Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Election 2008

The Top 10 Myths Keeping Hillary in the Race

By Chip Collis, Huffington Post. Posted April 1, 2008.


Here are ten enduring, kudzu-like myths about the state of the Democratic nomination race, with the debunking they sorely need.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

I have noted a number of myths suggesting Hillary should stay in the race. Here are ten enduring, kudzu-like myths, with the debunking they sorely need.

Myth: This race is tied.

No, actually, it's not. Obama has the lead in number of states won, in pledged delegates and in overall delegates. Nothing will happen in the remaining primaries to substantially change that. As to the one thing Hillary does lead in, superdelegates, her quickly shrinking margin is among DNC personnel only. When you look at the elected superdelegates, Congressman, Senators and Governors (i.e. people who actually work with both Obama and Clinton) Obama leads there, too.

Myth: Okay, the popular vote is tied.

There are people who claim that because of the 3% separation, that Obama's lead in the popular vote is a "statistical tie." This is a myth because, when you can actually count things, there's no need of statistics and no such thing as a margin of error. The popular vote is not an estimate based on a sampling, like a poll. Like the general election, there are winners and losers and, so far, Obama is the winner.

Myth: Fine, but what if we count electoral votes? Now Hillary is ahead!

Not so much. The proportions of electoral votes to population versus delegates to population are pretty comparable. So if you allocated electors proportionally in the same manner that you allocate delegates, Obama is still ahead. If you allocate them on a winner-take-all basis, then that would be the same as allocating the delegates on a winner-take-all basis, so why bring electors into it?

Myth: But if we did do it like the Electoral College, that proves Hillary is more electable than Obama, because of states like California.

This is perhaps the saddest little myth of all. It's ridiculous to suggest that Obama will lose New York and California to McCain because Clinton won them in the primaries. No, come November, those states will join with Obama's Illinois to provide 40% of the electors necessary for him to win.

Myth: Very well, then, Mr. Smarty-Math. But if we counted Michigan and Florida, then Hillary would be winning!

Nooo, she wouldn't. The margin would depend on how you allocate the delegates, but Obama would still be ahead. And he'd still be about 100,000 ahead in the popular vote, too, despite not even being on the ballot in Michigan. However, it would enhance Hillary's chances of catching up in the remaining races.

Myth: Ah HA! So Dean is keeping them out just to help Obama! And Obama is keeping them out.

That's two myths, but I'll treat it like one. The only people who can come up with a solution to this problem are the states themselves, to be presented to the Rules and Regulations Committee of the DNC for ratification. It was Rules and Regs, not Howard Dean, who ruled that Florida and Michigan were breaking the rules when they presented their original primary plans. If the two states cannot come up with a plan to reselect delegates, they can try to seat whatever delegates were chosen in the discounted primaries by appealing to the Democratic Convention's Credentialing Committee, which includes many members from Rules and Bylaws.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: election, hillary clinton

Chip Collis is a long-time commenter on the Huffington Post under the handle jungpatawan.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Numbers say Barack or Hillary can win the democratic portion of the Democratic party's primary.
Posted by: aouie01 on Apr 1, 2008 2:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As mentioned by Nancy Pelosi and many voters who do not want to lose faith in the primaries, the results of the democratic portion of the Democratic party's primaries should be given very high value and should not be overridden by the superdelegates. Any overriding without a very compelling reason is highly objectionable for those who want the Democratic party's primaries to work like a democracy, where every voter has (almost) equal say in deciding the outcome of an election.

Sorry about all the "abouts", but exact numbers are difficult to find in the Democratic party's primaries. If we take about 4047 total delegates - about 800 superdelegates, that leaves about 3247 delegates. If we subtract the delegates won by other nominees 3247 - about 18 (Edwards) = 3229 delegates. To win by simple majority (greater than 50%) (thus preventing Edwards delegates playing a role in a proportional representation style picking of the presidential nominee) Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would have to get more than about 3247 / 2 = about 1624 delegates. This would mean about 1615 - about 1413 = about 202 more delegates are needed for Barack to win, and about 1615 - about 1251 = 364 more delegates are needed for Hillary to win. There is about 574 remaining delegates to be won democratically in the Democratic Party's primary. Barack would need about 202/574*100 = about 35% of the delegates in the remaining elections, and Hillary would need about 364/574*100 = about 63.5% of the delegates in the remaining elections. Either candidate could make it. Numbers and polls favor Barack currently.

It is fine for anyone to influence other voters by backing or endorsing a candidate, but not for the superdelegates to pledge their votes for any candidate prematurely. All superdelegates should be pressured to greatly value allowing each Democrat's vote to have a nearly equal say in the outcome. (I believe) Some caucuses are not reporting the number of people who attended, and hence we have to go with the delegate count only (can't entertain popular vote based decisions).

A good responsible media would be pressuring all the superdelegates to explain why they aren't falling in line with this reasonable view (that Nancy Pelosi has partly explained). Instead the media goes along with the view that neither party can win without the support of the superdelegates.

While it is true that any pledged delegate or superdelegate can vote for whichever delegate they choose to, the pledged delegates are not expected to override the will of the voters. Come nomination time it is traditional for all the delegates to unanimously support the leading candidate as a show of unity. Except for rare scenarios like Dennis Kucinich's 37 delegates not voting for Kerry in 2004, the delegates usually play along with the show of unity.

Without careful analysis, I get the impression that Alternet is favoring Barack (and I don't blame them for that choice). Alternet should be careful to plan articles in a manner that won't be too regrettable if Hillary should happen to win the democratic portion of the Democratic party's primaries.

Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ReRead his comment.... Posted by: Phenix
» RE: eRead his comment.... Posted by: Bozwell
» Don't Forget the Independents! Posted by: SkeeterVT1
» RE: Don't Forget the Independents! Posted by: blackie4aces
Sacrificing democracy for other values.
Posted by: aouie01 on Apr 1, 2008 2:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many supporters of Barack or Hillary will likely be tempted to favor / engage in / recommend deviations from their own personal views on ideal democratic processes in ways that many others will consider to be stealing elections.

Would it be justifiable to forego democratic procedures to stop an unjustifiable war? Would many of the people who believe in god/s think it is justifiable to forego democratic processes to bring about the will of the god/s? Presuming you, like most of us, do value some things over democracy, what would you find justifiable to forego democratic procedures? I, for one, am reluctant to sacrifice rational fair discussions on ideal democratic processes, more so because of my value for rational fair discussions than on account of my value for democracy. So if they were in conflict, I may lean towards the freedom to have rational fair discussions. Next time we feel bothered by others stealing elections, hopefully we can empathize with, or at least have an understanding of, the thieves.

Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Advice to the democratic party on taking advantage of a prolonged primary
Posted by: aouie01 on Apr 1, 2008 2:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hope some of you can pass along the advice. A close protracted democratic primary will hold the attention of not just Democrats, but people across all parties. The attention can be wasted in negative campaigns, insignificant quarreling, or ... or it can be utilized as a wonderful opportunity to effectively communicate to those who wouldn't otherwise be listening. I hope some of you can convince leading party members to pressure both the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns to engage in positive, constructive debates on important issues that will win over people (including Republicans) to more worthwhile candidates and issues. One could always have some silliness thrown in to attract the segment of population that will not tune in till the silliness is encountered. e.g. Cooking contest between the spouses Michelle and Bill (and make sure it is vegetarian (or I will feel really guilty for having suggested this)), or a "deathmatch" in some popular (relatively non-violent) vdeo game between Barack and Hillary or their children, or ,,,

Some party leaders are voicing their desires for the increasingly negative campaign to end sooner rather than later. Maybe they can all start voicing more support for candidates based largely on lack of negativity in the campaign (Hillary may fall way behind in supportive party leaders).

Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:The kicker is that... Posted by: jimidee
Is the Clinton Dynasty crumbling? I hope so.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Apr 1, 2008 4:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"And he'd still be about 100,000 ahead in the popular vote, too, despite not even being on the ballot in Michigan."

If Florida and Michigan had not changed their primary dates, Obama would have campaigned differently. He surely would have had more votes in Michigan and likely in Florida too.


Here's an excerpt and link to another article:

Is the Clinton Dynasty crumbling?


"Although it was not apparent at first, the nadir of Senator Clinton’s campaign came in the Texas and Ohio primaries. In the aftermath it is now clear that Senator Clinton’s pluralities were manufactured by deliberate collaboration between her campaign, the DLC and their cohorts in the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh openly supported Senator Clinton in both Texas and Ohio while urging Republicans to cross over and vote in the Democratic primary to prevent Senator Obama from gaining even more momentum."

Hillary obtained her "great" victories in Texas and Ohio with help from a bunch of right wing ditto heads? I'd be incredibly ashamed if I were her. I also thought she blatantly lied about her opposition to NAFTA in those two primaries.

Here's another quote from the link I posted that I find intriguing in reference to her "bravely" facing sniper fire:

"Many Democrats are equally concerned about the mis-statements from Senator Clinton herself, a development that would immediately curtail any serious political ambition by a major candidate in a modern European democracy."

We've had 20 years of a bush-clinton war criminal executive branch. Is that not enough?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Whoops, sorry for typo! Posted by: djnoll
Myth #Eleven:
Posted by: Tom Degan on Apr 1, 2008 4:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton can win in a general election.

WROOOOONNNNNG!!!
This should have been the most Democratic year since 1932, and yet these silly Democrats (a whole hell of a lot of them anyway) seem hell bent on electing the one person among the Democratic contenders in this contest who is certain to lose!

The time has come for the Democrats to face some serious facts (Hold on to your hats but here it is):

AMERICA IS SICK OF THE CLINTONS.

Senator Clinton is unelectable. T'aint gonna happen. Not in this lifetime. Not in the next. It's not in the cards - marked or otherwise. It's not in the stars. It's not in the allignment of the planets. It's not in anybody's horoscope - yours or mine. It's not on the table. It's not under the table. Let me be as clear and as concise as I possibly can:

Hillary Clinton is never going to be President of the United States. Period.

Wake up Democrats.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY.
Bush's War

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Myth #Eleven: Posted by: wal55
» RE: Myth #Eleven: Posted by: Moira61
» RE: Myth #Eleven: Posted by: bbfmail
» then let's all write in Obama Posted by: cwilsondrum
» RE: If someone else said this Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Myth #Eleven: Posted by: metryjen
» RE: Myth #Eleven: Posted by: Bozwell
» RE: Myth #Eleven: Posted by: willymack
» RE: Myth #Eleven: Posted by: Techubus
» RE: Myth #Eleven: Posted by: blackie4aces
» Stick to the FACTS Posted by: maggzilla
Just a thought
Posted by: talkville on Apr 1, 2008 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both H Clinton and McCain are demonstrably and deeply and well connected to the very institutional and individual operators which, during these last 20-or-so years brought us very precisely to these very evident conditions besetting every single aspect of each of our lives, individually, in family, in society, nationally and internationally; they may tinker and polish here and there if elected and maybe make it Look a Little Better, but they don't seem particularly avid or 'deep' Mechanics; they'll almost certainly leave the Engine pretty much as it is. Bribing and Flattering are not adequate substitutes for Fixing. What their oft-proclaimed "Experience" REALLY means is by no means either evidence or proof of future actions and policies nor is it by any stretch of imagination necessarily a Positive Quality.

For myself, I'm kinda tired of Taking Rides with such Drivers. Perhaps a Road Less Traveled may be in order. Plus I don't get the impression these particular drivers really like the Bunch of Us sitting in the Back. They'd rather that Greyhound paradigm: "sit down, shut up, behave and 'Leave the Driving to Us'"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just a thought Posted by: sawdust
Hillary should drop out
Posted by: xvictor on Apr 1, 2008 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When rightwing talkshow gasbags are demanding that she ought to stay in the race, I believe then that Hillary should drop out of the race. Their motives are certainly not altruistic by any means. Plus she was caught in an inexplicable fib regarding the sniper fire brouhaha in the Balkans.

