HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents)

The bigger point to that discussion Hillary had with the Argus Leader's editorial board is being lost here gang.  Her comments were made in response to repeated questions about the motives of her opponents in trying to force her out of this race.  She made the comments that triggered this sudden outrage to point out that this urgency to end the primary process is unprecedented, and that contests have gone on into the summer in the past.

What gets me is why folks are so suddenly outraged over something she's said in the past, but that's a topic for another diary.  I'm outraged too dammit - outraged over the way some people have twisted the words of this devoted public servant and Democrat to mean something hateful and totally out of character of the woman in question.

It's beyond disgusting.

Hillary's proven time and time again that she's on the side of the working folks in this country.  That she's fought for us and for our rights.  That she'll move heaven and earth to make this a better world for our kids - and for us.

She deserves better than this guys.  All of us deserve better than she's been treated over the past 15 years.  Especially over the past few days.

Hillary and her team have issued one press release after another - one expressing her regret for the statement - one from the newspaper where this all took place - and another from the son of Robert Kennedy ("I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.") - all saying her words have been taken out of context and that this outrage is unwarranted given the discussion and the woman in question.

Hillary posted the following to the New York Daily News today.  More after the statement...

Hillary: Why I Continue To Run

I am running because I still believe I can win on the merits. Because, with our economy in crisis, our nation at war, the stakes have never been higher - and the need for real leadership has never been greater - and I believe I can provide that leadership.

I am not unaware of the challenges or the odds of my securing the nomination - but this race remains extraordinarily close, and hundreds of thousands of people in upcoming primaries are still waiting to vote. As I have said so many times over the course of this primary, if Sen. Obama wins the nomination, I will support him and work my heart out for him against John McCain. But that has not happened yet.

I am running because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if Sen. Obama and I both make our case - and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard - in the end, everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee.

I am running because my parents did not raise me to be a quitter - and too many people still come up to me at my events, grip my arm and urge me not to walk away before this contest is over. More than 17 million Americans have voted for me in this race - the most in presidential primary history.

I am running for all those women in their 90s who've told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House. For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls - and little boys - whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, "See, you can be anything you want to be." As the first female candidate in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to finish this race.

I am running for all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference for their families. People who deserve a shot at the American Dream - the chance to save for college, a home and retirement; to afford quality health care for their families; to fill the gas tank and buy the groceries with a little left over each month.

I believe I won a 40-point victory two weeks ago in West Virginia and a 35-point victory in Kentucky this past week - despite voters being repeatedly told this race is over - because I'm standing up for them. I'm standing up for the deepest principles of our party and for an America that values the middle class and rewards hard work.

Finally, I am running because I believe I'm the strongest candidate to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain. Delegate math might be complicated - but electoral math is not. Our campaign is winning the popular vote - and we've been winning the swing states we need to get 270 electoral votes and take back the White House: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arkansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Michigan, Florida and West Virginia.

But no matter what happens in this primary, I am committed to unifying this party. Ultimately, what Sen. Obama and I share is so much greater than our differences. And I know that if we come together, as a party and a people, there is no challenge we cannot meet, no barrier we cannot break and no dream we cannot realize.

Now I have a few thoughts on why people are pushing so hard to force Hillary out of this race.  As people have noted repeatedly in the past, this is the first time we've seen such a massive push to force someone to drop out of the race for the presidency.

Is it a coincidence that this is also being done to the first woman with a real shot at the White House?

I doubt it.

What gets me is why she even needs to explain why she's fighting for the right to continue her campaign in the first place you guys.  She's leading in the popular vote.  She's within a couple percentage points of the lead re delegates.  She's running stronger in the states we absolutely have got to win in November and her numbers re electoral votes look better than her opponents against McCain.  She's won more states and votes in the past 2 - almost 3 months than he has and she's closing the gap.  She's still got time to convince enough super delegates to back her in this race and neither candidate can win this thing without them!

They've never pulled this shit on a guy - right?

Now why is that do you think?

A guy would tell them in no uncertain terms to feck off wouldn't they?  "Party unity" and "why can't we all just get along" wouldn't work and has never worked on a guy, right?  They'd go after the nomination with everything they've got and rightly so.  After 17 months on the campaign trail and only a few percentage points separating the candidates - and a lead in the popular vote there's no way in hell any guy in his right mind would give up now.

So why are they pushing so hard to force Hillary to drop out?

They're pulling this sh#t on Hillary because we women are brought up to be less selfish about such things.  To put our own needs, desires and ambitions second to a man's - any man's.  Especially the women of Hillary's and my own mother's (who's just a few years older than Hillary) generation.

They've never pulled this on a guy because men are a hell of a lot more ambitious and self-centered when it comes to this stuff than most women.  Even in today's political environment.  

They saw parts of her public life (like her fight to hold her family together) as a weakness and they're trying to exploit that perceived weakness by demanding that she drop out.  I'm guessing Hillary was thinking some of this as she repeatedly said "I don't know" when they tried to get her to tell them what she thought was their reason for pushing her out - or trying to.

This whole thing has me beyond pissed.  Add insult to injury the fact that they're ALSO trying to kick 2.3 million voters in FL & MI (my home state) to the curb.  The people who're trying to force her out are beyond reproach.  They're selfish.  They're sick.  They're in it for one thing and one thing only guys and it ain't the voters and it ain't us.

THAT IS NOT the kind of change and hope I'm lookin' for dammit!

TO anyone from Hillary's camp who might be reading this - or to Hillary herself... please please please take this fight to the convention floor.  Don't let the bastids push you out Hillary.

Over 17 million of us have voted for you in the primaries.  People all over the world are watching this race unfold (my inlaws in Ireland among them) and are counting on you to win this thing.

Hillary we need you in the White House.  For your dedication to reforming our broken health care system.  For your plans to rebuild our middle class and repair our broken economy.  For your plans to develop green collar jobs and start to reverse the damage done to our environment.

And for your ability to kick McCain's @ss come November.

I know you must be sick of the attacks and the BS, but please don't let us down.  Stay strong - keep fighting... for us.

We've got your back.  

Take this to Denver.  



Display:


Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (1.87 / 24)

I don't care if this has already been written up.  I've got someting to say too and I'm saying it ;o)

Now play nice.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:48:47 AM EST

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (1.91 / 12)

And remember to click on my sig line and do whatever you can to help her continue this fight.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:49:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Another $100 for HRC (2.00 / 9)

keep fighting Hillary.....show us the fighter who will stick with it when the odds are tough.  Obama is in the top of the 9th inning, one run ahead, and wants to call the game.

Extra innings, Obama.  You haven't won the game yet.

And yes, take it to the convention.  The dems who give this to Obama are in for a rough ride, and the convention is not going to be pretty.  Obama cannot unite the party around him, not with the way he jumps on everything Clinton says as somehow related to him.  Sheesh.  The audacity of ego is stunning!


by 4justice on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:56:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another $100 for HRC (2.00 / 8)

Damn fine analogy - 9th inning and just one run ahead - wants to call the game.  I love it.

Mind if I use that some time?

And THANKS for donating again! :o)


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:01:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

absolutely (2.00 / 6)

we are in this game to win, not quit in the 9th inning!


by 4justice on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:04:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Right on! We don't quit unless Hillary (2.00 / 5)

quits. That's just reality. And all the HR and TR abuse, faux outrage, tantrums, threats, and demands are not going to change that. For people who keep telling us, ad nauseum, how they cannot lose at this point, a whole bunch of Obama supporters sure are acting pretty desperate around the internets lately. The cognitive dissonance of being absolutely sure of a win, while at same time pouncing like a starving lion on a supposedly mortally wounded opponent is astounding. Since sports metaphors seem to be so in vogue lately, this situation reminds me of a highschool basketball coach who, up by 50 points in the 4th quarter, refuses to bench his starters in order to run up the score. The problem with that is - and I've seen it happen - is the starters get tired, the losing team refuses to quit, and suddenly what was a sure thing, a humiliating defeat in front of a demoralized home crowd, turns into an exciting, nail-biting race to the finish. Hang in there Hillary supporters, no matter what the Corporate Owned Media or the Obama camp says, it is not over yet.  


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:56:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right on! We don't quit unless Hillary (1.50 / 4)

"The cognitive dissonance of being absolutely sure of a win, while at same time pouncing like a starving lion on a supposedly mortally wounded opponent is astounding."

What you don't understand is that the rest of us have our sights set on November. And nothing Clinton does has convinced us in the slightest that she isn't preferring a McCain presidency to an Obama one.

So there you have the solution to your dilemma: we're not angry at Clinton as a defeated rival -- we're angry at her for being McCain's right-hand.


by Aris Katsaris on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:42:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right on! We don't quit unless Hillary (2.00 / 2)

>"The bigger point to that discussion Hillary had with the Argus Leader's editorial board is being lost here gang."

That is the whole point. The fact that capaigns have historically stretched into June seems to have been completely squelched in the media with NOISE.

They are very, very good at what they do. Obama has borrowed all the GOP tricks, and then some.


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:32:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right on! We don't quit unless Hillary (none / 0)

"The fact that campaigns have historically stretched into June"

Yes, they historically stretched into June back when they began in March. Not sure what that is supposed to imply, now that they begin in January instead. That Hillary again tries to deceive with half-truths, perhaps? Agreed - that's one of the things we should be focusing on.

And as a sidenote she never answered the question she was asked about why she was being pressured to exit the race. She just kept saying "I don't know, I'm confused, poor little me". A brilliant political perspective on the situation, don't you think? One we should also all be focusing on indeed.


by Aris Katsaris on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:03:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She obviously would be a far better President (2.00 / 1)

New isn't necessarily better, in fact, statistically, its more often worse.

Obama has proven to be a brilliant obfuscator but he's clearly not as on top of the issues as Hillary when you look at the two side by side.

Hillary is tactfully not saying what she thinks and people like me are not saying what they really think about Obama's campaign.

Its not constructive at this point. What we are saying is that its really important for this country to have the best President in November, especially someone who is capable, and someone who can win over McCain who - although he is a Republican, and carries the Bush baggage and the GOP Reverse Robin-Hood philosophy of take from the common people and give to the rich, he is also smarter than Bush and in some ways is a strong GOP candidate, as they go. It speaks in no small way to the right's desperation after Bush that they would field a candidate who was not part of the core neocon/militarist wing, but McCain is still in every way a Republican.

I also don't put it past them to try to infiltrate the Democratic party, given that the Republican brand is failing. That might look like more of a winning strategy to them right now.

Lets hope they don't succeed.


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:27:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She obviously would be a far better President (none / 0)

"She obviously would be a far better President"

I don't know if Obama would be a good president, but she most certainly would be a disastrous one -- her one big project in the 1990s was disaster personified. Since then, and unlike Obama, she's shown the self-destructiveness of her egoism, where she's so sure that she's inevitable that she doesn't even bother to plan for after Super Tuesday, and keeps stubbornly holding on with the justification of "Anything can happen".

If she were president, we'd once again see her plan without any attempt of compromise or backup solution, we'd be seeing her heading down deadends with the denial-of-reality justification of "Anything can happen", we'd see the same arrogance and lack of planning and lack of forethought and budget mismanagement that doomed her primary campaign.

I don't know why you believe she'd make a better president than she made a nominee.

"Hillary is tactfully not saying what she thinks and people like me are not saying what they really think about Obama's campaign."

Yes, you two have been almost as tactful as I've been.


by Aris Katsaris on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:46:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Both she and Obama have stated, categorically, (2.00 / 2)

over and over that they will work to unite the party should they lose the nomination and work to see that McCain is defeated in November. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, in Hillary's entire career, history, or otherwise that points to anything other than that. What you don't understand is that you just "choose" not to believe her. I believe Obama...


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:22:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Both she and Obama have stated, categorically, (1.50 / 4)

"Both she and Obama have stated, categorically, over and over that they will work to unite the party should they lose the nomination "

Yes. But then again she once stated categorically that the Michigan votes didn't count for anything.

So, yeah, I choose not to believe her. That's my personal estimation about the value of Clinton's statements based on the history of her and her husband's truthfulness.


by Aris Katsaris on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:38:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: absolutely (none / 0)

Uhh, what happens again when the home team is up by one run in the bottom of the ninth again?


by Djo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another $100 for HRC (2.00 / 3)

Except that he's actually 192 points (delegates) ahead.


by Gene In PA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:12:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's just blowing smoke. (2.00 / 2)

RFK didn't enter his first contest until May.

Bubba didn't enter his until late February.

Hillary's been in contests since early January.

Therefore, she has, in fact, been running longer than either of those two candidates.


by Bush Bites on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:24:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The PEOPLE don't agree with the PUNDITS (2.00 / 2)

If you ask me, what the people want is FAR more important.

THEY are the ones who matter.

LOTS OF PEOPLE have made it clear that they
DON'T want Hillary to QUIT

So, you PUNDITS can blow smoke out of your butts
all day long - as it doesn't matter that much in the grander scheme of things if the PEOPLE don't think it does.


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:33:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And make damn sure (1.50 / 2)

you ensure that a Democrat won't win in November.


by fladem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:57:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton's statements (2.00 / 3)

are completely unacceptable for a republican, let alone a Democrat.  Utterly disastrous.  Mark my words, there will be a substantial number of delegates declaring for Obama this Tuesday.  This incredible bit of idiocy from an supposedly intelligent woman will be the final straw for a great many people.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

'Mark my words' (2.00 / 1)

Why do so many of the Obama blog folks use these ridiculously pompous terms all the time?

1  : excessively elevated or ornate <pompous rhetoric>  
2  : having or exhibiting self-importance : arrogant ex. a pompous politician
3  : relating to or suggestive of pomp : magnificent
-- pomp·ous·ly adverb
-- pomp·ous·ness noun


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:37:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 'Mark my words' (none / 0)

I'll try to dumb it down for you next time, such that even a person who can't spell architect will understand.  You should mark my words though, the delegates will be turning in bunches Tuesday morning.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:35:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is an excellent analogy... (2.00 / 1)

It's the bottom of the ninth inning, Team Barack is up to bat, and Team Barack is one run ahead.  And in that situation, nobody bothers to play the second half of the inning...they just clear the field, because playing is pointless.

