05/22/2008
Fighting On...
Whether you agree with her strategy or not, bewilderment at Clinton's continuing "crusade" to win the Democratic nomination is the consensus among most media at the moment, and pretty accurately reflected in this "flesh wound" clip which has begun going viral.
Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...
Clinton's Last Crusade: 'Count Our Votes' [newsweek]
Clinton Goes On and On and On... [afp]
Clinton campaigns as attention wanders elsewhere [reuters]
Clinton Still in the Game, but Wants Rules Changed [abc news]
Opposition Grows To Clinton's Delegate Cause Celebre [huffington post]
Reuters FACTBOX offers up a few reasons why Hillary Clinton might still be running.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 9:23 AM EST by Andy in Barack Obama, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Wow...the Obama supporters are doing a great job trying to unite the party and welcome in the Clinton supporters.
Posted by: Mike | May 22, 2008 10:35:22 AM
Andy...so is this a video of Obama and his supporters?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU
Posted by: Mike | May 22, 2008 10:41:59 AM
I LOVE IT!!!!!
NI! NI! NI!
Posted by: Rad | May 22, 2008 11:00:00 AM
22,000 hits is now considered going viral? Or is that just how sites cover themselves by not wanting to appear like they are piling on?
Posted by: Viral? | May 22, 2008 11:04:38 AM
"Wow...the Obama supporters are doing a great job trying to unite the party and welcome in the Clinton supporters."
Or could it be that everyone is getting annoyed that Clinton is still in the race? Where is her honor, and desire to support the Democratic Party?
Posted by: Luke | May 22, 2008 11:12:39 AM
I'm sorry, but that Reuters article left off the most likely reason she's still in the race, which is that she and her husband are completely obsessed with power and will do anything to keep it, including:
1) Making promises not to campaign in FL and MI and then turning around and demanding their delegates be sat,
2) Repeatedly injecting race into the campaign by talking about "hard-working, white voters,"
and
3) Saying that McCain would be more fit to lead than Obama on day one.
That's why she'll keep going, and that's why she'll try anything to take the nomination from Obama at the convention.
Sorry if this irritates the Clinton holdouts here, but it's the truth.
Posted by: Morgan | May 22, 2008 11:19:46 AM
She has psychological issues. I am not trying to say that in a mean and demeaning way, but I think she really does have lost her grip on reality.
Yesterday, she was even trying to compare the campaign to that of Zimbabwe. It is beyond the pale to try and claim that her supporters are being murdered in the streets and dying for democracy, as people are in Zimbabwe.
I am extremely dissappointed in her supporters too. The fact that everyone needs to treat her with kid gloves. Watching her is like watching Blanche DuBois at the end of Streetcar.
Posted by: Jack | May 22, 2008 11:25:49 AM
This is a mean-spirited, violent, misogynistic, unfunny video.
Posted by: Alec Sarkas | May 22, 2008 11:42:24 AM
Again - impugning Hillary's "honor" because she chooses to continue her campaign is ridiculous - and precisely the kind of approach that is going to keep the party divided. People seem to dismiss her support as vapid and "uneducated" - but the fact is her supporters are just as passionate as Obama's - and should be treated with the same respect.
Its odd that no one is calling Ted Kennedy a power hungry and dishonorable man for taking his campaign to the convention against Carter when he had far FEWER delegates than Hillary has now.
The simple fact is that NO Democratic candidate in history who has the number of delegates Hillary has now, has NOT taken their fight to the convention.
People seem to think a convention fight is bad - and blame HRC for it. What about the DNC rules committee who helped make this mess by penalizing MI & FL so severely? If it goes to Denver so be it. If Obama is as strong a candidate as we're told, then it shouldn't be a problem.
(fact is (when looking at a traditional electoral map) - and people are realizing this - he ISN'T the stronger general election candidate)
If you want Hillary out of the race then BEAT her by getting the number of delegates needed to win (either 2026 - or some other number that accounts for a FAIR resolution of MI & FL). Any call for her to exit otherwise, is simply absurd.
And if you can't beat her under those circumstances - then the better complaint isn't "Hillary is a power hungry, race baiting politician" - but simply "Obama can't close the deal. Why?"
Posted by: AERES | May 22, 2008 11:48:30 AM
I voted for Hillary on Super Tuesday.
And I've resisted the temptation to call on her to withdraw while there was still a chance she'd win legitimately. But come on, North Carolina was really Hillary's final shot at a genuine upset. And she simply didn't win.
It'll end up being 2,100 Obama and 1,900 Hillary on the convention floor. I know that is very, very close. But the fact remains... 2,100 is larger than 1,900.
So, at this point, I think she needs to step aside and let the party's nominee -- Barack Obama -- take the fight to McCain (who has been getting a free pass for way too long).
Posted by: John | May 22, 2008 11:57:06 AM
I agree that we shouldn't alienate Clinton supporters, because I think most of them are interested in the good of the country and the Democratic Party and have far better motivations that Clinton herself or her closest advisors, including Bill. But at this point her campaign needs to end or be stopped in no uncertain terms because it basically has been reduced to trying to communicate the notion that a combination of sexism and party insiders have stolen the nomination that rightfully should be hers. And what this does is all but declare that Obama will be an illegitimate nominee, which is in no one's interest except McCain's. It is one thing to let her supporters have their day at the polls. It is another to allow her continual, self-serving changes of the rules of the game to go unchallenged.
Her campaign signed off back in December to on the sanction MI and FL for holding early primaries. Her campaign is now determining which votes should count and which shouldn't to make BS statements that she is ahead in the popular vote. And it is her campaign that has changed her tune about whether it is the popular vote or the delegates count. When she was way ahead in superdelegates and further behind in the vote, her campaign was telling her it was the delegates that count. Now that she has fallen behind in the superdelegate count and has won the popular vote in a few primaries, she is going on and on about the need to count all the popular votes (but not those in caucus states), including MI where only she appeared on the ballot. And now she is comparing her not getting her way with MI and FL delegates to the violent suppression of political dissent by a longstanding dictator in Zimbabwe? This is totally offensive.
I wish large numbers of delegates and superdelegates, whether previously uncommitted or committed to Clinton herself, would abandon her because of her self-serving destructiveness (to the Democratic Party), and to explain publicly to Clinton supporters why they are doing so. She should not get any more power than she deserves, which as far as I'm concerned is none.
Posted by: Michael J | May 22, 2008 12:06:46 PM
"This is a mean-spirited, violent, misogynistic, unfunny video" - It's Monty Python. Perhaps you should stay in the cave you've been inhabiting for the last 30 years.
Posted by: D.R.H. | May 22, 2008 12:09:28 PM
Let's face it, the media has been calling Obama the nominee for weeks and weeks now. No presumptive nominee for the presidency should be losing primaries by 30 to 40 points. It's embarrassing and doesn't bode well for his candidacy. That said, I will vote for him over McCain.
Posted by: jmg | May 22, 2008 12:21:49 PM
Monty Python rules, and that's coming from a Hillary supporter. I'd comment on the ridiculously tired "she's a power-hungry race baiter" BS posted by Morgan here and others previously, but what's the point. Barack Dukakis will be the nominee. Good luck with that in the fall.
But seriously, if the Democratic Party can't survive it's own convention, does it really deserve to survive?
Posted by: Marco | May 22, 2008 12:24:56 PM
Excellent comment Michael J!
Posted by: AdamN | May 22, 2008 12:43:17 PM
Give me Barack any day over wooden and inept Hillary... The second coming of Mondale would have lost this election by 10% or greater.
Posted by: Kyle | May 22, 2008 12:53:55 PM
The guy in the clip playing King Arthur (in white) was Graham Chapman, the first person I ever saw talking about being gay on TV in the 1970s, at a time when the subject was rarely discussed in public. Always been a hero of mine for that. He was one of the founders of the UK's Gay News as well as being a fantastic comedian.
Posted by: John C | May 22, 2008 1:04:34 PM
JMG nailed it: If Obama is the presumptive (and self-annointed)nominee, why is he losing primaries at all? Edwards, Huckabee, et al got out because they were no longer winning any primaries. Hillary still is. It's going to the convention- and thats a good thing. This is the real American Idol (but with less voters)- if pundits pontificated about AI, they would have been calling for David Cook to drop out, that David Archuleta was the presumptive winner all season. We now know how that turned out.
Posted by: dc8stretch | May 22, 2008 1:08:03 PM
Stupid video.
She can run as long as she wants...I believe Obama's sink will be sinking soon...and luckily Hill will be there to save face...
For the good of the party let's PRAY Obama is not the nominee because if he is..we can start calling McCain Mr. President VERY soon. I don't want to hear poll numbers either because we all know polls don't mean a thing.
Leave it to the Democrats to screw ourselves out of the White House by nominating someone who can't win..McCain is a war hero...you think Obama can beat him? Not likely...great job Dems...
Posted by: daveynyc | May 22, 2008 1:08:53 PM
>2) Repeatedly injecting race into the >campaign by talking about "hard-working, >white voters,"
By implication, she is saying black voters are not "hard working". This is 1950s racist tripe. Why isn't the MSM pointing this out ? Why are they giving her a free ride ?
Whether she thinks this way or not, she is allowing her campaign to use such language.
Posted by: Alex | May 22, 2008 1:31:37 PM
>2) Repeatedly injecting race into the >campaign by talking about "hard-working, >white voters,"
By implication, she is saying black voters are not "hard working". This is 1950s racist tripe. Why isn't the MSM pointing this out ? Why are they giving her a free ride ?
Whether she thinks this way or not, she is allowing her campaign to use such language.
Posted by: Alex | May 22, 2008 1:31:55 PM
If the demographics cleary show (as proven by exit poll after exit poll) that "blue collar" (i.e. low income) caucasians are voting for HRC, and that "blue collar" (i.e. low income) african americans are voting for BHO, how is it racist (or race baiting) for someone (candidate or pundit alike) to state that fact publicly?
Sure - its probably not politically smart to say it - but its certainly NOT rascist or race baiting to state a fact.
Why can pundits say "blacks are voting for BHO in overwhelming numbers", but then they can't say "low income whites are voting for HRC in overwhelming numbers" without being called rascist or engaging in race baiting?
Im so sick of people saying race has been "injected" into this campaign by this candidate or that candidate. The simple fact is race was always INHERENTLY part of the dialogue the moment an African American declared his candidacy (just like gender was when a woman declared her candidacy). Stop blaming people and just realize what the reality is.
Posted by: AERES | May 22, 2008 1:56:04 PM
Michael J. is Michael Jensen, editor of AfterElton.com. They've had a huge anti-Sen. Clinton agenda since last November.
Posted by: Mike | May 22, 2008 2:08:05 PM
Maybe reverse psychology will work... Everyone should encourage her to keep going and she'll say "No-one's going to tell ME what to do!!" and quit.
Posted by: anon | May 22, 2008 2:38:32 PM
AERES
Please explain Obama taking the majority of lower income whites in Oregon, VT, etc
It isn't race
It is APPALACHIA
The irony being that 37% of low income white registered DEMS in the appalachia area voted for BUSH over Kerry.
Senator Jim Webb discussed the appalchia thing yesterday. His being scots-irish and from a low income background like them gave some interesting insights. Google it, to learn what he said
Anyway; The above vid is not funny in the context of the primaries.
It is not helpful in any way shape or form.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 2:53:44 PM
if hillary were to withdraw, she would disenfranchise the voters who still want to protest the msm's coronation of obama. since when is a good challenge bad? is the obama candidacy so weak?
apparently, barack's own advisers are much more circumspect than some of the commenters on this blog; they want the band to play on. to do otherwise, would further alienate the hillary supporters, whose numbers are roughly 50% of the democratic electorate. there are still many pissed-off white women voters and working class whites who feel that they have been given short shrift by what they perceive, rightly or wrongly, is an elitist, effete and somewhat peevish candidate. to attribute that simply to racism is stupid. if racism is the simple-minded answer, then what explains the latino reluctance to support obama?
slamming hillary and, by extension, 1/2 of the dem party is foolish in the extreme. level-headed obama supporters get it; the obamaniacs never will.
@MIKE, thanx for the heads up on MICHAEL J. at least ANDY has maintained a semblance of impartiality.
Posted by: nic | May 22, 2008 3:02:37 PM
oh please. Anyone who's gay and supports hillary has to be at least partially retarded
Posted by: Andy | May 22, 2008 3:24:24 PM
Any talk of dropping out before May 31st is premature
May 31st is when the rules comitee meets to discuss FL and Michigan
Yesterday a supposed Obama campaign staffer said that they were more than willing to compromise on more than 50% towards Hillary. The questions are will the rules comittee go with the WRITTEN 50% penalty DNC rule and what is Hillary willing to compromise on. Politics is compromise in the end.
