What is the misogynist bias so many of the 35ers have against Hillary??? Here's a woman who stuck with her husband, raised a great kid, did her own career, special interests, etc., without "living through the husband's success!" She's very bright, humorous and loyal; a highly effective political power...
Obama is a nice young man who is being given a pass in his oddly inept choice of mentors (not just Wright, but that mortgage funding neighbor under indictment). He has borrowed so many of H's ideas, and yet he lacks any evidence of being able to implement them. The health plan he considers as universal absolutely will fail. Moving out of Iraq on a time table is about like trusting a commander in chief and going to war in the first place: doesn't hindsight teach him anything but bragging about his initial safe vote? And where, or at least who, are the wise advisors waiting in the wings? One would think he's going to do this change thing with millions of young first time voters. Take a moment to look at the only JFK attainment, the Peace Corps, that he abandoned under duress of other leadership stress, yet it was carried forward by another wealthy Democrat--and endures even when succeeding presidents are not supportive. How is Obama going to get anything done?? Maybe the media will step forward, but I'd guess their pleasure lies in cataloging failures, real or ginned up for "breaking news."
Perhaps it's too embarrassing to youngsters to consider that moms are capable as well as nurturing. After all, to become adult means it must be necessary to kick old Mom aside. Is that the explanation? Neither of the other two candidates (B.O. and McC) offer anything except their own egocentric limitations (I was born an agent for change--tell me again how one chooses that?) (My grandfather and my father and I were all Navy--so what's the rest of the world outside a ready-made formula for staying with the pack?)
Good luck, guys. We really would be better off in this highly complex international structure and its failing villages with someone who can multi-task. Fortunately, she's still running.
What's the Magic Metric?
Here's a new kind of recount: The Clinton camp's complicated formula to make her look like the leader.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Talk about playing the numbers. The morning after her Pennsylvania primary win, Hillary Clinton's aides staked out the aisle of the press plane and proclaimed that with Pennsylvania's big victory, Clinton had surged ahead of Barack Obama in the popular-vote total. But they added two big careful caveats: this scenario would hold true only if Michigan and Florida's votes are counted (the states were stripped of their delegates for holding primaries early in violation of party rules) and if caucus states aren't counted. One baffled reporter challenged the aides, accusing them of "making up a metric." The aides pushed back. And then they realized their own spin was wrong.
Hours later, they announced their new formula. It turns out Clinton's aides had undervalued their candidate's position—and in doing so, revealed the absurd lengths they will go to in trying to persuade the media (and superdelegates) to discount the delegate math, which gives Obama a virtually insurmountable lead. As it happens, Clinton is now ahead in the popular vote total even when caucus states are included—if Michigan and Florida are also included. But that's a big "if": Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, and neither candidate campaigned in the two states. As my colleague Andrew Romanoargues persuasively, the popular vote isn't a reliable measure in a race this close anyway—four caucus states don't count voters, so attempts to pinpoint a true number are all but impossible.
On the stump today in Indianapolis, where she flew to hold a single half-hour-long outdoor rally in front of the city's American Legion headquarters before flying back to Washington for a Senate vote, Clinton said she's not going away. "This is one of the most important elections that our country's ever had," Clinton told a cheering crowd of about 200. "The choice that you will make in helping to choose the next president will truly determine the course of America. I think America is worth fighting for. So I'm going to be here [in Indiana] as often as I can."
Of the remaining contests, Indiana is the one most clearly in play. For either Clinton or Obama, a win there will have a major impact on uncommitted superdelegates' decisions. Obama flew to Evansville last night, speaking at a rally there as Clinton delivered her victory speech in Philadelphia. After stumping in North Carolina with retired general Hugh Shelton tomorrow, Clinton will spend Friday and Saturday in five Indiana cities and will be joined for a concert with Hall of Fame rocker and Indiana native John Mellencamp next week.
Clinton aides and allies spent the day telling journalists—who set the tone for what kind of expectations Clinton will face in Indiana—that Obama's loss in Pennsylvania shows his problem drawing the working-class white voters the party needs to win in November. A group of surrogates—including Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, New York Gov. David Paterson and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm—held an unusual conference call this afternoon to strenuously argue that Clinton's "landslide" win shows she's the more electable Democrat against GOP nominee John McCain.
Rendell, whose vast organizational network helped Clinton carry Pennsylvania, started the call by scolding the media for "incredibly underestimating the impact" of Clinton's virtually double-digit win. "We carried the Philadelphia suburbs," he said, adding that Clinton won the seven counties surrounding Philadelphia (which had been expected to be Obama country) by 15,000 votes. "It was a victory virtually everywhere in the state. Senator Obama won seven counties out of 67."
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss