20 or 90-10.” And in keeping large margins in perspective, it is worth noting that, while Senator Clinton will win big in West Virginia, Barack Obama won neighboring Virginia by 29 points.
But with 49 contests behind us and only six to go -- including several states where we expect to do well -- Barack Obama leads in pledged delegates, contests won, and superdelegates. And for perspective, while 28 pledged delegates are up for grabs this evening, Obama has won the support of 27 superdelegates in the course of just the last week putting him less than 150 total delegates away from clinching the Democratic nomination.
Obama’s Strong Position in the Race Ahead
Nationally, Obama is running stronger among Independent voters than any winning Presidential candidate since 1988 and is significantly outperforming Sen. Clinton among these voters as well in general election polling.
To understand a potential general election match-up between Obama and McCain, the only analysis and data that should be considered valid are the current head-to-head National polls rather than extrapolating irrelevant assumptions from exit poll data in Democratic primaries.
And, on the issue of Democratic unity in the Fall, analysts need only consider that in April of 1992, on a night when Bill Clinton won four primaries and was the presumptive nominee, 6 in 10 Democratic primary voters said they wanted another candidate in the race. Despite this, five months later, Democratic voters were unified behind Clinton and he won his first of two terms in office.
Debunking Five Myths About Obama’s SupportMYTH 1: The Primary has left Democrats divided.
FACT: Democrats are united behind Barack Obama, even more so than Republicans are united behind McCain
• May 12 Washington Post poll shows that Obama wins 81% of Democrats in a matchup against John McCain.
• Indeed, more Republicans crossover to vote for Obama (15%) than do Democrats for McCain (13%).
· NOTE: In 1996, Bill Clinton won 84% of Democrats.
MYTH 2: The Primary campaign has hurt Obama with swing voters and Republicans:
FACT: Obama is winning the swing voters against McCain by a wide margin.
• Obama holds a 51-42 lead among Independents in the Washington Post poll.
· NOTE: Clinton loses 46-49 to McCain among Independents.
• Not since 1988, when George Bush beat Michael Dukakis 57-43 among Independents, has a candidate won such a large margin among swing voters.
· In his two victories, Clinton only managed a 6-point margin over the Republican among independents in 1992 and an 8-point margin in 1996.
· Indeed, no Democrat has won a majority of Independent voters since exit polls were first conducted in 1976.
MYTH 3: Obama cannot perform strongly enough among white voters:
FACT: Obama’s is running as well or better than past Democratic Candidates among white voters.
• LA Times (May 8) Obama: 41McCain: 45
• Wash Post (May 13): Obama: 42McCain: 51
• 2004 Exit polls: Kerry: 41
Bush: 58
• 2000 Exit Polls: Gore: 43
Bush: 54
• 1996 Exit polls: Clinton: 43
Dole: 46
• 1992 Exit polls: Clinton: 39
Bush: 41
Perot: 20
MYTH 4: The race against Clinton has compromised Obama’s position among women:
FACT: Obama has begun attracting the support of a broad coalition of women and is poised to win historic margins.• Wash Post (May 13): Obama: 54
McCain: 40
• New York Times (May 3) Obama: 47
McCain: 39
• NOTE: No Democratic candidate has won women by so large a margin since exit polling was first conducted in 1976. The closest any candidate has come was in 2000, when Al Gore won women 54-43 over George Bush
MYTH 5: Obama cannot win working class voters:
FACT: Obama is already winning working class voters
• In the recent LA Times poll, Obama wins every income group under $100,000.
Obama McCain
· <$40K: 43 35
· $40K-$59K 43 40
· $60K-$100K 51 42
· $101K+ 46 47
• According to the Washington Post/ABC poll released today, despite Sen. Clinton’s insistence that she is stronger among white, working-class voters the data shows that Sen. Obama performs nearly as well as she does in the general election. Among white, non-college voters in this poll:
· Obama vs. McCain is 40-52
· Clinton vs. McCain is 44- 52
About Swampland
Ana Marie Cox is the founding editor of Wonkette and the author of the novel Dog Days. Read more
Joe Klein is TIME's political columnist and author of six books, most recently Politics Lost. Read more
Karen Tumulty is TIME's National Political Correspondent and has also covered the White House and Congress. Read more
Jay Carney is TIME's Washington bureau chief. He has covered the Clinton and Bush 43 White Houses as well as Congress. Read more
Jay Newton-Small has covered the Bush 43 White House and Congress since the DeLay era. Read more
Michael Scherer is a TIME Washington bureau correspondent covering the 2008 presidential campaign. Read more
RSS Feed
 |
Daily Email
CNN Politics
Get U.S. and global politics 24-7. Politics at CNN has campaign coverage, latest headlines and video, candidates' positions on the issues, fundraising totals, states to watch, delegate counts, election results, news and analysis
CNN Politics
The Page
Mark Halperin and the TIME political team covering the 2008 campaign bring you all the latest breaking news, videos, and best stories from every
source, all in one place, expertly culled and edited, 24/7.
The Page
White House Photo Blog
Get an intimate look at the Bush administration and race for 2008 through the eyes of TIME's White House photographers.
White House Photo Blog
Ana Marie Cox on the trail
Keep up with Cox as she posts pictures and tidbits from the campaign trail.
Flickr
Twittr
Reader Comments (47)
please tell me that your "total game changer" was sarcasm AMC
Posted by cbhenderson | May 13, 2008 9:03 PM
Yes, cb, it was.
Posted by Ana Marie Cox | May 13, 2008 9:09 PM
cbhenderson,
You really can't tell?
Posted by Malcolm | May 13, 2008 9:10 PM
Please tell me that your question was irony CBH.
Posted by Elvis Elvisberg
|
May 13, 2008 9:19 PM
Speaking of irony, here's Steve Martin (C.D. Bales)in Roxanne: " Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at. "
Posted by wvng | May 13, 2008 9:36 PM
But if you listen to the MSM fodder factory and their slob pundits, say like this Schneider guy, for example, you'd think the ground caved in over in WV and Gozer from Ghostbusters appeared from the overturned earth to bring boils and fire to the Democrats and a plague on Obama's house. Be sure to stay tuned in, of course.
AMC, out of curiosity, how well do you think the news media handled this Democratic primary, over all? How would you describe their general coverage?
Posted by vicious maniac | May 13, 2008 9:52 PM
interesting, thanks for this!
Posted by Bharat | May 13, 2008 9:54 PM
OMMFG!
Doesn't she understand the rules?
What a freak!
We say when races are over, not those stupid voters!
She "won" some state down there? What-ever.
By thirty points?
Thirty points of what-ever.
When is a win not a "win": when we say so, that's when.
Who does she think she is, f--king with our story line? If we don't call presidential races, then who will? What kind of world would that be? Everybody knows that it's the press' job to make sure that the elections go the way that they should. Who else is going to do it?
Hillary must be insane for power.
Yeah! That's it!
That's our new story line.
F--k her. Old witch.
Posted by stuart_zechman | May 13, 2008 10:29 PM
stuart_zechman - now that right there is some grade-A sarcasm.
Posted by Terrapinion | May 13, 2008 10:51 PM
This is shaking out pretty much to expectations, and the turnout is good, but not the kind of earth shattering numbers that Bill Clinton was begging for last week. So no, really not a game changer in any way. And next week Obama will need only around 25 pledged delegates to have a majority.
Posted by superterrificdelegate | May 13, 2008 10:52 PM
Terrapinion:
You're too kind.
I hope that even people who do believe that Hillary's Mussolini in a pink suit can find it within themselves to judge my display of the stark fist of sarcasm on its merits.
Thank you.
Thank you.
a-hem.
Is this on?
I know you're out there; I can hear you breathing...
Posted by stuart_zechman | May 13, 2008 10:58 PM
Understand that what happened in Miss tonight and in Louisiana and Illinois earlier shows exactly what will happen this fall.
All the hand wringing by the Obama and Clinton supporters should be put in perspective.
1964 may end up looking like 1960 by comparison.
Posted by Paul-no not that one | May 13, 2008 11:11 PM
Amazing win in MS-01 tonight, that's for sure.
Along with Denny Hastert's seat, it might be significant in terms of a possible trend.
Posted by stuart_zechman | May 13, 2008 11:23 PM
"OMMFG!
Doesn't she understand the rules?
What a freak!
We say when races are over, not those stupid voters!
She "won" some state down there? What-ever.
By thirty points?
Thirty points of what-ever.
When is a win not a "win": when we say so, that's when."
