is starting to hurt Obama. It’s hard to look courageous and noble when you keep whining for your opponent to quit.

Of course you can’t blame Obama for trying, he wants the kind of campaign he does the best - running unopposed.

Just ask Alice Palmer.

Q: So if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say “Hey Michigan, I’m off the ballot. Please take me off.” ?

Clinton: Well, you know… it’s clear. This election they’re having is not going to count for anything.

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cl…

No better way to show your respect for Michigan voters than to boycott their primary.

insist on having people vote… the divisive bitch!

or Obama either. The votes belong to the voters.

Why should the DNC get to decide when and how the Democrats in Michigan and Florida choose their delegates to the Democratic Convention?

Is preserving the tradition of giving Iowa and New Hampster a disproportionate effect on the nomination process more important than the primary principle of democracy - “the will of the people?”

BTW - I keep seeing that out-of-context statement by Hillary used as proof that she agreed that the Michigan primary should not count.

She was stating the DNC’s position, she was not stating that she agreed with it.

I read your post aloud to my family and they were just as shocked and disgusted as you.

Let them vote? I spit on that!

I’d LOVE to have the context of that quote

… for recognizing how Hillary is destroying the party through the most shameful means imaginable: participating in its nomination process.

I’m just taking what she said at face value.

She said “This election they’re having is not going to count for anything,”

not

“This election they’re having should not count for anything.”

I will point out she was being interviewed by a NH radio station and in both Iowa and NH they are touchy about the topic - they want to be first.

I have never seen or heard a statement from Hillary that the votes in Michigan (or Florida) should not count or that she agreed that they should be stripped of their delegates.

— they’d rather run against Obama for sure.

from What is Obama Afraid Of? —
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-flee…

<< “We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,” Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle said. “And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. >>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid…

“…Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.

The implications of this story are several and not insignificant. Most obviously, it suggests that the front-runner’s diplomatic skills could use some refinement. It also raises the issue, which has cropped up in a different form after New Hampshire, Super-Duper Tuesday, and the Ohio and Texas primaries, of Obama’s capacity to close the deal. …”

I think this adds a little context to the MI quote that pro-Obama sites love: bluepotblog.com/2008/03/proper-perspective.html
There’s also a link to there to the entire interview.

I’ve had brain lock every time I’ve seen that quote and never taken the time to analyze it properly.

But I’ll never fall for it again. Now I’m prepared!

Thank you so much for clarifying that for me.

I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008).

http://www.fladems.com/page/-/documents/…

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

Then why didn’t Limbaugh tell his listeners to vote for Obama instead of Hillary?

I mean, I know he’s stupid. But he does at least know how to ask for what he wants.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

It seems pretty clear that whichever Dem is the frontrunner, he’s going to pull for the other one. Quelle surprise.

while they’re the ones who made him a Muslim and propaagated all the smears behind the scenes—it’s only lately that they’re turning against him publicly—now that he looks like the nominee.

And Limbaugh wants them both damaged and made that clear.

I will keep that link on my faves list to answer people like Ribo - although I don’t expect them to let it stop them.

Didja notice how he answered my comment with a comment that does not refute what I said?

What’s so hard about telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Your argument seems to be that Limbaugh is only interested in having the nomination process be as prolonged as possible. [As is Hillary, apparently. No wonder Bill was willing to go on his show.]

amberglow’s argument was that Republicans want to run against Obama - presumably from a belief he’ll be easier to beat. Limbaugh doesn’t seem to share that belief.

I guess he isn’t persuaded by her “electability” claims either.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

and certainly hasn’t spared Obama. The GOP does want to run against Obama, but they also want both damaged. They know just rerunning old anti-Clinton stuff isn’t enough anymore— as Obama’s moved up they wanted to ensure that either would be defined badly, while also ensuring that Clinton has real competition which means speaking well of Obama overall. They share that last thing with the regular media who built Obama up for better narratives.

Since what the rightwing noise machine says always determines mainstream coverage, GOP praise of Obama helped the media build him up and fed their storylines.

the game changed. They had been building Romney up and trashing McCain, and praising Obama and building him up too so that Hillary gets damaged (and for feed-the-base racist reasons too).

Their tone towards Obama changed when their side had their candidate, i think. Since then it’s whatever it takes to prolong the Dem fight.

Re: Ribo’s “If you can link to a single statement by Obama himself - as opposed to Patrick Leahy, Obama Girl, or Obama supporters - saying that Hillary should quit, I’ll agree to characterize it as ’whiny’. If not, you may need to re-examine who’s doing the whining here.”

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/poli…

“Barack Obama told a crowd in Pennsylvania today that the Democratic race was like ’a good movie that lasted about a half an hour too long,’ according to ABC News.”

Of course, he didn’t mean to suggest that Hillary should leave the race. No doubt what Obama really meant was something entirely different.