She had been under sniper fire, not in the Balkans, but from the Reichwingers themselves. Let's face it, she will not move any closer to the White House than where she is now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary should drop out Posted by: willymack
» RE: Hillary should drop out Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: Hillary should drop out Posted by: bweisman
» RE: Hillary should drop out Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: Hillary should drop out Posted by: fedupwithOprah/Obama/brainwashingCult
et tu, Alternet
Posted by: babka on Apr 1, 2008 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own."

aw, gee.....ya mean all those mothers and grandmothers who had to babysit the kids and were unable to get to the primaries are going to have to move into the scenario you're setting up? (See Eckhart Tolle, Oprah's current guru on utube and "the power of Yes"...and yes we can, and the little engine that could.)

Maybe Rosario Dawson as Obama's V.P. vs. McCain & Rice?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And the most enduring myth is...
Posted by: Centavo on Apr 1, 2008 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that one of these 'candidates' will actually succeed in doing something beyond pay lip-service regarding the issues which concern most of us: perpetual war, predatory capitalism, healthcare, a sound food supply, education, housing, meaningful work, and time to enjoy the fruits of one's labor.

No matter which of the candidates the MSM and its handlers have proffered ends up occupying the oval office next January, the status quo will be maintained. At all costs. The only interests being served will continue to be those whose interests have been served in perpetuity.

The first task of the electorate is to understand how it is continually played the fool. With the exception of the few, I'm not optimistic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ASK NOT............. Posted by: blackie4aces
Pundits and prognosticators
Posted by: QCao009 on Apr 1, 2008 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Myths are great for debunking, and understanding how they started is particularly helpful for that purpose.

On the other hand, in this age of FauxNews, which will claim credit for starting their "spin zone" just like the Chinese now are laughing about how they start capitalism way before the US ever existed, progressive newswriters also have to be careful not to wax spin.

If we had listened to pundits and prognosticators, we would have had a Romney or even Giuliani camdidacy. As it turns out, Republicans are sticking with their law and order brand and banking on terror and fear with McCain. Who cares about starving when your house is getting burned down? So, before we all rush to an Obama presidency for eight years, let's look closely at how the American public is being set up again and how this circular firing squad can be avoided.

After all, if we say the age of the Disuniter is dusking and we would like to close the "spook and stooge" era, can we at least not emulate their spin and become the people we despise ? There is hope only if we stand by it. There is only change when we are willing to change ourselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary or OBama? We lose either way
Posted by: MikeOckhurtz on Apr 1, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will vote for Obama because I am so sick and tired of Clinton(s) and Bushes. But Obama is waist deep in the corruption of big money politics and he is a slave to the Izrael Lobby, as is Hilary. But one only needs one reason - Hilary Clinton is a soulless calculating selfish elitist who sat on the board of Walmart for years. That all I needed to know about her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Like where? Posted by: jimidee
Sick of "Unelectable Hillary" Myths, across the board.
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Apr 1, 2008 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because it's not Hillary Clinton who's 'un- electable'. That honor goes strictly to Barack Obama, with his pastor spinning like a whirling dervish and yelling "God DAMN America" all over the place.

And one of us better be wrong or we'll all be saying. "Hello, Mr. President' to McBush, this November.

All due respect, but, before last March--just one short year ago--who had ever heard of Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton was the front-runner; we all took that for granted.

And why not? The last Clinton presidency, (far from being the 'Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton (disaster)' MYTH that I keep reading about)--was instead, the very best Presidency since pre-(Ronnie Dearest) Republican days. Folks--WE ALL WORKED, back during Clinton #1! Or to put it yet another way: When was that ever true, of ANY Bush Presidency?

Call it just another 'conspiracy theory' of mine, (and as a veteran Rove-watcher, I have plenty, LOL!) but it only makes perfect sense to have someone so clearly associated with America's most successful presidency in modern times (the only one with a budget surplus at its end) as the front-runner.

If that had been Barack Obama, that's who I'd be for: but to be for Barack AS PRESIDENT (instead of the more logical VP) displacing the most logical front-runner, Hillary--that, to me anyway, is signing the Democrats' death sentence this November.

So, you folks who yell about Hillary Clinton being 'unelectable' would perhaps do better to ask yourselves: do we really want McCain as President?

Due to his coming out of nowhere sometime last year, the admittedly charismatic Barack Obama would have been natural as Clinton's VP--and then could and most likely would have gone on to have his own eight-year term as President. This would have given America SIXTEEN DEMOCRATIC YEARS at the helm. Is that not better than the McBush agenda we face now?

In other words--that way, we (Dems) would have had it all. We still can--but for one thing:

I can just see Karl Rove twisting away in the wind, wondering: 'How? How do I derail the Democrats this time? It was easy with Kerry, a natural Swiftboat--but this is a Clinton, and the last time a Clinton was in office,,, Hmmm...let me see what I can do, here...I know! I'll just start a Hillary hate-fest...Why not? We (Republicans) sure have nothing to lose, by trying anything, even something so far-fetched as using an unknown to knock our greatest nightmare off the political scene...'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Topbrick-Yea, You right Posted by: blackie4aces
Hillary wants to disenfranchise 2 million Florida voters.
Posted by: Christie on Apr 1, 2008 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now the Michigan and Florida have said there will be no revote, Hillary is apparently saying she is going to take the fight to the convention floor, and insist that the original votes in the Michigan and Florida Democratic primaries count.

“In a new study, Wharton School Assistant Prof. Gregory Nini and liberal author Glenn Hurowitz try to figure that out, based on voter turnout in other states. Their conclusion: Based on a statistical comparison with turnout in other states’ primaries, it appears that roughly two million more people would have voted in Florida and Michigan had they expected their delegates to be seated.”

link over 60 characters; had to be divided.
Who Didn't Vote in the Florida and Michigan Democratic Primaries? - Swampland - TIME
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/
who_didnt_vote_in_the_florida.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only things wrong with "keeping Clinton in the race"...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Apr 1, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...are born of an artificially contrived, partisan system, not of an democratic (small d) one.

As such, arguments against her campaigning for the presidency are irrelevant, and arguments against her campaigning for her party's nomination amount to her party's choice, and the games those kinds of people play in advance of our national elections in November.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah...exactly... Posted by: ABetterFuture
NON MYTH #1
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Apr 1, 2008 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Clinton drops out now, Obama doesn't look good. His competition is gone and he cruises to a win. He's much too smart to want that kind of victory. The country is too used to Bush who never got any opposition. Obama wants a serious fight. It makes him look good. Take a look at the Republicans who are told to line up behind McCain and they do. Is that really what we want? I don't. Obama & Clinton are the reason for the huge voter turnout. That's the way it should be. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NON MYTH #1 Posted by: dave1616
» RE: NON MYTH #1 Posted by: Southern Gal
» RE: NON MYTH #1 Posted by: patsy6
» RE: NON MYTH #1 Posted by: blackie4aces
Nelly Mae
Posted by: Nellymae on Apr 1, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am tired of pieces like this that imply Hillary Clinton cannot win the election. I remember when we were able to make up our own minds by voting, rather than having an election decided for us by a bunch of pundits with agendas and made-up viral videos poking fun at candidates. As far as polls go, they are highly inaccurate, no matter what controls are placed on them. For example, I regularly fill out a couple of polls and I can say anything I want: I can be 34 or 55, male or female or make any salary I check on the form. These are phone or computer polls, as most are, and there is no way to know whether I'm telling the truth!

Let's get back to the way it used to be and have the election and its candidates actually decided by voters.

Nelly Mae

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nelly Mae Posted by: kimbari
» RE: Nelly Mae Posted by: Fishbone Soldier
» Back to Basics Posted by: LaurelAnn
» RE: The Process Posted by: Fishbone Soldier
The Really Ironic Thing
Posted by: Fishbone Soldier on Apr 1, 2008 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About Clinton's continued pursuit of preventing those poor, poor Michigan and Florida voters from becoming "disenfranchised" is that the only way she can become the nominee is for the superdelegates to overrule the votes from the entire country. Thus, in effect, they would be "disenfranchising" every single one of us!

