Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

"Why Won't That Stupid Bitch Quit?" watch

Hillary explains to that blithering idiot Michelle Norris on Nice Polite Republicans*:

"No, but you know - for example, why is the question directed at me?" she said. "I mean, neither of us has the number of delegates to win. It is a problem for both of us. And Senator Obama's supporters refuse to support a revote in Michigan, which I thought was rather odd for the Democratic Party to be against another vote. Senator Obama's supporters wanted to end this contest and short circuit it so that the votes of the people in the next upcoming contest wouldn't count because he has a slight lead. And it's by no means definitive. It would have been like calling the championship game last night with two minutes left to go because somebody was ahead. And that's not how it turned out."

Really, this is so obvious I can't imagine why it even needs to be said.

Well, cancel that. I know exactly why it needs to be said.

Unleash the haka!

NOTE * Looks like a hand-crafted transcript, in comments over at TalkLeft.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

And as you say, WHY do we even have to talk about this? They're essentially tied, aren't they?

rzagza's picture
Submitted by rzagza on

going into the primaries I really had no preference between Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. But the striking lack of objectivity by the media and Obama supporters has really turned me off. The prime example is this total regurgitation of Obama campaign talking points, that the only thing that matters is pledged delegates. We are in an almost unprecedented situation with such a close primary, and instead of having this discussed intelligently, all I've heard is that there is no way Hillary can "win", with winning defined for me as leading in the number of pledged delegates. I would like to have a peek into the alternate universe where Obama is trailing in pledged delegates and seeing how the same topic is being discussed.

koshembos's picture
Submitted by koshembos on

As a radical liberal, it's impossible for me tob support Hillary but even more difficult to be for Obama who is almost a Republican. Then you realize that Hillary is an oppressed, ridiculed, hated and shunned individual. As a liberal you must support her.

Then you read a weak-brained Sirota tell us that Hillary supporters are racist, while Obama supporters are pure and perfect. Then you realize that you are considered inferior. In other words Hillary supporters are this cycle's blacks.

The Obama campaign should be nominated for a Nobel for single handedly inventing a new racism.

manahmanah's picture
Submitted by manahmanah on

Let me preface by saying: I haven't ever suggested that Clinton should drop out. Now, a few points I'd like to make.

1) Obama is +6.1% in pledged delegates. Out of 2687 pledged delegates awarded (RealClearPolitics.com), Obama has 52.7% (1415) and Clinton has 46.6% (1251). Call it close if you must, but please don't tell me its tied.

2) Before you get too upset with the Obama campaign pushing the delegate narrative, know these quotes:

Terry McAuliffe:

What I care about [is] delegates. We will have more delegates than we had going into today. This is about winning delegates and onward we go.

Howard Wolfson:

"This is a race for delegates…It is not a battle for individual states. As David knows, we are well past the time when any state will have a disproportionate influence on the nominating process." [Washington Post, 1/16/08]

Mark Penn:

This election will come down to delegates

3) I would like to have a peek into the alternate universe where Obama is trailing in pledged delegates and seeing how the same topic is being discussed.

In that universe Obama is surely out after losing 12 straight. Nor would he log most of the post-February superdelegate endorsements.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

They said the Giants couldn't win. The Patriots had won 18 straight games, including beating the Giants just weeks before.

All the "experts" said the only question was how lopsided the victory would be.

Then they played the game.

------------------------------------------------

"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion." - Molly Ivins (RIP)

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

of Iraq. Bush has set it up so that we can't get out of Iraq. It's going to take an absolute master of the system, with a whole bunch of other masters of the various systems, to get us out of there. And it's going to take an absolute bitch who isn't dazzled by the idea of defense contracting dollars coming their way when they leave office to force everyone to do the right thing. Obama wants to be an old boy worse than anyone I've ever seen, and he won't stand up to the military, or to the contractors. He'll stutter and stammer and hire this generation's McNamara to straighten things out. Whether it's he or McCain, we'll still be in Iraq fighting in four years.

The task of getting the troops out of Iraq is tough and dangerous. The task of getting DC out of Iraq is much, much more difficult.

Submitted by lambert on

I like this:

The task of getting the troops out of Iraq is tough and dangerous. The task of getting DC out of Iraq is much, much more difficult.

Manamanah:

Campaign operatives say what they're going to say. If Axelrod needed to say the moon was made of green cheese tomorrow, he would (and should), just like Penn et al.

What matters is what the candidate (the principal, not the fiduciaries) think, and above all, what the voters think. So far, the voters have said, stay in. In fact, states that never mattered are thrilled to. This would be bad why?

NOTE I imagine the quotes are coming from the newest "Hillary's not fit to be President because she ran a bad campaign." What a pathetic piece of meta Inside Baseball-ism. The only people this is going to convince are the people who want to get paid to run a campaign themselves, i.e., the Boiz, who are already frothing and stamping about it.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

made yesterday by Peter Beinart, lambert. He said pretty much that Obama will be an awesome president, look at how awesome his candidacy has been. He's led millions, he can lead the whole country.

My question is fine, he can lead. What is he leading us towards? Not one person has been able to answer me, it's just Hillary is teh sux! Ironically, the one policy he did say Obama would lead on is UHC, the one policy he has abdicated on.

Welcome to Up Is Down World.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Submitted by lambert on

That Rove's political operation was brilliant was conventional wisdom for about 6 years.

And Rove's brilliant political operation made Bush an awesome President?

To which the OFB answer is no doubt, "But we're awesome." On that, opinions differ....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by jawbone on

to try to defeat Hillary in the primary. They want her gone and gone now.

The "Gore-ing," the nitpicking of only Hillary, the emphasis on Obama's lead which is "impossible" for Hillary to overcome, the longstanding ridiculing of Hillary's looks, voice, laugh, mannerisms, manner of dress--everything except her proposals, but that's because the MCMers don't discuss them--it's all to drive her out.

Since they can't drive her out of the primary, there next best thing is to unrelentingly try to undermine her supporters' enthusiasm and motiviation, raise questions about her "character," and tell them resistance is futile.

Many of the tactics were used to ensure Edwards gained little to no traction in the primary. The Four H's--hair, house, hedgefund, and hypocrisy.

The MCMers do believe they control the selection levers in the Democratic Party--and to an extent they do.

The MCMers hate the Clintons because they couldn't break them or the public's support for them--even with all the pseudo scandals they covered in amazing detail over and over and over.

The MCMers will not improve even if they lose this battle against Hillary. If they win, they use her as an example of what they can do to other Dems.

MCM = Mainstream Corporate Media; MCMers = members of the MCM.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I actually think this is a good thing for us. The media's bias against Clinton is an asset for the GE. History has shown that the more the media attacks the Clinton's, the more people rally to them. And the media doesn't know how to be fair to the Clinton's. If she does pull this off, they are going to go into to full overdrive mode for McCain and continue attacking Clinton(the only reason Obama is favored by the media right now, is because he is the tool to beat the Clinton's), and it will work to her advantage.

They are doing this in an attempt to succeed where they failed in the 90's, and they will fail again, IMO. And they will try to succeed again, and fail again. Then, welcome Madam President.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

workingclass artist's picture
Submitted by workingclass artist on

One of my favorite photos is that classic of Harry Truman holding up the early edition paper with the headline (Dewey Wins) after Truman won the election. In my dream this would b HRC holding up the paper. I agree BILL CLINTON FOR FIRT DUDE....LOL

kc's picture
Submitted by kc on

No, she can't quit and it is crazy for the Obama campaign to want her to. Whose policies and statements will he copy then? Almost everytime I hear or read a pronouncement of his, I think I've heard it before. Then it comes to me, yes, I have--from Hillary.

I'm thinking that since nothing they have tried has worked so far, a little reverse psychology might be in order. Suddenly treating Hillary like a real candidate would give us all a heart attack.