Close enough.

OK, he sounded whiny there.

I’m still voting for him though. :-)

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

“The pushback on WWTSBQ is starting to hurt Obama.”

I don’t see what you could objectively base this statement on other than polls - which, for what little they may be worth, don’t seem to agree with you. For example:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup…

“It’s hard to look courageous and noble when you keep whining for your opponent to quit.”

If you can link to a single statement by Obama himself - as opposed to Patrick Leahy, Obama Girl, or Obama supporters - saying that Hillary should quit, I’ll agree to characterize it as “whiny”. If not, you may need to re-examine who’s doing the whining here.

“He wants the kind of campaign he does the best - running unopposed”

Like Hillary in Michigan, you mean?

“The votes belong to the voters.”

Hillary doesn’t seem to have agreed with you. If she did, pledging not to participate in their primary seems like a strange way of showing it.

“Why should the DNC get to decide when and how the Democrats in Michigan and Florida choose their delegates to the Democratic Convention?”

Deciding how delegates are seated at the Convention is the DNC’s job, last time I checked. And they told MI and FL well in advance that delegates selected in primaries held too soon would not be seated. Those states replied “Fuck you.” The DNC is now replying in kind, if you like.

“What’s so hard about telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”

Even Bill couldn’t manage “the whole truth” - at least when testifying under oath about Lewinsky. And I’ll be the first to admit I’m no Bill Clinton.

If you’ve made other points in this thread I haven’t addressed yet, please let me know and I’ll do my best.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

You conceded a point. Thank you.

I never claimed to be infallible. If I were, how could I explain voting for Perot in 92? :-)

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

the “Tweety effect.”

There are several ways to motivate people. One is to make them mad.

Hillary’s supporters are getting really pissed off.

I don’t need a poll to tell me that.

“… It has to do with the fact that this guy has an agenda in play, and he is not on our side. He wasn’t not on our side when he took a bat to Edwards’ kneecaps, he wasn’t on our side when he went after Hillary, and it’s not on our behalf that he’s concerned about Obama’s character. It’s because at the time that he wrote those articles, the candidate he was taking out looked like the frontrunner against the guy he wants to win. …” —on AP’s Fournier, but applicable to all of them…. — http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/28/late-n…

That’s a good snippet — it’s obvious to anyone not drinking koolaid that she was very sympathetic to Michigan, and that her quote - ’not going to count’ was directed in frustration towards the DNC (and the candidates who pulled out, thus poisoning the well for that primary) for not allowing the downtrodden of MI have their voices heard.

She most definitely did not mean it in the context in which it is being presented.

It’s much along the same lines as watching someone do something really awful, and then commenting ’That went great. Perfect.’ Does that mean you REALLY think that the awful thing was a good thing? Not unless you a) Have no sense of humor, or b) Have the mind of a 3rd grader, where if you say something like ’I like Christmas’, the inevitable reply (and probable schoolyard chant) will be “Jimmy loves Christmas! He should go Marry It!”

This has been the FIRST and probably ONLY edition of WHAT HILLARY REALLY MEANT.

Thanks for that link.

“He wants the kind of campaign he does the best - running unopposed”

Like Hillary in Michigan, you mean?

First off, Hillary was not “unopposed.” There were 4 other names on the ballot.

Two, Obama chose to take his name off the Michigan ballot. No one forced him off, like Alice Palmer was. He took a political risk, screeching like Cartman, “Screw you guys, I’m going home” Since he couldn’t win Michigan, he said screw you, now no one can. Now, he should pay the consequences of that risk.

Here is an article from the Washington Post entitled “Clinton Defends Michigan Ballot Stand.” The quote comes from a radio call-in show she was doing in New Hampshire in October. It is interesting to see the other quotes to see that Hillary thought the idea of not campaigning in MI was a very bad.

But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008.

I did not believe it was fair to just say, ’Goodbye Michigan’ and not take into account the fact we’re going to have to win Michigan if we’re going to be in the White House in January 2009.

If you look at the some of the states we have to win, the margins have been narrow. And it wasn’t, in my view, meaningful, but I’m not going to say there’s an absolute, total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won’t come back to haunt us if we’re not careful about it.

total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won’t come back to haunt us if we’re not careful about it.

Is she prescient or what?

Another reason I want her as president, she sees this stuff coming.

could see it coming.

Piss off two big battleground states to please two small states that vote GOP = bad for Democrats

It ain’t rocket science.

… for voting for Kerry in 2004.

Still, McCain has worked that state very hard, so it may well go back to red in ’08.

“For those of you who are just weary of the primary, and feeling kind of ground down or that it’s like a Bataan death march, I just want everybody to know that the future is bright.”

http://thepage.time.com/pool-report-for-…

Yeah, people being given a chance to vote is totally like the Bataan death march