Stuart I agree completely that line is insulting. I am terrible checking the archives here but I assume you were making the same post after South Carolina and their Jesse Jackson supporting voters. And those silly caucus states.
Posted by Paul-no not that one | May 13, 2008 11:28 PM
I assume you were making the same post after South Carolina and their Jesse Jackson supporting voters. And those silly caucus states.
PNNTO:
What?
Of course!
Although, I should say, I don't know what "their Jesse Jackson supporting voters" means in terms of having the voters in each state finally have a say in the presidential nomination.
I think that the only reason the caucus states are silly is because caucuses are silly. Well, not silly, but anti-democratic and de-legitimizing.
You do understand that my problem is with the political press corps having more influence on elections than they should in a democracy, right PNNTO?
Posted by stuart_zechman | May 13, 2008 11:51 PM
Oh, all right. Joke.
I was going to ask if you were high.
Posted by four legs good | May 13, 2008 11:52 PM
I think that the only reason the caucus states are silly is because caucuses are silly. Well, not silly, but anti-democratic and de-legitimizing.
Well, Stuart, I found our caucuses to be empowering and quite democratic.
If Hillary had won those she's be crowing about how caucuses mean even MORE in a primary because it's the most committed democratic faithful who braved sleet and snow and mountain lions to support her.
Posted by four legs good | May 13, 2008 11:55 PM
BILLARY Clinton won, and it means NOTHING!
Posted by KYJurisDoctor
|
May 14, 2008 12:06 AM
If Hillary had won those she's be crowing about how caucuses mean even MORE in a primary...
four legs good:
...and I'm sure that the Obama campaign would find a way to minimize those victories, as they are doing now with respect to their 40 point loss in West Virginia, by spinning or lying or doing whatever they're paid to do.
Playing the electoral spin game as if Hillary's campaign are all rattlesnakes and Obama's people are all nuns, instead of recognizing them for the gross political shills that they are is quite baffling coming from such normally bright people. I guess that there's a reason why they call it "kool-aid".
Well, Stuart, I found our caucuses to be empowering and quite democratic.
Well, I'll take those wonderful democratic innovations called "the secret ballot" and "voting" that my state happens to prefer.
Posted by stuart_zechman | May 14, 2008 12:11 AM
AMC:
What are you doing, AMC? Sabotaging our Hillary don Quixote?
I hope that those uncommitted superdelegates of the democratic party will read this before Hillary goes to them with her spiel.
---
stuart_zechman wrote:
" .. I think that the only reason the caucus states are silly is because caucuses are silly. ..
"only"?
Hey, junior, you won't like it if your high school teacher said the following to you: "The only reason you are silly is because you are silly.
stuart_zechman wrote:
"..Well, not silly, but anti-democratic and de-legitimizing. .."
Should you perceive something unconstitutional or un-American about the Democratic Party and its supporters, just come out and say it - VIGOROUSLY and PATRIOTICALLY.
Rev Wright is an American hero. He put his butt on the line in the Marines - fighting for our freedom.
Sen McCain is an American hero. He put his butt on the line in the Navy fighting for our freedom - not least, the freedom to trash Rev Wright.
Rev Hagee, Rev Parsley, Rev Falwell / Sen McCain '08 WRONG for America
Posted by chokora fukara | May 14, 2008 1:51 AM
Stu,
I think the point that Paul-no-not-that-one may have been making about SC and Jesse Jackson was that Bill's comments were a kind of spin, downplaying the outcome of the primary and explaining why it didn't matter, which is what you seem to be criticising the Obama campaign for doing here. Even if you don't feel his comments were intended to "play the race card," you can at least acknowledge that.
Of course Penn used to serve up that kind of narrative daily.
Granted, your parody seemed to be targeting that MSM, but your follow comment was aimed at Obama.
BTW, are those Obama nuns disenfranchised?
Posted by Malcolm | May 14, 2008 2:50 AM
"Amazing win in MS-01 tonight, that's for sure.
Along with Denny Hastert's seat, it might be significant in terms of a possible trend."
Stuart: This has got to be a cause for real concern in the GOP caucus and John McCain in particular. This is the third race in a row where a democrat has pulled out a win in a solid republican congressional district. Hastert's district in Illinois, Louisiana 6th, and now Mississippi 1st.
