JoesTypeS, changing the subject for a second, what do you think the chances are of Hillary getting the nomination despite being behind in pledged delegates? Assuming she wins more than she loses in the remaining primaries prior to the convention. I think she’ll make a strong case to the superdelegates that she’s won in most of the big states.
Well, depends how she wins. OH was a very good win for her. TX not so much. Obama will win TX in terms of delegates.
If she wins PA by 10 or more points, then I think she’ll have a 80% chance at getting the nomination. If she loses or wins by less than 5 points I think Obama will be the nominee.
Hillary has backed herself into a corner now. She can’t win a general now, she’s made her campaign about experience, esp national security experience. McCain will wipe the floor with her on this.
She cant have Obama as a VP b/c he’s a heartbeat away, yet she said he’s not ready.
Obama vs. McCain is clearly a choice election. Hillary vs. McCain is a slaughter
I think it will come down to the superdelegates or if Hillary is getting really close and loosing only by a couple delegates it will come down to her fighting for the seats in Michigan and Florida to be either counted or to have them done over. Either way it could get messy for the democrats. Pennsylvania will be close and important but neither of them can reach the 2025 needed to win even if one wins all of the elections left.
I think that was your first unbiased post in this entire thread.
horray
Agreed.
I won’t lie when I say I enjoy seeing Hillary still in it. She will do more for McCain than McCain ever could. McCain doesn’t want to attack Obama right now and risk looking like the old man resisting change and now he doesn’t have to. He can sit back and watch Hillary rip Obama apart. Should Obama still win people will have heard most of the negatives and McCain can run on his experience. Should Hillary win the nod, as you said, she’s screwed because she ran against Obama on how great her commandette in chief experience would be and McCain would kill her there.
On a side note, Obama certainly didn’t help himself with the NAFTA scandel and it showed his inexperience. An experienced politician would have thrown that staffer under the bus and distanced themselves from it. Instead he came out and said, “Oh no, this is all lies, nothing ever happened” only to have that memo come out after and prove that a meeting definitely took place and this issue was discussed.
Was it the ringing phone ad or the nafta flap did the most damage?
Projected results from Tuesday:
Clinton 187 delegates
Obama 183
yet the media will portray what huge wins she had for the next month or so.
The canadian government denies that’s what actually happened. But his campaign did handle it wrong. In fact the PM is investigating the situation.
I think that Hillary’s TV appearance when she said
“I bring a lifetime of experience to the white house. McCain brings a lifetime of experience. Obama brings a speech”
hurt him, and our party, more than anything.
Ouch… I missed that.
And to think, you guys were calling my party fractured just a few weeks ago. Romney dropped out and we all went:
:grouphug:
Can someone please explain to me where Hillary got this “wealth of experience” she keeps pitching? She’s a do nothing senator from NY who only moved to NY because her handlers told her she could win a senate seat there and use it as a stepping stone to the white house. Compared to say Schumer she hasn’t done anything for this state. Her other “experience” is being a first lady. Well hell, my wife is a chemist so I guess I can update MY resume to include chemist now according to Hillary.
You guys have done a great job putting up two very hollow candidates again and I think it will result in a very tight race when it should have been a landslide for the dems.
Apparently being first lady for 8 years counts as 35 years of experience…even though Obama has more legislative experience than her and pushed a massive agenda through the IL state legislature in a single year (when it switched from a republican majority to democratic).
I don’t think Obama is a hollow candidate. He offers unity and vision for the future. Hillary however offers Bush reversed.
OMG… my boss was just ranting about Hillary about her “experience”. It went something like this:
“Experience? She hasn’t done shit for NY. The only experience she has is being a wife and she couldn’t even do that right”.
:lol:
According to CBC, all the details were wrong. Canada contacted the campaigns. Michael Wilson was not involved. And, most damning, they are now admitting that the memo at the heart of the controversy “may not accurately reflect what they were told”.
In other words, according to CBC, this scandal was manufactured out of whole cloth. Goolsbee said something consistent with Obama’s official position - that he wanted protections added, but it wasn’t going to be a fundamental change or revocation of NAFTA, and that Obama was not a protectionist. This was morphed somewhat going into the memo, and now the embassy admits they “may have misrepresented the Obama advisor”. Even after the memo misrepresented Obama, the Harper government took it a step further and then leaked a completely fantastic version of the story to the press, in order to maximize the bloodletting.
In short, Chris Bowers was right. This whole thing is clever maneuvering on the part of the Harper government to bolster McCain by sowing dissent among Democrats.
A lot has been written about this scandal. The sensational misrepresentation of the original CTV story was shocking. But now CBC has cleared the air, with the final note from the embassy that they “may have misrepresented the Obama advisor”. In the end, there’s nothing to the story but air. It all boiled down to a memo, which was far less dramatic in content than the first story that ran, and now they are even disclaiming the accuracy of the memo.
In short, people have been duped. With the memo disclaimed, there is nothing left to support this story.
Except for the fact that Obama tried to deny his advisor ever even met with the Canadians at all and the memo proved otherwise.
You’re right, it was a lot of misunderstanding and probably some politicizing. But Omaba’s insistance that it didn’t happen and it wasn’t discussed at all was a lie that an experienced politician would have known better than to tell.
From what I’ve read thus far the NAFTA thing didn’t have nearly the impact that the red phone ad did anyway.
Which brings up my next question. Now that Hillary has gone negative and profited from it, we can assume she’ll keep going down that road. At what point does Obama break his no negative vow, and will Obama going negative turn off some of his base?
Holy hell, I missed that Hilary quote…
While I don’t think they’re completely hollow… fucking :word:
I don’t think he goes negative, I think he goes critical. Really questioning her resume. He’s not going to run a “fear” ad like she did.
He can get as negative as he wants and his base will support him, Clinton crossed the line when she started doing McCain’s bidding.
Personally I’d run this ad if I were Obama:
Voice: “Hillary Clinton is the only democratic candidate that can unify the republican party around John McCain, she’s the only democratic candidate who was naive enough to vote for George Bush’s war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton cannot beat John McCain. Democrats who want to win know Barack Obama is the only one who can beat John McCain in November. Vote for Judgement, Vote for Change, Vote for a Democrat who can win the white house. Vote. Barack Obama”
If JayS is calling Hillary and Barack “hollow” where does George W. fall in all this?
Why, is he running in November?
He is now that he endorsed McCain
I saw the comments she made putting McCain ahead of Barack as far as experience goes (the party should give her shit for that).
They both need to start digging into McCain for the support that Bush just gave McCain too.
:bsflag: and you know it.
Bush was going to endorse the republican nominee, who ever that turned out to be. McCain won’t be calling Bush to give speeches for him or campaign for him.
And I think your ad is a pretty good one, but I don’t think he’s got the stones to run anything close to that.
Obama reminds me of Homer Simpson when he ran for sanitation commissioner. He won by promising, “the garbage man can”. They can take out your trash, clean your babies dirty diapers, unstink your stinkables etc etc. Then once elected he ran out of money after less than a month because doing all those things cost a lot. Both have about the same political experience too. 
Who can pay, Obama’s new slogan… “The Government Can!”
For non-simpson’s people:
EDIT:
BTW: The result was Homer destroyed the town by taking in waste from every other city and they had to pick it up and move the whole town 30 miles down the road. Do we take the US and head to Canada or Mexico. :lol: