dubyaD40.com

Today's Topics


Wednesday, April 23, 2008
From the New York Times... posted by Dookie The Webmaster 6:24 AM who endorsed Clinton: The Low Road to Victory The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it. Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election. If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead. ..... It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs. Free pass for McSame in the meantime Permalink :: 4 comments :: Post a Comment




	I think it's insulting to call on superdelegates - or any delegates. Popular vote should be enough. If we used that, this would definitely be decided at the ballot box and that's where it SHOULD be decided. The use of delegates only complicates the process and the use of superdelegates insults the common voter. I do not want a bunch of backroom politics deciding who my candidate is. It's the antithesis of democracy. posted by Jenna at 11:58 AM


	Ah, but wait! There's more! Work with me here. Hillary apparently CAN'T win the nomination. What she can do, however, is batter Obama so thoroughly that he can't win the General. Why would she do that? If Obama takes the White House, he's the party's incumbent nominee in '12, and if he wins then, the next opening is '16, by which time Senator Clinton will simply be too old to to run (i.e. McCain). If, however, Obama loses, she can take another stab at ithe nomination in '12, and still be in her sixties. This is how politicians think. Makes a little too much sense, doesn't it? posted by Bob Kincaid at 1:41 PM


	Bob - I totally believe that. I recall hearing that from Thom Hartmann on his radio show as well. She's out to make a place for herself in history even if she has to destroy the country to do it. posted by Jenna at 9:24 AM


	Ignore the rhetoric, you know it's all bullshit, and look at the record. What exactly would be the difference if Hillary or McCain wins? Not much from where I'm sitting. posted by Anonymous at 11:31 PM