This despite John McCain showing up for their guy in Illinois, Cheney showing up for their guy in MS and test marketing their wrap Wright around every democrat's neck in new and improved attack ads in LA and MS.
It looked to me like Obama got more votes than McCain in WV while only pulling 26% of the vote. Top that with what is looking like real trouble for Libby Dole in NC.
Nothing seems to be working for the GOP and there just has to be some fall out from all of this within the GOP leadership. What that will be I don't know.
Posted by GySgt213 | May 14, 2008 5:43 AM
John Authers (a financial not political columnist) for the Financial Times points out that at noon on Tuesday as West Virginians were voting Obama was trading on the Intrade market at 90.1, and that 12 hours later, after Hillary Clinton's great victory, Obama was trading at 90.3.
Posted by PureGuesswork | May 14, 2008 6:03 AM
GySgt213:
That is even more true because there was a clear attempt to tie the Democrat in Ms-01 to Barack Obama, and through him, to the good Reverand. ("Look, you don't want to elect this guy, he knows a black man!")
Ana, for all your sarcasm, you've had it about right in terms of how some of the MSM has covered this overnight. There have been a few realists (Larry O'Donnell,e.g) to pour water on the game changers (Pat Buchanan, e.g.)
As Tweety said last night "We all want it to go to the convention..."
(But as Mike Barnacle says, "even Stephen Hawking couldn't make the math come out for Hillary")
Posted by KathyR | May 14, 2008 6:14 AM
PureGW: you bring me comfort. We have to suppose that in the same way that the good voters of WV ignored the reality the MSM was telling them, the supers will ignore the sky falling in West Virginia.
Posted by KathyR | May 14, 2008 6:18 AM
Here's a piece of unusually harsh (non-Hillary specific) snark from Roger Simon about why Hillary is staying in the race: "She has no alternative. Just as sharks swim in order to breathe, candidates run in order to exist." sheesh. Sure glad you have so much respect for the people you've chosen to cover as your life's work, Roger. Apparently pundits snark in order to feel good about themselves.
Posted by KathyR | May 14, 2008 6:30 AM
(Pat Buchanan, e.g.)
Kathy: I really wish I could understand why MSNBC has the sick need to put Pat, Joe and Tucker on every friggin show all day long on that network. These 3 guys all have the same tired perspective and the same schtick. Talk over, dismiss and insult other guests and reduce every topic to the most inane particulars. It gets really old day after day show after show. An hour of these guys at 5 a.m. in the morning is enough at least then I'm at work. To be fair Tucker is just plain silly and what they need Willy Giest for is beyond me.
CNN's sick need to out do Fox in hiring former administration hacks is making them unwatchable to me also.
Posted by GySgt213 | May 14, 2008 6:44 AM
Ana - thanks for the Obama stats. It would seem obvious that the MSM who are pronouncing how "ominous" last night's results are for Barack in the fall have had access to this info as well, and either aren't doing their work or are being intellectually dishonest. (well, yes, obvious)
Posted by KathyR | May 14, 2008 6:46 AM
@KathyR, quoting Mike Barnacle:
"even Stephen Hawking couldn't make the math come out for Hillary"
Stephen Hawking is a physicist, not a mathematician. But then, practically nobody could name a living mathematician anyway.
Besides, Hillary didn't major in math (or economics, apparently); she majored in miracles!
Posted by Malcolm | May 14, 2008 6:50 AM
KathyR: You have to wonder what these people will do if the nomination contest had been over a month ago? Simon, Barnicle, Matthews: they go on and on without adding any light. I really hope Barack gives them the finger.
Posted by bitterpill8 | May 14, 2008 6:52 AM
Did you notice that Edwards got 7%? That must be his best performance since SuperDuper Tuesday at least. Clearly those voters are not happy with the remaining choices, but I don't know any Edwards supporters who would back McCain. If I had to bet I would say their second choice is more likely to be Obama; they just figure he's already locked up the nomination so they'll vote their true preference.
Posted by Malcolm | May 14, 2008 6:54 AM
Did you see this from RCP:
"51% of all voters said they think Obama shares the views of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- and Clinton won 84% of them."
So 8% of the voters think Obama shares Wright's views, but are OK with that. And only 5% of the population of WV is non-white (but not necessarily black). Granted, they're probably all Democrats, so the percentage of Dems is higher. Maybe these 8% include the Edwards supporters.
Posted by Malcolm | May 14, 2008 7:12 AM
Are there no blue-collar, white-working class people in Iowa, Maryland, Virginia, Vermont, Kansas, Washington, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Colorado and the 30+ states that Barack won?
Or in these 30+ states that Barack won, are there only high-class, surburban people of leisure, college graduates and African-Americans?
And, is that what Someone wants us to believe -- that in the 30+ states Barack has won, that there are no blue-collar, white-working class people in any of those states? I thought that white people were a majority in America, not a minority!
Posted by bacalove | May 14, 2008 8:02 AM
GySgt213: I think MSNBC must think they need to do penance for Keith O. by filling the whole rest of their schedule with right wing hacks - although I generally like their "consultants" better than any other network's. Howard Feinman, Michelle Bernhard, e.g. And Chuck Todd is the bee's knees. Just the facts maam. (a shoutout to Beth in Va)
Posted by KathyR | May 14, 2008 8:03 AM
bacalove: yeah, I was going to bring this up too. From the US Census Bureau: "Maine and Vermont had the highest proportion of single-race non-Hispanic whites (96 percent each), followed by West Virginia (94 percent)."
Let's see, who won the two whitest states in the nation. Hint. It wasn't Hillary.
Posted by KathyR | May 14, 2008 8:09 AM
Bacalove: Since this was, at least by implication, about income too: By median income Vermont ranks 16, Maine 32, and West Virginia 48.(wiki) (Vermont is small and I'm pretty sure the mean income rank isn't as high as the median income - we're largely a service economy - but I can't find ranks by mean)
Posted by KathyR | May 14, 2008 8:18 AM
Oh: and that's median household income, so you'd want to know how the number of earners per household differs.
Posted by KathyR | May 14, 2008 8:20 AM
Just income KathyR, I just pulled this from the article
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/us/politics/14dems.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
According to the West Virginia surveys, 95 percent of the Democratic primary voters were white, 70 percent did not graduate from college, and 54 percent had household incomes less than $50,000.
Certainly very representative of the country as a whole. I'm curious, what is the entire population of WV, perhaps we should look at it as a microcosm of the entire country. Yes, yes, therefore, Hillary is the president-elect. Sheesh...
Posted by YMM | May 14, 2008 8:28 AM
Oh and a thought on my previous post is, if those are the Dem voters in WV, what are the demographics for the GOP voters, Starbucks drinking, hybrid driving, college professor-type elitists?
Posted by YMM | May 14, 2008 8:29 AM
Nah, those guys are Obamistas, remember?
Posted by KathyR | May 14, 2008 8:59 AM
Posted by Malcolm | May 14, 2008 2:50 AM:
Granted, your parody seemed to be targeting that MSM, but your follow comment was aimed at Obama.
Malcolm:
Yes, of course my beef is with good, kind people in the national political press who seem to jealously guard the prerogative of allowing national contests to continue or not.
The "Hillary is Mussolini" followup wasn't really aimed at Obama, it was a joke about the appreciation of my own wit (or lack thereof).
Posted by stuart_zechman | May 14, 2008 9:06 AM
What the Superdelegates are saying with these endorsements, to people in West Virgina, is we really don't give a s_ _ t about what you people think or want. We don't want her, we never really wanted her and your opinion means squat.
No matter what the outcome is and who the nominee is things are not as clear as they seem. Although THE MATH is there so is the process and the process states that the primaries end on June.
Out of respect for the voters and the supposedly "democratic process" the Super Delegates should wait until it is all over. Dismissing last night's win by Clinton is risky and, again, arrogant and it might blow up in the Democrat's faces in November.
Many will remember that the party of the people, the party of equality, took the candidacy of the first woman to have a real shot at the presidency and threw it in the trash.
By the way, no matter what Obama does to "woo" blue collar voters...he lost them a long time ago with his clinging comments and with Jeremiah Wright...this, by the way, has nothing to do with anything Clinton did or said. This was all his doing and the Republicans are going to exploit it mercilessly and the Democrats will lose: Ohio, PA, WV and Kentucky.
I know some people in this site think Obama is the Second Coming...Sorry. He is not and no matter what you write and how you spin it he has lost this constituency because the Republicans will continue to bring up his arrogance, which by the way is "unspinnable". Humility does not come natural to him. By the way, Hill has nothing to do with this either. Yet, you will find a way to blame her if he loses the general election and if he is elected president which will be a squeaker, you will find a way to blame his disastrous presidency on Hillary Clinton as well.
Funny, funny people you all are. You are at your best when you have a boogie man to attack. Just check your record. Oh well, another day among the maddening crowd.
PS. Does anyone remember Teddy Kennedy's behavior in the 1980 Democratic Primaries? What a despicable man.
Posted by poh123 | May 14, 2008 10:49 AM
poh123-
The process also states that the goal of the primaries is to attain delegates to the convention. The candidate with the most delegates wins. Even if Hillary won all of the remaining primaries, she would not have more delegates unless she counts "her" Florida and Michigan delegates and Obama gets none. And by your reasoning, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, et al are just quitters.
Posted by smedley | May 14, 2008 11:16 AM
Did I say those gentlemen were quitters? Did I even mention that word? I don't think so. They decided to step out of the race and that was their right as the process also gives room for this. What I meant is that as of this moment neither of the candidates has reached the magic number. I am saying that the Super delegates should let all the primaries happen and then take sides. Not earlier. Doing it earlier is manipulative and dangerous. It affects the perception of over 16 million voters that cast in favor of Senator Clinton as well as many out there who even though they have not voted are seeing this.
When the pundits talk about the Republicans just relishing this whole madness, it is not necessarily about what HRC has "done to damage" Obama, it is really about how the Democratic party as a whole has handled itself throughout this. It has been back stabbing and shamelessly overt in its dislike of a major candidate and a major party member who, by the way, happens to be a woman. Go figure. If, as a voter, I see this behavior by a political party against one of their own, it is not a party I would trust to look out for me while in power.
See what I mean? Don't worry, though, I can't vote.
Posted by poh123 | May 14, 2008 12:03 PM
"it is really about how the Democratic party as a whole has handled itself throughout this."
Yeah, right. Just keep polishing that halo over Ste. Hillary.
Posted by smedley | May 14, 2008 12:37 PM
KathyR wrote:
"Let's see, who won the two whitest states in the nation. Hint. It wasn't Hillary.
Should that be "pinkest" instead of "whitest"?
:-)
---------------
poh wrote:
" ..how the Democratic party as a whole has handled itself throughout this .. the party of the people, the party of equality, took the candidacy of the first woman to have a real shot at the presidency and threw it in the trash."
"first woman to have a real shot"?
[Whatever 'real' means here.]
-To begin with, let us presuppose that (normally) all who declare their candidacy believe that they can win.
-Hillary is not the first female to seek the nomination in our presidential elections.
-And her 'real' residency at the White House next year was last year's prevailing 'wisdom'. A funny thing happened on her way there.
Wake up and behold the Obamamania.
- "equality" may not mean that Hillary should be treated as more equal than other contenders ..
- "party of the people"?
If we are talking of the same bitter and non-bitter people, you may pause to consider that the people have given Sen Obama more of their popular vote, more of their states won, more of their pledged delegates - and now, more of their superdelegates.
So what part of the peoples' "NO" doesn't your Hillary don Quixote [and her Sancho Billy] understand?
" ..no matter what Obama does to "woo" blue collar voters...he lost them a long time ago.."
Maybe you did not pay attention to AMC's comments introducing the blog you are into.
"Out of respect for the voters and the supposedly "democratic process" the Super Delegates should wait until it is all over."
It is the understanding that when Hillary, a member of our society, entered the contest, she tacitly agreed to be bound by the rules of the contest. The rules do not require the superdelegates to withhold their endorsement until after the primary season ends. Indeed some months ago, Hillary boasted of an overwhelming lead in the number of superdelegates in her corner - and she wooed many more - even before the voting in the primaries started. It was sweet to her then.
Do you believe that millions of the Republican voters who had not voted were disenfranchised when the 'process' was essentially over some months ago?
---
Unguard! Interns, here comes the Stripper King...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0408/McCain_camp_hires_beauty_queen.html
---
'Punk', Decadence, Stripper Culture / McCain '08, WRONG for America
Posted by chokora fukara | May 14, 2008 4:09 PM
M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD image(*.bin,*.cue), so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4
Posted by goldstonesoft | July 16, 2008 3:21 AM