Should Hillary Clinton Quit?
by sarabeth at 6:59 am on February 28th, 2008 in 2008 Presidential, Hillary, Obama Uber AllesAll sorts of people have been freely rendering advice to Hillary Clinton, telling her what she should do with her presidential aspirations (for example, Jonathan Alter in Newsweek). The consensus seems to be that, although she is locked in a tight race with Obama, and although it is virtually certain that if she stays in the race they would both arrive at the Democratic convention short of the 2025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination, she should nevertheless give up the fight and drop out of the race.
First the math. According to RealClearPolitics, at last count, Obama has picked up 1193 pledged ordinary delegates to Clinton’s 1038. Let’s leave superdelegates out of it for just a moment. To get to 2025 delegates, Obama would need to win 832 of the 981 ordinary delegates still up for grabs (that’s 85%; Ohio and Texas, incidentally, represent 334 of the remaining delegates). Given how close most of the primaries and caucuses have been, it is inconceivable that Obama — despite all the momentum he has generated — can get there. Which makes it virtually certain that even Obama cannot lock up this thing without superdelegates.
So let’s factor them in. While Obama has a 155 delegate edge among ordinary delegates, Clinton has a 57 delegate edge among committed superdelegates. Adding these in, Obama leads 1377 to 1279, and needs 648 delegates more to reach the magic 2025. In other words, if no more superdelegates commit, Obama needs to win 66% of the remaining 981 ordinary delegates. That’s probably not happening either.
Unless a whole bunch of superdelegates choose to commit themselves before the Democratic National Convention in August, Obama and Clinton would arrive in Denver still short of the 2025 delegates they need, and it would all come down to how the superdelegates choose to line up.
Back to the advice people are generously offering Hillary. She should apparently quit now (before Texas and Ohio) because Obama has all the momentum and Hillary cannot possibly win. All she’s doing by staying in is eroding the Clinton political brand name.
The most basic question, of course, is that if Hillary can’t win, how exactly can Obama? It seems abundantly clear that if Hillary chooses to remain in the race, who wins will come down to the superdelegates. Ands there are no rules which lay down what superdelegates must do. No real norms either. Which is why nobody who is politically savvy is really hazarding predictions as to how the superdelegate battle might shake out. The one thing that’s clear is that there will be a whole lot of totally no-holds-barred hardball. The other thing that’s clear is that the Clintons will be cashing in all their chips. Will it be enough? Who knows? Could Clinton win? Yes, she sure could. Is Obama more likely to win than Clinton? I guess I’m too politically savvy to do anything but dodge that one. The point, though, is that the “Hillary can’t win” argument really doesn’t hold water. She jolly well can, and she knows it.
Then there’s the other argument about how Hillary is only hurting the party by staying in when all the momentum is on Obama’s side. Just to be realistic for a moment, there’s momentum and then there’s momentum. And Obama has so much inexorable momentum that he can’t blow away Hillary unless she chooses to drop out. And while there may be some bitterness in some people’s mouths if Hillary stays in the race and wins it at the convention because of superdelegate hardball, I have a really hard time seeing Obama supporters refusing to vote for Hillary over McCain in November. So I really don’t see how it hurts the party if Hillary stays in.
(In this post, I’m deliberately not addressing the electability issues arising out of the national head-to-head match-up polls which show McCain doing better against Hillary than Obama. For the record, though, I don’t believe those polls. And one day soon I’ll put my money where my mouth is and explain why. The short version: if Hillary turns out to be the nominee, I’m convinced the Obama independents will end up picking Hillary over McCain. That is to say, I believe the poll numbers will slowly shift the closer we come to November.)
When I ask myself what I would do if I were Hillary Clinton, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t drop out of the race even if I lost in Texas (but won in Ohio). I’m not so sure I would drop out even if I lost both Texas and Ohio, provided both were narrow losses.
Balloon Juice’s John Cole wrote on Monday:
Why should she get out now? She has spent years preparing for this run, has millions of supporters who want her to continue, she still has a shot (albeit a small one, I think) at winning, and I think she owes it to herself and those who have sacrificed so much to get her this close to continue on. Should she lose the next few states and really start to trail badly in delegates, I think she should probably get out, but it should be on her own terms. Trying to pressure her out right now doesn’t sit right with me, though.
