[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: HOW HILLARY CAN STILL WIN IT HOW HILLARY CAN STILL WIN IT By Cliff Kincaid May 17, 2008 As Hillary Clinton won a huge victory in West Virginia last Tuesday, the political pundits began to change their tune. Ever since the previous week’s primary returns, in which Hillary lost big to Barack Obama in North Carolina, and barely squeaked by with a win in Indiana, the assumption was that the race was over, and it was just a matter of how she would make her exit. Perhaps she would wait till she could go out on a winning note in West Virginia, suggested NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. Or maybe she would finish out the primaries on June 3, and bow out at that point, for the good of the party, when enough Superdelegates chose Obama to put him over the top. But it now seems clear that Senator Clinton intends to be in it to the end, and that she has a strategy to take the Democratic presidential nomination away from Obama. This will make for exciting media coverage. “We now know who the Democratic nominee’s going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it,” said Tim Russert on MSNBC the night of the North Carolina and Indiana primaries. “Those closest to her will give her a hardheaded analysis, and if they lay it all out, they’ll say: ‘What is the rationale? What do we say to the undeclared Superdelegates tomorrow? Why do we tell them you’re staying in the race?’ And tonight, there’s no good answer for that.” Time magazine declared Obama the nominee with a cover story that said, “And the nominee is…” with a picture of Obama. On “The Early Show” on CBS, Bob Schieffer said, “Basically…this race is over.” On ABC, George Stephanopoulos said, “This nomination fight is over.” And Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel said that “I think the Clinton people know the game is almost up.” Andrea Mitchell is reporting even today, that “for the first time now, her [Hillary] people, her closest aides, are saying, ‘she knows the reality, we know the reality.’ They’re acknowledging that she’s not going to win this? that she is really just going through the motions. And that’s a big change.” But there is little indication that Hillary has accepted this notion. Comedy of Errors In a column last summer I took Russert to task for stating with certainty that we would know on Super Tuesday who the nominees were going to be. There he goes again. The pundits have been wrong before and they will probably be wrong again. Indeed, they are singing a different tune this week. Terry McAuliffe challenged Russert on Meet the Press last Sunday, asking, “Did it become an avalanche after Tuesday, when you and others were all on the air saying it was over?” Russert got defensive and said that he was only quoting others. “The Clinton campaign says it’s the media. What we did,” said Russert, “is add up the delegates, call Clinton supporters and say, ‘Is the math there?’ Clinton supporters said ‘No.’” But what it would take for Obama to get “over the top” was in flux. It has been, and the networks’ graphic still says, that the total needed is 2025 delegates. But over the last couple of weeks, Hillary’s team has abandoned that number. The new number is 2209, or 2210, which is one more than half the delegates, if Florida and Michigan get to seat all of their delegates. This is supposed to be decided at a May 31 Rules committee meeting, but up to now, Howard Dean has been too weak of a party chairman to be able to engineer a compromise that would satisfy both Obama and Clinton. Another Russert Error On Tuesday night, during the coverage of the West Virginia primary, Russert said that “48 hours ago on Meet the Press, Terry McAuliffe said he was willing to seat half of the delegations of Michigan and Florida.” But in fact, McAuliffe didn’t say that. When Russert asked him on Meet the Press if he would accept that compromise, McAuliffe said, “We certainly might, you bet. But in fairness, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet on, on the 31st to make that decision.” When pressed on the issue again by Russert, he again deferred to the Rules and Bylaws Committee and said, “it’s up to them to make that decision.” That is a distinction with a significant difference. Advertisement The problem for the Democrats and the media stars that love them is that Hillary has emerged as the stronger candidate with wider appeal, but only after the media had abandoned her for the “Rock Star” Obama. It is now apparent that Obama has serious weaknesses on policy matters, like the reason for and effect of raising capital gains taxes, and his willingness to meet unconditionally at the presidential level with some of the world’s worst tyrants. Just as important, perhaps, are his links to and handling of the situations with his controversial former minister Jeremiah Wright and the unrepentant terrorist and former Weatherman William Ayers. These have hurt him in immeasurable ways. The exit polls in West Virginia showed that 50% of the voters believe that Obama shares Jeremiah Wright’s views to some degree, and nearly half of those who voted for Hillary said that if Obama is their party’s nominee, they won’t vote for him. His radical ties are showing, and his efforts to distance himself without seeming to repudiate his past have been unconvincing. In this 12-round heavyweight championship fight, Hillary spotted these cuts over Obama’s eye and has been pounding away. The problem for Hillary is that in a 12-round fight, to extend the metaphor, if one party wins the first seven or eight rounds, the other party needs a knockout punch to win. In determining the winner, the early rounds count equally to the late rounds. At one point, immediately after Super Tuesday on February 5, Obama won 10 straight primaries and caucuses, by an average of about 30 points each. Those count too. Plus, Hillary, while becoming a better candidate, has continued to make mistakes. Earlier it was her lie, or as Larry King called it, a “mistruth,” about running to avoid sniper fire in Bosnia. More recently, she has been brutally criticized for her comment to USA Today, in which she cited an Associated Press story that referred to an exit poll that “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.” Clinton had a valid point, but she was politically incorrect to refer to “white” voters. Bob Herbert, the black columnist for the New York Times said that those comments were the equivalent of saying, “He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!” Added Herbert, “The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and Superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years.” She’s a Fighter But now, if we are to take her at her word, Hillary appears determined to fight on. She told the crowd in West Virginia Tuesday night that “…I never give up. I'll keep coming back, and I'll stand with you as long as you stand with me.” Money isn’t a problem for the Clintons, other than the appearance of weakness for having to dip into their personal hundred-million-dollar kitty. There is no Federal Election Commission watching because the two parties are fighting over who will be seated to fill the vacancies. The Clintons also have potential access to funds from other accounts, although dipping into them could pose legal problems. Millions of dollars have been raised by Bill Clinton for the Clinton Library and the Clinton Global Initiative. Using money from questionable sources is not new for the Clintons. During the 1996 election cycle, Bill Clinton and the Democratic National Committee took at least $3 million from sources linked to China, and claimed to have paid it back after getting caught. Even NBC’s Andrea Mitchell questioned the Clintons’ trustworthiness on money matters, saying on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that “We don’t know and won’t know whether their claims of having enough money [to continue on with the campaign] are accurate and truthful.” Regardless of what happens with Michigan and Florida, and even if Superdelegates appear on paper to give Obama the number of delegates he needs to win, Hillary still probably won’t get out. For one thing, as Politico has reported, there is little agreement among the various news agencies exactly how many Superdelegates are committed to whom, and how many remain uncommitted. They point to the argument that counting Superdelegates is an art, not a science. Hillary could go to the convention in Denver the last week of August, where the delegates actually vote, and count on their ultimate support. If she can somehow get enough delegates to switch to her side, or hold back support from Obama, she might make it through the first ballot without Obama securing the nomination. Then all delegates are free, and this is where the Clintons may see their opening and chance for victory. While it seems that the Clintons have lost their magic and the fear and respect they used to have in the party, they just might be able to succeed. It would certainly come at the expense of any sort of party unity. But does anyone really believe that if Obama gets the nomination, Hillary will want him to win? If she loses, the party might be so split that it can’t possibly win the White House. The Clintons say the process has been good for the Democrats because of all the voters registered, and all the enthusiasm generated. But is that true or just a rationalization for Hillary to stay in the race? High Ratings Despite getting the facts wrong and making unfounded predictions, the media love the ongoing campaign. The liberal media hate seeing the Democrats fighting, but they love the high ratings and constant coverage they are able to provide, as they hope to influence voters. On the night of the West Virginia vote, Chris Matthews told Terry McAuliffe, who earlier in the day had called Matthews the unofficial chairman of the Obama campaign, that he, as a reporter and political junkie, wants more than anything to see this race go down to midnight on the last night of the Denver convention. Yet, Matthews had said that morning, “I think most people…understand that the fight is over for the nomination.” The media preference for either Democrat over McCain is unmistakable, although McCain has traditionally been a favorite of the liberal media because of his liberal stands on such issues as campaign finance reform, immigration, and global warming. For example, Dan Abrams, in his prime time show on MSNBC on Thursday night, practically begged the Democrats to have a ticket with Obama at the top, and Hillary as his vice president. “My fear is that the Obama supporters simply hate Hillary Clinton so much that she’s simply got no shot [of becoming his running mate].” This is the main fear that the liberal media have about the race. Hillary was the liberal media’s early favorite when she was the presumed nominee. But as Obama gained strength, and the Clintons began using race and his links to the far-left to try to stop his momentum, his popularity grew in the media. Chris Matthews talked about how after being in the presence of an Obama speech, he “felt this thrill going up my leg,” and he compared Obama’s message to the New Testament. This is what passes for journalism these days. The rock star treatment was obvious for all to see. There is hardly a pretense of objectivity by any of the networks. The Obama Chorus In a column in Politico titled, “Obama’s Secret Weapon, The Media,” Jim VandeHei and John Harris argued that “Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.” So will Hillary bow out soon, and gracefully, as Andrea Mitchell is reporting? Not likely. She has been dropping clues along the way. Back in February, she made it clear that she looks at the letter rather than the spirit of the pledged delegate rules, which is that even they don’t have to vote on the first or any ballot for whom their state’s primary or caucus sent them to Denver to vote for. So until the delegates have a chance to actually vote, they are just stating a temporary preference. That is how the Clintons are looking at this process. The Democrats are reeling because they don’t know how this drama will play out. Their allies in the media, while the Democrats are getting way more coverage than the Republicans, continue attempting to prepare the country for attacks on the nominee, whoever it is, by the Republican Party and conservative groups. An ABC article pointed out after last month’s Pennsylvania primary, two-thirds of Democratic voters felt that Hillary had attacked Obama unfairly, and 50% said Obama had unfairly attacked her. This shouldn’t deter Republicans from going after either of them this fall. There is a lot of drama left, and with the Democrats so badly divided, it is possible that McCain could win a big victory in November. That depends on him attracting the votes of disaffected Democrats, and McCain appears to be courting the left, especially with his support for global warming treaties and legislation. In his recent speech on the need for conservative judges, he defended his vote for Clinton’s nomination of ACLU general counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. The Republican Party is also in turmoil but it hasn’t gotten as much coverage as the problems in the Democratic Party. About a quarter of Republicans in recent primaries have refused to vote for McCain, and Rep. Ron Paul, the most popular Republican presidential candidate on the college campuses, says he won’t endorse the Arizona senator for president. While Ralph Nader is threatening to siphon votes away from the Democratic nominee, third party candidates such as Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and Bob Barr, the likely candidate of the Libertarian Party, could take some conservative votes away from McCain. There is a lot of suspense and excitement on both sides as the media prepare for the campaign ahead. © 2008 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
#4. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
(Edited)
"Conservatives" dreaming of a Hillary miracle win. Now I've seen everything. The Clintons are toast (thanks to Obama). Get used it it.
Like I said, if all Obama does is crush Clinton and McCain on his way to the White House - and, YES, HE WILL - then he's done enough to make me happy. Everything else would be extras. Meanwhile, the GOPs seem to be the party (of freaks) looking for something to pretend they are standing for and Newt, the perv responsible for starting the race to the bottom with the Demos, is playing elderly statesman to his wrinkled dick.
That's how I see it too. Unfortunately, it seems that some here would rather see Bush-Clintonism continue in power unabated, than see it vanquished by a (gulp) black man.
Complete and total bull$#it. There are indeed blacks I would vote for but Obama isn't one of them. And if you don't think he will carry on the same policies that Bush and Clinton did you might ought to put the crack pipe down. He will take his orders and do what he is told, just like they have. He is a member of the establishment, how much clearer could it be made? His stance on the second amendment ALONE disqualifies this traitor. Barack Obama on Gun Control Democratic Jr Senator (IL) Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men? A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now. Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew (sic) need to punish that man for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair. Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions * Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998 Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would: * Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime Source: Barack Obama on Gun Control
{{{clapping}}}
{{{clapping}}} You DO see that his argument is that there's no difference between Obama and McCain and, therefore, he opposes Obama. While I repeatedly stated that only the intellectually lazy and unimaginative would keep repeating that, I can't help but noting that, if the only difference between the Demo and the GOP is 'race' and he passionately opposes the Demo, then it's got to be the Demo's race that bothers him. This may explain why some are accusing the Obamaphobes of 'racism'. I am not one of them because, in my view, everyone is racist and, for as long as racism doesn't become an obsession, there's nothing wrong with it.
i'm going to refer you to OI's post to Arator because he expresses my position much more articulately than i can.
The text you qoted is a fine example of the guilt by association nonsense. Just to take care of Zbig first. His guilt seems to be that he is an anti-Russian Pole and he is not an anti-Arab Zionist. Oh... how easy it is to manipulate us. On the Obama case. First of all, how exactly did the NWO Globalists pushed Obama at the top of his class in college? I am asking, because I just don't know. Then, after he graduate, did Obama receive a visit from a Globalist emissary who instructed him to forgo what could have been a very rewarding career in the big corporate world and go back to his Chicago ghetto instead and try to help some of his fellow ghetto dwellers? Did the globalists single him out from the pool of black politicians to take a state representative job? When the GOP candidate for US Senate in his state turned out to be either corrupt or a pedophile - can't remember which - the GOP wiseguys shipped Keyes in, to match the Demoblack with a GOPblack. The GOPs lost. Do you think that the NWO Globalists were on the side of the Demoblack? When Obama became on of the dozen apparent also runs, providing Hillary some cordial 'opposition', Hillary was the clear establishment choice. Are you saying that the NWO Globalists decided to take down Hillary - because Billy did not serve him well enough? I don't think so. And, how exactly did the NWO Globalists persuade a million or 2 million people give Obama a dew dollars each? I'm asking because it seems that it's the fat cats financing Hillary and McCain - remember how the Hollywood Jews threatened to stop financing the Demos if they don't help their favorite girl Hillary beat Obama? These being said, I do suspect that Obama is not going to be channeling Ronald Reagan or George Washington. But he's not going to be Lincoln or Wilson or FDR either. He may not bring all of our troops back home in 4 years but there will probably be fewer if any bombs dropped on defenseless people abroad while he is president. It is unlikely that he would allow a Waco 2 or that there will be an expansion of NAFTA/CAFTA. He may not deport all the illegal aliens but it's likely that he will make it more difficult for employers to bring in more. The 'health care' thing, which seems to be a national obsession since 1980... it's hard to change it. Clinton tried and couldn't do it. Same thing about 'gun rights'. The kind of weapons that are currently 'allowed' are irrelevant when it comes to the individual confronting the agents of the state. People will continue to be able to carry small arms and it's probably the course that will decide to what extent their ability to self-defend may expand or shrink. It is strange and bizarre to me that some did not see anything wrong with Ron Paul running for the GOP nomination - never expressing fears that Ron Paul, once elected, would be controlled by the GOP/Globalist machine. I found RP's association with the GOP to be VERY problematic and we can see now that I was right. Obama is clearly a Demo. We kind of know what he stands for and we can see what McCain stands for. There is a much wider gap between Obama and McCain today than there was between Gore and W in 2000 or even between Kerry and W in 2004. Obama has some positives while McCain has zero positives and a lot of HUGE negatives. As for those who decided to 'oppose them all', that's fine with me too but I am wondering how are they going to enact their opposition. If they decide to stay out of the election game whose outcome is going to be either McCain or Obama in the White House, how are they going to oppose the 2 or the 3?
#35. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#33)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||