Great analogy!


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:59:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whoops, that should read... (none / 0)

"BUT it's the bottom of the ninth inning"


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:06:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another $100 for HRC (1.33 / 3)

This is a bad analogy. You see, if the home team is ahead in the 9th inning after the visiting team has made 3 outs. The game is over. There is no need for the home team to bat again, even though it is the 9th inning.


by kdnla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:19:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another $100 for HRC (2.00 / 0)

I'm a feminist but also an ironist, and there's a painful tension between the two when Alegre posts a diary decrying sexism then misapplies sports metaphors.  Let's not undo all the good of Title IX.


by deminva on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another $100 for HRC (none / 0)

You mean the last sports analogy wasn't good enough?


New Mexico politics from the local perspective.
by fbihop on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:15:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another $100 for HRC (none / 0)

Mojo'd for mentioning Title IX.


by Djo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:42:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another $100 for HRC (2.00 / 2)

Your metaphor is wrong.

It's the fourth quarter and he's up by two touchdowns with a minute left and he has possession.  All he has to do is take a few knees and it's over.  There's a remote but nonzero chance he could fumble the ball while taking a knee, but it's not bloody likely.

The clock works against Sen. Clinton as well as the math.  She's not going to win PDs, and the trend with superdelegates doesn't look good for her either  - and there's every indication in the world that they're going to want this to be over on June 4.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:10:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another $100 for HRC (none / 0)

Then would timeouts be appealing the Rules & Bylaws committee decision?


by nwodtuhs on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:50:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another $100 for HRC (none / 0)

That's her last timeout, I think.

And as any football aficionado knows, when you've got four downs to work with, one timeout with a minute left isn't going to do it.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:52:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (none / 0)

Great diary.

You are so right -- no one would ask a guy to drop out. No one.

She should take it to the convention -- like all the other guys (who were a LOT further behind in all the metrics) have done in past presidential races. But they were guys, so putting their dreams on hold for someone else was unthinkable.


by cuppajoe on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:50:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (2.00 / 1)

Perhaps you should educate yourself in political history.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:18:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (none / 0)

Perhaps you should educate yourself.

Here are three examples (there are others)

1980 - Ted Kennedy, fighting a losing delegate battle, tried to get committed delegates released from their  commitment to Carter AT THE CONVENTION.
    Delegate tally:   
        Jimmy Carter - 2,129.02    
        Ted Kennedy- 1,150.48

    At the convention, when he finally lost his fight, he gave a speech in favor of Carter saying "For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end."

1984 - Gary Hart takes his losing campaign to the Convention
    Delegate Tally
    Mondale 2,191
    Hart    1,201       

1988 - Jesse Jackson took his losing fight to the Convention in Atlanta
    Delegate Tally
    Dukakis 2,877
    Jackson 1,219


by cuppajoe on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:23:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (none / 0)

The only one that bears any resemblance to the present day is 1980.  In the others, the campaigns were basically suspended; they certainly were not active campaigns in the way that Clinton's is, nor were they trying to undermine the near-presumptive nominee.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (none / 0)

And I do not think that she is either.


by cuppajoe on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:47:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (2.00 / 1)

I beg your pardon. Is this snark, or do you really think she's being asked to drop because of her sex?


by Falsehood on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:36:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (none / 0)

No. Not snark. I'm saying that sexism plays a part in this. If you can't see that, then I wouldn't be able to convince you I guess.


by cuppajoe on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:26:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (none / 0)

It really doesn't.  There would be questions raised to any candidate who is doing with Clinton is. Actually, I think there would have been a harsh and concerted push with a male candidate in the same position, having lost so many races in a row, being so far behind in the delegate count, and being in debt.  Clinton has had an exceedingly easy treatment because no one wants to piss off her supporters despite Bill and Hillary trying to stir up their resentments.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:29:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (none / 0)

I don't agree with Alegre that sexism is the reason, but there is plenty of evidence that the pressure on Hillary is unprecedented.  From Media Matters:

History continues to unfold on many levels as the protracted Democratic Party primary race marches on, featuring the first woman and the first African-American with a real shot at winning the White House.

Here's another first: the press's unique push to get a competitive White House hopeful to drop out of the race. It's unprecedented.

Looking back through modern U.S. campaigns, there's simply no media model for so many members of the press to try to drive a competitive candidate from the field while the primary season is still unfolding.

SNIP

And the fact is, the media's get-out-now push is unparalleled. Strong second-place candidates such as Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown, all of whom campaigned through the entire primary season, and most of whom took their fights all the way to their party's nominating conventions, were never tagged by the press and told to go home.

"Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history," wrote Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. "When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party."

Indeed, even after Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary convincingly last week, she awoke the next morning to read an angry New York Times editorial, "beseeching her to get the hell out of the race," as Howard Kurtz put it at washingtonpost.com. On the Times opinion page that day same, Maureen Dowd actually turned to Dr. Seuss rhymes to make her point: "The time is now. Just go. ... I don't care how."

The article goes to list more examples.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (none / 0)

I will agree that there has been sexism, just as there has been racism. However, saying that she's being asked solely because of her sex seems dishonest to me.

That was how I read you post.

Just because I think sexism isn't causing her to be asked to drop doesn't mean I deny its existence.


by Falsehood on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (1.00 / 1)

Beg,Beg,Beg


by telfishbackagain on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:39:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (none / 0)

If they donate, how are they going to afford to pay for their gas? Heh heh.

And I wonder why you couldnt afford Obama the same courtesy when Obama had to deal with overblown controversies. You had no problem fanning the flames here.


by Pravin on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:33:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The mutiple lies in this diary (2.00 / 10)

simply astound.

The idea that the pressure on her is unprecidented is plain flat absurd.  I suggest you go back and read about the primary fights of 1976, 1980 and 1984.

In eash instance there was enourmous pressure on the candidates to quit (see for example the 1980 primary)

Of course, Clinton flat out lied about the prior primary fights in her statement - she couldn't even be honest about the 1992 primary fight - which did not go on to June.

Ane the lies she tells about Florida and Michigan have now been so thorougly demonstrated it is simply astounding that people seriously repeat them.

Lies. Lies. Lies.


by fladem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:54:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The mutiple lies in this diary (none / 0)

the biggest difference is that none of those candidates had anything like the Ken Starr report behind them that found them guilty of nothing yet was used as the basis of a pattern of hate.


by zerosumgame on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:25:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The mutiple lies in this diary (2.00 / 1)

What does that have to do with Hillary? The Starr report was about Bill.

And if there was nothing problematic, why did Bill surrender his law license?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:19:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The mutiple lies in this diary (none / 0)

wow, so unlearned you are. Starr covered Hillary as well since they were supposed partners in non-crime, including her options trading, the whole Travel Office BS, and her every action at the law firm she worked at.


by zerosumgame on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:45:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The mutiple lies in this diary (none / 0)

I meant this http://thomas.loc.gov/icreport/
not the other Starr investigations, since that's what's commonly called the Starr Report.
We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:17:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The mutiple lies in this diary (none / 0)

Lies. Lies. Lies.

Aren't we being a little dramatic here?  Even if you don't agree that she is being unfairly hounded out of the race, there is no reason to accuse Alegre of lying just because she doesn't agree with you.

Is the Democratic Party?  Have we really sunk this low because of a competitive primary?  Somebody diagrees with you so they must be lying?

I don't agree with Alegre that sexism is the reason, but there are plenty of journalists and commentators who are making the same observation that Alegre is making, that the pressure on Hillary is unprecedented.  

From Media Matters:

History continues to unfold on many levels as the protracted Democratic Party primary race marches on, featuring the first woman and the first African-American with a real shot at winning the White House.

Here's another first: the press's unique push to get a competitive White House hopeful to drop out of the race. It's unprecedented.

Looking back through modern U.S. campaigns, there's simply no media model for so many members of the press to try to drive a competitive candidate from the field while the primary season is still unfolding.

SNIP

And the fact is, the media's get-out-now push is unparalleled. Strong second-place candidates such as Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown, all of whom campaigned through the entire primary season, and most of whom took their fights all the way to their party's nominating conventions, were never tagged by the press and told to go home.

"Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history," wrote Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. "When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party."


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:24:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The mutiple lies in this diary (none / 0)

Even if you don't agree that she is being unfairly hounded out of the race, there is no reason to accuse Alegre of lying just because she doesn't agree with you.

Agreed. Why fight over opinions when there are other verifiable lies in Alegre's diary? You know, like how Hillary leads in the popular vote, that she is closing the gap in delegates, etc. Let's focus on those actual lies instead, OK?


by jdusek on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:48:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (2.00 / 1)

You're not getting the bigger point of the discussion, either.  Her OPPONENT(S) have NEVER called for her to drop out.

"My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants," Mr. Obama said at a press conference. "Her name is on the ballot. She is a fierce and formidable opponent and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president." Barack Obama, Johnstown, PA - March 29, 2008


"More War Years! More War Years!" ~John McCain
by Tommy Flanagan on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:42:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shhh. Don't taunt alegre with facts. (none / 0)

It only encourages her to lie louder.


Ignorance is weakness. Get strong.
by tbetz on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:36:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (none / 0)

Alegre, I think you've been very angry at statements made in the past, and taken a specific interpretation to be used as defence (like Keith's comments).

I feel like you're being a little hypocritical here, and it makes it harder for me to respect your work.


by Falsehood on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:35:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (none / 0)

The principle of reversibility would be helpful here in further developing the theme of Alegre's hypocrisy.  

Imagine if you will that Clinton were ahead, and Obama had said he didn't think he should drop out--that, for instance, Bobby Kennedy had been assassinated in June.  Would Alegre be "disgusted" by anyone who impugned Obama's motives?  Or would she devote several diaries to linking his words to violence against women?  

Given that, in this diary, she's just making shit up about male candidates never being pressured to leave primary contests, I have a clear sense of which path she'd take.

Note, too, that when Obama used the word bitter and Clinton subsequently campaigned on it for two weeks, Alegre thought that was fine.  Now, Clinton used the word assassinate, the Obama campaign has called it regrettable and moved on, and Alegre is disgusted! disgusted!


by deminva on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:06:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HILLARY: Why I Continue to Run (My 2 Cents) (none / 0)

I think you have several great points here, but remember, Obama supporters aren't nearly so desperate right now.


by Falsehood on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop lying. (1.90 / 55)

She's leading in the popular vote.

According to your own rule, she isn't.

Any metric by which Hillary Clinton leads in the popular vote requires that Obama receive zero votes in MI.  Yet recently you said:

Democrats include EVERY VOTE - according to the wishes of the voter.

(Source, emphasis mine)

Now, according to Michigan exit polling, Barack Obama was the clear choice of 35% of the populace.  That means his floor is 35% of the popular vote in Michigan.  But wait - according to the exit polls, only 46% of voters wished to vote for Hillary Clinton.  The other votes she received were from Edwards supporters (30%) and Obama supporters (18%).

So, following the Alegre Rule, we should apportion the popular vote in Michigan according to the wishes of the voters - 260,579 votes for Hillary Clinton (46% of 566,477 votes) and 198,267 votes for Barack Obama (35% of the same number).

Factoring that into the popular vote count that includes FL and the caucus states, that gives us...

Clinton: 17,580,569
Obama: 17,790,587
Obama +210,018

According to the Alegre Rule, Barack Obama currently leads in the popular vote by 210,000.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:52:14 AM EST

Re: Stop lying. (1.88 / 27)

Wow.  Why all the troll ratings?

Care to address the argument instead of just trying to make it go away?


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop lying. (2.00 / 2)

Wish I could uprate you, mistersite, but for some reason I am unable to.


Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.
by awobbly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:31:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop lying. (none / 0)

gosh, payback really is a bitch huh, maybe if BHO'ers were not so organized with their TR's and HR's you might get a spot of sympathy.


by zerosumgame on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:30:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop lying. (2.00 / 7)

maybe if BHO'ers were not so organized with their TR's and HR's you might get a spot of sympathy

Let's see your evidence for your claim that Obama supporters have an "organized" effort to HR/TR.  Provide credible evidence of actual organization - not just correlation - or retract your claim.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:36:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm Not Lying (1.33 / 15)

Stop accusing me of it.

I've provided backup on this point repeatedly.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:56:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Not Lying (2.00 / 8)

You have?

It seems pretty clear to me that your rule, that all votes be counted according to voters' wishes, requires that Obama receive votes in MI equivalent to his support there.  Where have you indicated that the Alegre Rule doesn't apply to Michigan?


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:58:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Care to Address The Main Points in the Diary? (1.06 / 16)

No?

Didn't think so.

Buh bye.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:59:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Care to Address The Main Points in the Diary? (2.00 / 13)

Sure.  I'll address it.

I think there are more Clinton supporters complaining about Clinton supposedly being pushed out, than there are people actually trying to push her out.

Stop kvetching and tell me how your candidate plans to take the nomination, and then tell me how your candidate plans to win back the votes of the African-American voters whose anger will be more than palpable.  No Democrat wins without AA votes.  How's she going to win them back, after telling them "your candidate, who followed all the rules and won a majority of pledged delegates, didn't deserve the nomination"?


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:03:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She may even have trouble staying Senator in NY (2.00 / 13)

I'm in NY and can say that she will never win back many of her former supporters after how her campaign has acted in the past couple of months.

Check out this article about her looming troubles among African Americans in NY: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la- na-clintonblacks25-2008may25,0,2206514.s tory

And it's definitely NOT just African Americans.


by casperr on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:11:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting article but (2.00 / 1)

you have to admit that much of it is anecdotes.  I have no doubt that if she is not in the WH she will easily win a reelection to the Senate.

Paterson may not be viable governor material for long - he is in a HUGE budget fight with the state universities (something the LA Times seemed to miss).

http://media.www.theracquette.com/media/ storage/paper1301/news/2008/05/09/News/N y.State.Cuts.Suny.Budget-3367919.shtml

He is in the process of angering an enormous range of people just months into the job, including pulling revenue from hospitals, etc... It is ugly and unprecedented.


by Molee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:24:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting article but (2.00 / 1)

She would have a LOT of work to do to regain support in NY. Many people who voted for her on 2/5 would not vote for her if the primary were held today.

There's already talk of finding a good, strong primary challenger. As I said, let's see what she does in the coming months and then she can come back to NY and start trying to mend fences.


by casperr on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:46:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting article but (none / 0)

not going to happen. No one of consequence will challenge her. It just doesn't happen in NY races.


by Mayor McCheese on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The article you quoted (none / 0)

The author doesn't seem to think it's so dire:

The Rev. Clinton Miller of Brown Memorial Baptist Church in Brooklyn said that any hurt feelings left by the campaign could be easily overcome.

"There are wounds, but I don't think they necessarily have to be that deep," Miller said. "They're deep wounds for people who never liked Hillary in the first place."


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll tell you how (none / 0)

1) She wins the popular vote
2) SDs, who will decide the nomination in any case, recognize that they want to see this

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/May25.html

NOT this

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob ama/Maps/May25.html

so they move in large enough numbers to her column between now and the convention.  Note that this needs to go to the convention because that is when the actual nomination happens (and of course, we all know that winning a majority of pledged delegates is meaningless)

3) In the general you ask how would she get AAs because we see AAs going to BO and working class whites going to HRC.  True, now we have two polarized voting blocks, the nominee has to heal that rift.  She could do this in several ways. She could pick him as VP and they could unite the party.  Or if he refused, she could get to work with that community (something she has a long history of)  and work to win their votes.  BO on the other hand has no particular history of hard work and no significant legacy of winning working class whites in the past.  For this reason I think she is much more likely to win back AAs than he is to for the first time win working class whites.

I'd like to win in November and this is how it can happen.


by Molee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:18:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll tell you how (2.00 / 9)

1) She wins the popular vote

At this point, the only way she can (narrowly) win the popular vote is if turnout in PR is over 1 million and she wins by at least 20%.  If we assume (I think safely) that SD and MT are going to be pretty much a wash popular-vote-wise, she remains down 210,000 votes including Florida and Michigan according to the Alegre Rule.  She's going to need astronomical turnout in PR, when most forecasters are predicting 5-600,000 or so, and a huge victory, when the only poll done in PR, two months ago, only has her up by 13%.  To say with certainty that she will win the popular vote, based on pretty baseless speculation of an astronomical turnout model and a blowout victory in PR, is pretty tenuous.

2) SDs, who will decide the nomination in any case, recognize that they want to see [electoral maps] so they move in large enough numbers to her column between now and the convention.  Note that this needs to go to the convention because that is when the actual nomination happens (and of course, we all know that winning a majority of pledged delegates is meaningless)

First, a majority of pledged delegates isn't meaningless, at least not to the numerous superdelegates who have said that whoever is leading in pledged delegates after all the primaries are over will receive their endorsement.

Second, superdelegates are smart enough to know that polling six months away from the general election, with one party in the midst of a brutal primary fight and still yet to unite behind their nominee, with any number of things that could happen between now and then, is all but meaningless.  If you're inclined to think otherwise, take a look at polling from December 2007; is that the map we see today?

Third, if enough superdelegates endorse Obama to put him over the top on June 4, the only thing Clinton can hope for is that he gets caught with a live boy or dead girl, or that he gets hit by a stray meteor.  There's really nothing else that's likely to sway them.  But she should continue campaigning until the convention, causing us not to unite behind our nominee, because...?

3) In the general you ask how would she get AAs because we see AAs going to BO and working class whites going to HRC.  True, now we have two polarized voting blocks, the nominee has to heal that rift.  She could do this in several ways. She could pick him as VP and they could unite the party.  Or if he refused, she could get to work with that community (something she has a long history of)  and work to win their votes.

I think you underestimate how pissed off many in the African-American community are at Sen. Clinton now - to say nothing of if she takes the nomination.  The African-American candidate has followed the rules and won according to the rules; do you think Clinton has a prayer of receiving significant African-American support if she says "that's not enough" and steals the nomination away from the African-American candidate (which is certainly how it would be perceived by many African-Americans)?  If she's our nominee, we lose African-Americans for a generation.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:39:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Care to Address The Main Points in the Diary? (1.91 / 12)

You entire "diary" is garbage.  When people respond to it, then ask you to defend it, at which time you tuck tail, troll rate and hide.  Per your usual MO.  On the bright side, each of your "diaries" is funnier than the last!


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:05:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Care to Address The Main Points in the Diary? (none / 0)

to bad you lose credibility from the actions of your fellow-travelers


by zerosumgame on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:03:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Care to Address The Main Points in the Diary? (none / 0)

huh?


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The poster questioned one of your points... (2.00 / 11)

and you ignore it by saying they should address only the points you say they can, AND TR them to boot? Pathetic.

Care to address why you're ignoring the gaping hole in your logic that the poster displayed with facts?


by Seeking Cincinnatus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:16:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

TR abuse in place of argument (2.00 / 3)

Is really not very compelling.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:34:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: TR abuse in place of argument (none / 0)

lol love seeing a BHO'er arguing that, such rank stinking hypocrisy


by zerosumgame on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:04:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: TR abuse in place of argument (2.00 / 1)

Do you have anything to add to the discussion, or are you just here to piss people off?

If it's the former, you can start anytime now; if it's the latter, please just don't.  You aren't doing your candidate any favors with this.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:18:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: TR abuse in place of argument (none / 0)

A known troll who collects troll ratings by the handful accuses someomne of hypocrisy, lol!


by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:42:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Not Lying (1.92 / 13)

Your "backup" is garbage.  She isn't leading in the popular vote UNLESS you apply selective criteria.  She FAILS in leading the popular vote when you apply the currently accepted metrics.  Just because you choose to NOT LOOK at the whole picture doesn't mean people don't see it, or more to the point, see your propaganda laden "diaries" for they are.


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:02:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Then provide a link. (2.00 / 3)

If you've answered this "repeatedly," then you should be able to find one example and link to it quite easily.  Right?


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:15:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop lying. (none / 0)

Don't be silly.  Exit polls aren't votes.

***A


by adrienne4dean on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:23:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Disgusting (none / 0)

You are right.  The whole disgusting country owes Hillary a huge apology for misinterpreting her assassination comment and causing her to be "deeply dismayed and disturbed."


by rf7777 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:54:47 AM EST

Re:Disgusting (none / 0)

I wonder why Hillary apologized for making the comment.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:01:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

C O L !!!! Yer Kidding - Right? (1.63 / 11)

Damed if she does and damned if she doesn't.

Give it a rest.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:02:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you raised the subject (2.00 / 8)

This is the subject of your diary. If you didn't want the statement discussed, why, exactly, did you write a diary about it!


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:03:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"My 2 Cents" (1.50 / 2)

and in my opinion, it's simply due to her ego.

A recent example:

TO anyone from Hillary's camp who might be reading this - or to Hillary herself... please please please take this fight to the convention floor. Don't let the bastids push you out Hillary.
And because she likes seeing her diaries on the Recommended list.
A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.
by DemsRising on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:41:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As someone just said on Stephanopolis (2.00 / 10)

"My wife always says that an apology that includes the word 'if' is not an apology."


by casperr on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:13:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As someone just said on Stephanopolis (2.00 / 4)

My partner always says:

An apology where you blame the offended for being offended is not an apology.


by rf7777 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:21:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As someone just said on Stephanopolis (none / 0)

Yeah, that too.

Shame on her.


by casperr on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:48:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good one (2.00 / 3)

Casperr.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:36:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama now trailing Hill in favorability ratings (1.33 / 6)

http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/i s-obama-no-longer-odds-on-favorite-in.ht ml

Obama has been declining since his high water mark in mid February, and Hillary slowing improving.  They're both at 47 (yea) 50 (boo) for a minus three rating.  But Obama's highly unfavorable rating is higher.


by katmandu1 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:00:25 AM EST

Re: Obama now trailing Hill in favorability rating (2.00 / 3)

Cherry pick away. It doesn't stop the process.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:01:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Given Your Comment Above Re Her (1.55 / 9)

statement of regret, you've just lost all credibility in this discussion.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:03:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given Your Comment Above Re Her (2.00 / 2)

What do you mean? Be specific.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:04:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given Your Comment Above Re Her (2.00 / 4)

i·ro·ny:  An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:08:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rezkowatch? (2.00 / 8)

You are citing a site called Rezkowatch????  

This blog has become so entertaining in a Shadenfreude sort of way.  Kind of reminds me of the tryouts for American Idol.  


by rf7777 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:04:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rezkowatch? (2.00 / 6)

No, no, rezkowatch is as completely unbiased and factually-based as this diary.  Honestly Obamabots, give it a rest!


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:14:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rezkowatch? (none / 0)

Hillaryis44 wasn't available for comment, apparently.


New Mexico politics from the local perspective.
by fbihop on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama now trailing Hill (none / 0)

Also according to Rezkowatch, not a single human being voted for Obama in Michigan AND that would still hold true if a revote were held today. Thats telling it like it is.  Also, they have irrefutable evidence of Leprechauns.


I will wear my heart upon my sleeve For daws to peck