The trouble I have with that analysis is when he says “Should she … really start to trail badly in delegates”. At this point, it’s too close and there are too few delegates left on the table. Even if Obama’s lead grows from 155 ordinary delegates to, say, 200 after Texas and Ohio, that really can’t be called trailing badly in delegates. Especially when Hillary has a slight edge among superdelegates.
Sphynx wrote:
I agree with 99% of what you’ve said here. It’s foolish to think she’s out of the race or hurting the democratic party at all by staying in. She -should- stay in the race, she stands a decent enough chance of winning that her leaving the race would be the foolish thing to do. Especially after all her investments.
However, the 1% I disagree with… I know for a fact that I, and all the other Independents I know, as well as the Obama Republicans and quite a few Democrats even, will be voting for McCain if Clinton wins the Democratic Nomination.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 7:42 am ¶
clm wrote:
Senator Clinton should not leave the race. She is the only one left that I could vote for. McCain is nothing more than a Bush clone and we certainly have had enough of that for the last eight years. Obama does not have the experience that this job requires. No Way. His religion is also a problem for me. The more that comes out about his church, the more concerned I become. Let’s get behind Hillary and put her in the White House.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 7:56 am ¶
cam wrote:
Long story short: No, Hillary should hang in there.
Long story: Here’s what I ask everyone who asks the question, “Should Hillary Quit” or “Why Doesn’t Hillary Just Drop Out” or some variation:
If the situation were reversed and Barack Obama were the presumptive loser, would you be asking why doesn’t he just drop out now?
I hear either stuttering or crickets because the answer is no, they wouldn’t.
Then I refer them to the last minute of this year’s Super Bowl, during which Eli Manning engineered a 12-play, 83-yard drive for the game-winner, connecting with Burress in the left corner of the end zone, beating the Patriots who were supposed to win.
Anything can happen and as a wise gambler once told me, there’s no such thing as a sure thing.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 8:31 am ¶
SC Rose wrote:
To say the author of this article is mistaken would be an understatement at best.
While I hate to use words like Demographics that’s what this comes down to.
Hillary Clinton has Democratic Party old guard and little old ladies sipping tea as her support base sorry to tell you that isn’t going to win the general election! Even those support bases are eroding by the day… I don’t like the fact that race and gender have become issues. They have and that can’t be changed, in simple terms Bill Clinton isn’t some wonderful political mind. He’s a jackass that has stuck his foot in his mouth a number of times damaging his own as well as his wife’s creditability…
Let’s do a little fact check 80-90% of registered black voters are Democrats of that group 70-80% are supporting Barack Obama. He also has a huge energized youth vote. What is going to happen if the Super delegates decide to hand Hillary a nomination she didn’t earn based on normal delegates and popular vote. It will be congratulations you just handed the GOP the Oval Office and congress. This doesn’t go into the very real possibility that the Democratic Party won’t ever be able to run a national level campaign again because of the damage done to their Integrity.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 8:36 am ¶
SC Rose wrote:
To say the author of this article is mistaken would be an understatement at best.While I hate to use words like Demographics that’s what this comes down to. Hillary Clinton has Democratic Party old guard and little old ladies sipping tea as her support base sorry to tell you that isn’t going to win the general election! Even those support bases are eroding by the day… I don’t like the fact that race and gender have become issues. They have and that can’t be changed, in simple terms Bill Clinton isn’t some wonderful political mind. He’s a jackass that has stuck his foot in his mouth a number of times damaging his own as well as his wife’s creditability…
Let’s do a little fact check 80-90% of registered black voters are Democrats of that group 70-80% are supporting Barack Obama. He also has a huge energized youth vote. What is going to happen if the Super delegates decide to hand Hillary a nomination she didn’t earn based on normal delegates and popular vote. It will be congratulations you just handed the GOP the
Oval Office and congress. This doesn’t go into the very real possibility that the Democratic Party won’t ever be able to run a national level campaign again because of the damage done
to their Integrity.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 8:39 am ¶
cam wrote:
Let’s do a little fact check 80-90% of registered black voters are Democrats of that group 70-80% are supporting Barack Obama.
You can’t do a fact check without providing a supporting source. What is the source of this, please?
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 8:42 am ¶
matt wrote:
you need facts for a fact check? who knew.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 9:37 am ¶
cam wrote:
you need facts for a fact check? who knew.
I’m funny that way. I like to go back to the original source which references the “facts” and see for myself.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 9:50 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
well, maybe SC Rose will speak for himself/herself (hopefully just once this time)
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 12:26 pm ¶
Scheky wrote:
Honestly, I have to disagree. Clinton doesn’t really stand much of a chance in the general election. Too many on the right just cannot stand the Clinton name, and hate her even more than Bill. There actually are quite a few who would vote for Obama and not Clinton, myself included.
I really wanted Edwards. He was where I laid my hopes (and money). When he dropped out, that left me for Hillary, who I honestly think is often nearly a neo-con herself, or Obama. Now, Obama may not be all that, but he’s the better candidate for change. Just compare how many bills each has gotten through. Obama has nearly twice that of Clinton, showing that he can actually get the support he would need.
Looking deeply at the bills each of them has co-sponsored, and using that as my metric, I see Clinton as more of a non-entity who seldom gets to see her ideals realized than Obama, who, admittedly has put forth some rather well, shallow bills…but he’s also gotten much more detailed in his bills, showing he actually can have substance.
If it comes down to McCain or Clinton, I’ll recuse my vote for this election. I can’t stand the thought of either of them in office.
All of that aside, Clinton can stay or go as she pleases. Just like Nader has the right to run.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 1:19 pm ¶
matt wrote:
“Looking deeply at the bills each of them has co-sponsored”
more fact-free fact-checking.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 1:47 pm ¶
matt t wrote:
I disagree. No one hates her more than Bill does.
Wacka wacka wacka!
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 2:07 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
at least a jolly good time was had by all, facts or no facts…
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 2:32 pm ¶
Scheky wrote:
I left my post without the facts direct because I honestly thought you knew how to look up things in the Library of Congress…
Clinton’s Successes:
S.694 : A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes. (This is currently in conference committee to reconcile difference with the House bill)
Passed in the Senate:
S.CON.RES.27 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of “National Purple Heart Recognition Day”.
S.RES.21 : A resolution recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York
S.RES.92 : A resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.
S.RES.141 : A resolution urging all member countries of the International Commission of the International Tracing Service who have yet to ratify the May 2006 amendments to the 1955 Bonn Accords to expedite the ratification process to allow for open access to the Holocaust archives located at Bad Arolsen, Germany.
S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
S.AMDT.666 to H.R.1591 To link award fees under Department of Homeland Security contracts to successful acquisition outcomes under such contracts.
S.AMDT.2047 to H.R.1585 To specify additional individuals eligible to transportation for survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces to attend their burial ceremonies.
S.AMDT.2108 to H.R.1585 To require a report on the planning and implementation of the policy of the United States toward Darfur.
S.AMDT.2390 to H.R.2638 To require that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security that provide award fees link such fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
S.AMDT.2474 to H.R.2638 To ensure that the Federal Protective Service has adequate personnel.
S.AMDT.2823 to H.R.3074 To require a report on plans to alleviate congestion and flight delays in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace.
S.AMDT.2917 to H.R.1585 To extend and enhance the authority for temporary lodging expenses for members of the Armed Forces in areas subject to a major disaster declaration or for installations experiencing a sudden increase in personnel levels.
Obama’s Success:
S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests.
S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.
S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder.
S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers.
S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy.
S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering.
S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness.
S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs.
S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan.
S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
Senate Resolutions Passed:
S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as “National Summer Learning Day”.
This is simply for 2007 only.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 5:06 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Congress has a library? Come on, now!
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 7:22 pm ¶
Nate wrote:
Keep on going to the Democratic Convention Hillary!
Mathematically, both Hillary and Barack are somewhat tied. Let the superdelegates weigh in their votes. All of those who do not understand the Democratic Party nomination process should be encouraged to review history and focus on the reasons why the superdelegate system was created. The superdelegates were created to look at how electible a candidate was in the general election especially up against a strong Republican candidate such as McCain. These polls that we are seeing now do not truly depict what will happen in the general election primarily because they are heavily influenced by media bias against Hillary. In the general election, broader issues will be explored in more detail including but not limited to the candidates choice for Supreme Court nominees since at least three Supreme Court justices, mainly progressive, may retire during the next eight years.
Policies to prevent or abolish the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Monetary policies to strengthen the value of US currency. Detailed plans on stabilizing social security, etc. These questions as well as others will give voters a closer look into each of the candidates. During the party nomination process, popularily weighs in heavily which is never a good measure for competence. Discerning voters will in this general election and have historically valued experience especially in time of war. If the media just focuses on the facts and reports them without spin or opinions, most of which has been blatantly negative against Hillary, Hillary will prevail. I pray that the majority of responsible and discerning voters voice their concerns about media bias and meida inequity against Hillary so that we can all vote responsibly. If not, rather than the US Supreme Court picking the President as made self-evident in the 2000 election, the media will pick our 2008 President and not the citizens of the US.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 11:41 pm ¶
tom wrote:
i hope barack leads in the election based delegates after all voting is done and then hillary wins the nomination due to the superdelegates going over the head of the voters. then we can see the democratic party completely fall apart and maybe then whatever comes after will be more relevent.
Posted 29 Feb 2008 at 7:47 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Why should the Democratic Party fall apart? Superdelegates are supposed to vote for whomever they want. They are not supposed to just fall in line behind the candidate who wins more ordinary delegates. Because there wouldn’t be any need to have superdelegates at all if that were the case.
I’m not defending the system, or saying it’s a good system. But it’s the system we chose to have. If the party is going to fall apart because the system we chose comes into play, then we’re even more ludicrous than the Republicans.
Posted 29 Feb 2008 at 8:57 am ¶
tom wrote:
whether they are supposed to fall in line with the voters or not is irrelevent. i love people feeling as disenfranchised as i do.
the problem is always with the system. obviously a better one is needed. perhaps one that is exactly not what the Democratic Party has become is what is necessary. it certainly can’t get much worse, with 2 candidates like these representing “change”. hahahahaha. what a joke.
instead of just not participating in elections, i now actively root for the worst possible things to happen in hope that maybe people will demand something better. my hopes still are not very high, but at least it is way more entertaining when things go terribly wrong.
Posted 29 Feb 2008 at 9:14 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I wish you would try and explain why the Democratic Party should completely fall apart if Clinton wins the nomination due to superdelegates picking her over Obama.
Posted 29 Feb 2008 at 9:51 am ¶
Scheky wrote:
There is one reason the party will suffer (though I don’t believe they will fall apart as such, that’s a bit extreme).
Early in the campaign, when Clinton was amassing superdelegates, somebody in Obama’s camp made it a deal that the voters could be disenfranchised by the process. Now, the fact that it would be exactly what the process was meant for has nothing to do with the resulting feelings from the average voter.
Remember, the Democratic party is pretty hurting right now. After all the trials dealing with the Republican raping of the nation and the Constitution, the elected Democrats in Congress, who were brought in for change, failed us in a glorious way. Now, there may well have been circumstances beyond their control, or they may have just gone to business as usual once they were elected, but in the end, it really had an effect on the voters.
Now, if you compound this with the party forcing a candidate on us that we chose another over, and I’m not just talking Clinton here, I’m talking in general terms, all it says is…we, the voters, do not matter. That means low morale and consequently low voter turnout in the general election. I may not want McCain in office, but I’ll be damned if I’m any happier with having a choice forced upon me even though the membership of my party decided otherwise.
I don’t think Superdelegates were intended to be used in such a situation, but rather to be held back and used if the conditions arised that the popular candidate chosen had no chance of being elected in the general. Neither candidate shows that lack of credibility.
Now, this may have gone unnoticed had it not been brought up early in the election process BEFORE it became a close race. Since it was brought up, it’s been compared to losing the General Election by votes and still winning (and we know that never…wait, it just did happen). People really felt cheated over that election, even though it was perfectly how the process was supposed to work. Nobody wants to feel that way again.
I think this is the wrong election to go against the voters with Superdelegates. The timing is just really bad for it.
Posted 29 Feb 2008 at 10:32 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I don’t know that many voters felt cheated by the electoral college versus popular vote differential. In my opinion, people felt cheated mostly by the Florida-recount-and-SC-intervention fiasco.
Posted 29 Feb 2008 at 1:08 pm ¶
Collin wrote:
Hillary should get out on March 5.
Here is why. Most people are projecting a split decision, in that Obama will win Texas and Vermont. Hillary will win Ohio and Rhode Island. Likely Obama will come out with a slight delegate lead (lets say 5 delegates). Lets imagine he loses Texas by 1 or 2 percent and loses Ohio by 5 percent. He will still likely come away with the majority of Texas Delegates. The anticipated blow out in Vermont will make up for Rhode Island and whatever comes out of Ohio. Hillary will get less than 10 delegates, nowhere close to breaking his 100+ lead, nor his 1 million+ popular vote lead.
Lets look toward the future:
Obama has South Dakota, Montana, Oregon, North Carolina, Mississipi, Wyoming. Clinton will have the rest, but even (According to the polls at Real Clear Politics) at strong holds, like Pennsylvania, her poll numbers are dropping and they are not even campaigning there yet. In fact Obama has offices open and already has a game plan. Hillary does not, party of that is lack of money. Obama is outspending her in all for states going to the polls on Tuesday and he still has money to start spreading elseware.
The only way Hillary can win is due to Super Delegates. The rules don’t matter. Most of the Super Delegates are politicians and they want the person at the top of the ticket who will win, not only in Nov. for the presidency but also a ticket they will be on. Red State Dems, especially don’t want a divisive Hillary on the ticket. They are looking at national polls also, all show Hillary significantly behind Obama (Check Real Clear Politics.come for more detail). They are looking at the fact that Obama is attracting independents, moderate Republicans, more people under 25 than anyone in decades, and increasing the black voter turn out significantly. Hillary can’t do that. HIllary has high negatives, she is seen as divisive (especially in a lot of Swing States). Obama can put states like Virginia in play (which is trending Democratic lately) Hillary can not. Obama can rally black support like you have never seen in Swing States like Missouri and Ohio. Hillary can not. In 2000, according to Wiki, 18% of blacks voted for Bush. That won’t happen with Obama on the ticket next to McCain.
The vast majority of Super Delegates do not want to go against the popular vote and alienate voters (regardless if they have the right to do so or not) and take a chance these folks will stay home. Obama can win Cali, NJ, NY, etc. Any democratic can this year, but Hillary can’t put states in play he can. Obama might make it a 55-45 contest and not just a 51-49.
Hillary should also drop out because the longer she is in when she can’t win a clean race the more she will attack and weaken Obama, who has to fight her, Bush, and McCain. If this goes on until August you will have 8 weeks to get things going, when McCain has had 6 MONTHS, taking notes on all the infighting, ready to go on Obama.
If Hillary cares about the party, if she cares about a Democrat who shares 98% of her views getting in the White House she will get out on March 5 and support Obama fully…better him than McWar. Obama needs to take all his money, and the Democratic machine and work at defining McCain now while he is disorganized and poorer. He should not be wasting time with Hillary. Unlike Huckabee Hillary is hurting Obama by harping on how he is unready to be president, you think McCain is not listening and won’t replay that stuff?
As far as Fl and MI forget it. Howard Dean has said only a reelection will be done, due to cost caucuses. Obama will likely win that anyway. Nancy Pelosi, chair of the convention said that Super Delegates will not decide this and MI and FL will not either as the rules were known and all candidates agreed to it and signed the aggrement before hand.
I can imagine that a lot of Super Delegates are holding out to March 4th to see what happens out of respect for the Clintons, but after that their will be a lot of sit downs and press meetings of prominnent ones like Sen Durban. Gov. Richardson said today that whoever has the most delegates on March 5 should be the nominee, he basically endorced Obama without having to do it (betray the Clintons). The party is turning on Hillary. Time to call it a day.
Posted 02 Mar 2008 at 5:36 pm ¶
frank america wrote:
Hillary Clinton is killing the party. She is ultimately more polarizing than Obama and will likely cause most of his moderate suppoort to either vote for McCain or not at all. The republicans are organized and gaining steady momentum. The longer Hillary stays in the more harm she does to America. And the bottom line is that most national polls show McCain would beat Hillary. HILLARY CLINTON IS A GREEDY POLITICIAN. SHE ONLY CARES FOR HER OWN CAREER.
Posted 04 Mar 2008 at 8:17 pm ¶
frank america wrote:
Hillary Clinton is killing the party. She is ultimately more polarizing than Obama and will likely cause most of his moderate support to either vote for McCain or not at all. The republicans are organized and gaining steady momentum. The longer Hillary stays in the more harm she does to America. And the bottom line is that most national polls show McCain would beat Hillary. HILLARY CLINTON IS A GREEDY POLITICIAN. SHE ONLY CARES FOR HER OWN CAREER.
Posted 04 Mar 2008 at 8:17 pm ¶
frank america wrote:
Hillary is going to George W. Bush the Democratic nomination. She only cares about herself. It is absolutely disgusting to me after 8 horrible years of the W. She is nothing more than a dirty politician. She knows she will not beat McCain. John McCain will be president because of Hillary Clinton’s political ambition.
Posted 04 Mar 2008 at 8:21 pm ¶
matt wrote:
how many unsupported assertions can you squeeze in there, chief?
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 12:51 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Swami Sarabeth’s prediction: you’re going to be sorry you asked, Matt!
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 5:23 am ¶
cam wrote:
how many unsupported assertions can you squeeze in there, chief?
As many as will fit in his colon, since that’s where he’s pulling all of his arguments from.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 5:25 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I love metaphysical put-downery! How many unsupported assertions can dance on a colon? Very cool!
(Though, for dimwits, maybe you have to say semi-colon?)
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 5:50 am ¶
ken wrote:
Hillary’s win in Ohio indicates only union support… which at the present rate of layoffs and buyouts, won’t last. As others have said: the Clinton and Bush families’ dynasty of Presidency needs to END!!!
(Let’s get past the first letters of the alphabet for presidential last names… M and O are better - ych)
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 1:53 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>Hillary’s win in Ohio indicates only union support
no. most unions are now supporting obama.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 3:51 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
there you go again, matt, invoking facts
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 4:35 pm ¶
Carlos Navarro wrote:
The more Hillary opens her mouth, the more she reveals her true personality, and the deeper the hole she digs for herself.
This lying about the pregnant woman refused treatment in an Ohio hospital, the lying about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, the lying about her brokering the peace in Northern Ireland; the lying about her economic expertise, her finances, her Congressional record (of the 20 bills she managed to get passed in her eight years in the Senate, 16 were non-consequential stuff like naming post offices and courthouses, recognizing individuals and congratulating lacrosse teams); the subjecting her own daughter to stress by dispatching her to stump in college campuses (David Shuster was right about her “pimping” Chelsea); her frequent changes of moods and faces.
Then, going back to her earlier life, there’s her flunking of the DC bar exam and keeping it secret for 30 years; the Travelgate, Pardongate, Chinagate, Whitewatergate, Cattle-futuresgate, Fellatiogate scandals; her retaining a private detective to dig up dirt on the women seduced by husband Bill (her de facto running mate); the punitive IRS audits of Clinton critics; the verbal abuse of staff members and betrayal of colleagues; the using of uniformed Marines as waiters; the 50+ violent and sudden deaths during the Clinton reign—All of which is bound to resurface and derail her bid for the presidency.
If the woman knew the meaning of the word honor, she would bow out of the presidential race, today. But, as is evident, the word is not in her vocabulary.
Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 12:41 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
pray do tell more about “the 50+ violent and sudden deaths during the Clinton reign”. pretty please?
Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 1:03 pm ¶
Dan Reilly wrote:
LET HER RUN & RUN! SHE’S RUNNING THE DEM’S RIGHT INTO THE GROUND. I THINK IT’S GREAT ! RUN HILLARY RUN UNTIL YOU DROP. SHE IS ACTING AS THE GOP’S BEST FRIEND! WHAT’S BETTER FOR OUR COUNTRY’S UP COMING ELECTIONS, THAN A FRACTURED DEM PARTY THAT CAN’T GET THEIR ACT TOGEHER! I THINK MCAIN MIGHT PULL THIS OFF AFTER ALL ! GO HILL & BILL;GO! AND THINK OF THE DAILY LAUGHS WE ALL GETTING ! AND THE CARTOON’S HAVE BEEN HARLARIOUS !
Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 1:10 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
PARLOUS KNAVE! AVAUNT THEE!
Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 2:00 pm ¶
Robert McElwee wrote:
Let the girl go on. The more rope you give her the better for McCain. I wonder if she has disarmed her bodyguards yet? She should practice what she preaches after all.
Posted 20 Apr 2008 at 8:55 am ¶
ANNIE wrote:
YES SHE SHOULD QUIT….SHE IS AN ANGRY WOMEN WITH AN INSATIABLE APPETITE FOR POWER WHO IS USING NEGATIVE TONES TO TRY TO DESTROY A VERY GOOD CANDIDATE LIKE OBAMA. HE HAS MORE CLASS THAN SHE DOES, AND IF I WERE BILL I WOULD BE EMBARRASED. SHE IS MAKING PROMISES JUST LIKE OBAMA IS, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT SHE IS ALL TAK TOO!
Posted 25 Apr 2008 at 10:53 am ¶
Fred Davis wrote:
Hillary Clinton is trying to destroy Obama , not just win an election . As of May 7, 2008 Hillary Clinton does not have the projected number of delegates needed to win . She would need to win all remaining primaries with over 65 % of the votes . This is not possible . The Clintons are sending out their spin doctors to name call , suggesting lack of character by Obama , all this with no chance to win . New York residents should be concerned because they will be sold out by Clinton to pay for election debt . She would sell her mother to become President .
Posted 07 May 2008 at 12:36 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I don’t agree with your math. Her chances are even slimmer than that.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 1:13 pm ¶
Xavier wrote:
Let’s all be realistic. It is crystal clear to all who are not delusional that the vast majority of Americans want Obama to be the nominee, or they don’t want Clinton (however you choose to view the glass:1/2 full, 1/2 empty). I admire her drive, tenacity and determination, however, should it be at the expense of the party. This is the dems presidency to lose, if we continue this madness and her unbridled obsession to be the first woman president. I am not mad at her for wanting that distinction, but it is frustrating me and many of my fellow Americans that she has wreckless disregard for the health of our party. I can’t wait until either she excepts the facts and the math (that is taught to our elementary school kids) or June 3 inevitably shows her how many more Americans don’t want her to be the nominee. I’d like to spare her the continued ego assault.
Posted 08 May 2008 at 9:10 am ¶
matt wrote:
>It is crystal clear to all who are not delusional that the vast majority of Americans want Obama to be the nominee
depends on the definition of vast and majority. “crystal clear” and delusional too.
Posted 08 May 2008 at 11:12 am ¶
Xavier wrote:
I guess matt has read Clinton’s math and english books; because according to the one’s most widely excepted in the west, vast majority simply means very great in size, amount, degree - a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total. Furthermore, 1+1=2, no matter how you slice it, it is as constant as the law of gravity. Unfortunately for Hillary and her loyal subjects, these rules and definitions don’t change, just because you really, really, really want them to.
Posted 09 May 2008 at 2:58 pm ¶
matt wrote:
wow. you are a fucking moron.
and i’m not a loyal subject of anyone.
Posted 09 May 2008 at 9:22 pm ¶
Xavier wrote:
…and you have taken another page from Hillary’s book of how to plausibly deny and when all else fails, go back to your native tongue…hers is bigotry, your’s is ignorant profanities. You should call her campaign headquarters and sign up before it dissolves!
Posted 10 May 2008 at 8:25 am ¶
matt wrote:
you just defined “vast majority” as 50+1.
And you’re apparently too fucking stupid to even be embarrased.
Heckuva job.
Posted 10 May 2008 at 12:01 pm ¶
Teresa wrote:
I think Hillary should stop, and let Barrack spend
his time and money on preparing for the McCain
battle.
I am waiting to find out whom he will choose as
a running mate.
West Virginia and Kentucky will vote for Hillary
in the majority, then Barrack will take the last three
states in the race. She’s run out of money and
time and it wastes tax payers money to run
elections.
I keep hearing about states not getting counted,
I think a lot of states don’t get counted as a usual
election, because a winner is announced before
all states can vote. We in the West know full
well what that feels like, year after year after year
the president is always elected before it reaches
WA and Oregon.
To those of you who say you won’t vote for anyone
but Hillary, If you are a democrat, then vote
democrat. If some fluke made it so that Obama
loses I would hate to vote for Hillary, but I will
because McCain is not the answer and not voting
for the democrat party in these trying times would
be ludicrous.
Posted 13 May 2008 at 8:41 pm ¶
matt wrote:
to what end? i don’t support either one because neither speaks for me.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 6:49 am ¶
Xavier wrote:
Teresa, people like you and I and the “vast majority” of Obama supporters will still vote democratic, even though Clinton has proven to be a cut-throat, say anything, do anything, rule change phen (as long as it’s to her advantage) because as she said, unlike her supporters we are “educated” and not so blue collared (in other words: red-necked) that we won’t vote for a black man, instead of a foolish white one who will only get us in deeper debt, prolong a failing war, have gas prices up to $10/gall within his 1st term and not even consider providing healthcare to most americans and affordable college tuition.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 10:12 am ¶
matt wrote:
stop using that phrase until you know what it means.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 11:19 am ¶