If she were really so concerned about the poor, poor voters, she would agree that whoever gets the pledged delegate victory deserves the nomination. I'm guessing we're not going to hear that from her.

Fight the Youth

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Really Ironic Thing Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: The Really Ironic Thing Posted by: Fishbone Soldier
HILLARY & THE NOMINATION
Posted by: pfm on Apr 1, 2008 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary is part of the theater and circus we have allowed all of our political contests to evolve into over the years. This is better than anything on TV and it is wonderful fodder for TV show writers to ponder for the next TV episode. And we love it. And besides according to psychologists, etc. our collective memory is so short we need to be reminded daily, if not hourly, how Hillary is…?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HILLARY & THE NOMINATION Posted by: jleigh4
» RE: HILLARY & THE NOMINATION Posted by: blackie4aces
Just be done with it and change the name of this site to...
Posted by: arieden on Apr 1, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OBAMANET!

For all people in love with that revered leader (saint?) from Illinois (and we ain't talkin' about Lincoln!).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How about this. Posted by: Longdream
Obama and Clinton are actually quite similar, but McCain is far worse.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 1, 2008 12:53 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're more similar to one another than to someone like Dennis Kucinich.

However, people prefer Obama. He doesn't have a long record of corporate service like the Clintons do, and that motivated a lot of voters to come out and vote who wouldn't have otherwise.

What is making a lot of people angry about this extension of the Democratic campaign is that the issues aren't being discussed - instead, we have corporate media blather on "What the voters really care about"

This is the great error that the Democrats might be making - ignoring the issues. There's already a fair amount of disappointment about the failed promises of the 2006 Democratic election victory - no impeachment hearings, and an actual increase in U.S. and Iraqi troop deaths after the election.

For example, very little has been said by the leading candidates about the subprime crisis. McCain has close ties to subprime lobbyists: Key McCain advisors were lobbyists for shady lender. McCain has also appointed a former partner at Goldman Sachs to run his finance committee.

Clinton and Obama have to at least pretend to care about the fate of ordinary homeowners (one must admit, Obama's concern seems more genuine) - but, as reported here, they both seem quite uneager to address the issue:

Column: Campaign silence over Wall St woes, Financial Times UK, March 24 2008

"The separation of presidential politics from the troubles assailing the US economy is now verging on the surreal. With banks collapsing, the dollar reeling, the Federal Reserve making up new rules as it goes and observers discussing a new Great Depression, the presidential candidates are still on scripts they wrote a year ago.”

However, the Clinton backers do seem on the side of Wall Street - at least the 24 who sent the $24 million threat letter to Nancy Pelosi.

Now, isn't that remarkable? Where's John Edwards when you need someone to bring up the important issues on national televison, dammit? Guess we'll have to leave it to Al Gore... at least he's talking about renewable energy and global warming, another topic that the candidates haven't mentioned much, have they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain '08
Posted by: SOWILO on Apr 1, 2008 2:12 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain is going to be the next president and the progressive cause is going to be derailed once again. Why? Instead of looking at the big picture, looking at where the pulse of the country is, half-educated middle-class liberals and Sarah Lawrence "multicultural studies" majors decided that they would "make a statement" by voting for Osama, damn, I mean OBAMA in the primaries. Half of Clinton supporters have reported in polls that they would give their votes to McCain if Obama was chosen to be the candidate.

Right now, due to illegal immigration, greater discord in the black community, problems with multiculturalism and anti-western bias, and outright working-class animosity toward the OTHER, Osama, I mean OBAMA is going to lose in a landslide. People weren't thinking. I know this comment is going to be trounced and that I'm going to get rated "1" by pompous white middle-class liberals, but this Osama, (OOPS, why do I keep doing that?) I mean, OBAMA is a set-up to make sure that the "progressives" suffer public humiliation one last time to make way for the police state which is set up not for "dissenters" but to keep minority populations in line (See the aftermath of the Katrina disaster) in the case of civil unrest due to economic collapse or an earthquake in So Cal (CA has a 12 billion dollar state budget deficit.)

Get it people? Do you understand how the corporate media makes the choices for you? Do you see how you're being bamboozled?

If there is an earthquake in LA, they have the pistons for the police state greased and ready to go. They aren't coming for whitey, people.

They are using Obama to make an example out of minorities in a really cynical way.

Pull the veil from your eyes!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hey I resemble that remark! Posted by: chuckjs
» RE: Fixed News Network? Posted by: Dboy
» Earth to SOWILO Posted by: january37
» RE: McCain '08 Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: McCain '08 Posted by: SOWILO
» RE: McCain '08 Posted by: CatDad
» RE: McCain '08 Posted by: topbrick
I have all along been strongly for Obama. He is our best hope
Posted by: Opinionator on Apr 1, 2008 2:33 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for peace and well-being in America. We NEED a Democrat in the White House, hopefully it will be him.

And he is way too smart to even suggest that Hillary drop out hastily or prematurely. The country needs an honest nomination process. The primaries etc. have to go on as planned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain for Obama
Posted by: nonein2008 on Apr 1, 2008 4:55 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why the push to get Hillary out? A push from the McCain operatives posing as Obama supporters. They have the knock out planned and they know nothing new can be thrown at Hillary. So, McCain operatives are working to get Hillary out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yea, Right! Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: McCain for Obama Posted by: fedupwithOprah/Obama/brainwashingCult
Hillary Is a Narcissist
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Apr 1, 2008 6:12 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following are the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. By my accounting, Hillary Clinton fulfills all 9, but only 5 are needed to make the diagnosis. For those who assert that Clinton and Obama are very similar--almost always Clinton supporters--I would point out that the danger of another 4 years of a personality-disordered president is considerable.

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Myth vs. reality
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Apr 1, 2008 11:20 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever "myths" Hillary evokes in her quest for the nomination is irrelevant. The reality of her election with Bill serving as co-President in residence is entirely relevant and repugnant in every particular. Whatever we have learned to fear and despise about Bush/Cheney will endure with this unholy alliance and that is a reality that mandates rejection.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary and Me
Posted by: mboerner on Apr 1, 2008 11:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I keep feeling that Obama is a smart-aleck kid who disses his elders. Can't we at least think about Hillary and remember all us elders who supported civil rights, gender equality, and health care reform? Is "the past" all rotten?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary and Me Posted by: organic
» RE: Hillary and Me Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: What?? Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Hillary and Me Posted by: Dboy
Signed, sealed, delivered
Posted by: YogiBear on Apr 2, 2008 6:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements.

Bwahahahaha! Every article - and there are many - excepting a single columnist (Hutchinson) that talks about the Democratic presidential race criticizes Hillary and puts Obama on a pedestal. Your choice has been made, so why lie about it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHAT ARE THE REAL ISSUES?
Posted by: srjmsbnd on Apr 4, 2008 8:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ALTERNET HOME OF THE SO CALLED RADICAL UNDERDOG?

Alternet this article is so superficial and exactly what the so called left in America (Is there really a left in America? DON'T BET ON IT THEY ARE ALL JERKS) claim FOX TV and all the Voodoo Spin Doctors do lose the issues in the petty issues of winning and the America fasination with short term tactical issues as if they are all nerdy geeks entralled with their brilliant discoveries.

WHAT ARE THE REAL ISSUES?

ALTERNET AND THE SO CALLED AMERICAN IS PHONY AND DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUES IT DISTORTS THEM ALONG WITH THE RIGHTWINGERS ON FOX TV et al.

zito.biz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My advise to Hillary is to 'Walk softly and carry a very big stick'
Posted by: fedupwithOprah/Obama/brainwashingCult on Apr 4, 2008 8:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My advise to Hillary is to 'Walk softly and carry a very big stick' because the Oprah/Obama Cult-like organization plus the media have already bullied, beaten, degraded, tried to humiliate and discredit her but she is still on her feet, dispite all the dirty tricks that has been played on her. She makes me proud to be a strong woman, She keeps her head in all situations, and her experience makes her bold and right. I've seen enough envy and jealousie in my day to recognise it when i see it, and i see it here.
I hope she beats the living crap out of Obama, not because of anything else but, that just like George Bush, the Emperor Has No Cloths, empty suit. Anybody can say reteric like 'it;s time for change' hell the worst leaders in the world have said those same words and the people have bought it because they were desperate for any kind of change. He obviously does not have any platform or direction for the county, because he is a Rookie We all know, even you know, that Hillary Clinton has what it takes to be the President of the United States BECAUSE she is a Woman. I am very Proud of here valiant fight against all the odds. Every Women sometime in her life, whether she will admit it or not, has had two choices, to fight or give in.
I pray Hillary Clinton will never give in. Last time I looked, choosing a leader was up the all the citizens of the United States. One Person=One Vote=People Power=Democracy,

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thanks for those nice images--really. Posted by: fedupwithOprah/Obama/brainwashingCult
» RE: These "Nice" Images Are Frightening Posted by: fedupwithOprah/Obama/brainwashingCult
» RE: Whoever rated this comment "1" Posted by: blackie4aces
Kudzu
Posted by: Dboy on Apr 5, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think I'd rather vote for Kudzu at this point.

dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kudzu Posted by: fedupwithOprah/Obama/brainwashingCult
Jeanie
Posted by: jeanmo on Apr 5, 2008 12:50 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So many people are being duped by the Obama-mania. His stand on most issues is the same or to the right of Hillary - which makes me question why places like Alternet and Huffington constantly bash Hillary?

It took Bill Clinton over 2 years to learn how to work with Republicans to get things done - remember the government shut down people? Ask yourselves - do we have 2 years for Obama to learn?

Why hasn't Edwards supported him? I've read that he was very impolite to Edwards - who was set to endorse him and didn't - is this the kind of person we want in charge?

The Republicans will continue to show the pastor videos and call Obama Osama and that will be it - I live in a rural area - and rural, white, Christian voters will not vote for him - all those red states he's won - will not vote Democratic.

Why has Fox news been so soft on Obama? Why is the right wing NY Post endorsing Obama? Why is the general media so eager to have him win? Remember - most of the media is owned by large corporations who have profited nicely from Bush policies. Now they support Obama - why?


Wake up people - Hillary wins in states that are Democratic, and vote democratic - Obama does not - end of story.

Go Hillary !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jeanie-An Anwer To Your Question Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: Jeanie-An Anwer To Your Question Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: Bibsi Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: Jeanie-An Anwer To Your Question Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: Jeanie Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: Jeanie Posted by: YogiBear
Re: Huffington post on Hillary Clinton
Posted by: Bibsi on Apr 6, 2008 12:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Arianna Huffington is a well-known Hillary hater. I've heard her say so. I give no credence to this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First Myth - We live in a democracy
Posted by: maggzilla on Apr 6, 2008 1:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shame on anyone who tries to stop democracy from playing out the wants of the people. Shame on Bill Richardson, Shame on Alternet.

Whatsamatter? Can't handle the fact that there are two people sharing the spotlight as the PEOPLE decide who they want in office?

Sit down, shutup and let democracy play out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please, really
Posted by: blackie4aces on Apr 6, 2008 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To those of you who support Hillaty Clinton, can you please provide some facts or factual analysis, behind your position. Just a lttle, folks, so we know you are out there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Please, really Posted by: YogiBear
Give my blog entry a read
Posted by: rationalpsychic on Apr 28, 2008 12:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have to make up our own minds and start giving feedback to Howard Dean.

For example, Hillary Clinton did NOT win PA by a double-digit margin. And her and Bill have used bigoted tactics before to suppress black votes in their very own state of Arkansas.

Look at court decisions regarding his years as governor of AR.

We don't need another divisive character at the head of our country. Choosing Clinton would be a step BACKwards for all of us. Be a little objective about the tactics she uses and the principles she chooses to violate. Choosing a woman as a head of state IS a positive principle but it is only ONE positive. It doesn't justifiy all of the negatives Clinton is putting forth.

My site: www.rationalpsychic.wordpress.com

Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]