FL appears to be the easiest to solve since the written rules do state up to 50% of delegates can be stripped. I will agree with Hillary supporters that 100% stripping is excessive and goes beyond the DNC rules. The next question on that is wether it is strip 50% of delegates or allow 100% delegates and only strip them down to 1/2 votes each. The latter being better in my personal opinion since that way all dleegates go and the state power is stripped 50% per the written rules
Michigan is the sticky issue.
Anyway; till May 31st at least! drop out BS should NOT even be mentioned. After that then it might be debatable.
As long as both candidates are nice Dems to each other and both go after McCain. A double punch against McCain is a very good thing if both sides can stay focused and not resort to going after each other.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 3:26:27 PM
PS
Andy (above poster and not Andy in charge of this web site)
Any supposed Obama supporter who says what you said about gay Hillary supporters obviously doesn't understand Obama's message and platform.
I am 100% an Obama supporter, but such bs is NOT Obama's message or platform.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 3:29:11 PM
Jimmyboyo -
If its just a white Appalachia issue then explain CA, MA, RI, NV and FL, where HRC won and carried white blue collars?
And while you're at it explain MS where she lost but took 73% of the white Democratic vote, and in GA where again, despite losing, she carried the majority of white democrats (59%) and white independents (50%).
That 37% of white Appalachia democrats you dismiss are the reason Bill Clinton won - twice.
Now I don't dispute that BHO MAY be able to cobble together a winning coalition without those voters - but the simple fact is no modern era Democrat has won without them.
So the question then is - who's the stronger candidate in November (assuming both can rally the base)?
The candidate who rallies the base but loses the Reagan democrats?
Or the candidate that rallies the base but loses the Reagan democrats?
Posted by: AERES | May 22, 2008 3:29:13 PM
"This is a mean-spirited, violent, misogynistic, unfunny video."
Misogynistic? The other points are arguable but if you truly think this video represents misogyny then perhaps you need to review the definition of the word.
Posted by: sean | May 22, 2008 3:30:31 PM
AERES
No dem has won the majority of white working class voters since 1964
Bill Clinton did NOT win the majority of white lower income workers .
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 3:34:58 PM
I think you get my point - but edit that previous post to read:
"Or the candidate that rallies the base but WINS the Reagan democrats?"
Jimmyb:
I understand that - but Bill Clinton was far more competitive among low income white voters (particularly in Appalachia coupled with a significant 3rd party vote drawing away GOP voters) than BHO is - or Gore or Kerry were.
If past is prologue, then to me thats a metric worth watching.
The simple point is that (right now) BHO isn't nearly competitive enough among that demographic to consider him the "stronger" general election candidate (by any past measure).
But - like I acknowledged - this COULD be the year past trends are bucked.
For me however, I think the safer bet is to nominate the candidate that is strongest under the known (i.e. past) metrics that have delivered the White House to democrats. Which I believe to be HRC (again - assuming each can rally the base that voted for other candidate).
Posted by: AERES | May 22, 2008 3:46:32 PM
"Any supposed Obama supporter who says what you said about gay Hillary supporters obviously doesn't understand Obama's message and platform."
Who said anything about supporting Obama?
To be honest they are both crap, but Obama is not a bad person, I just disagree with some of his views. I can understand the issue of "electability" but I'm still not going to "support" someone who is against gay marriage. I'm sorry but it's legal in major counties like Canada and Spain and the sky has not fallen.
Hillary on the other hand is just a despicable excuse for a human being. This is in addition to her bizarre views. She is just so obviously fake and disingenuous. The way she fakes accents when she is in the south, and acts as if she is so "blue collar", telling her preposterous stories of when she was a little girl and her dad took her out to shoot animals with a gun. Bitch, PLEASE!!!! She is completely using the gay community, and so many gays support her merely because she is a woman, without looking at where she stands on gay issues (based on her ACTIONS, not what she says). Barrack has been far more vocal in his support of Civil Unions than that ugly slutbag.
Why would you vote for someone who voted FOR the war in Iraq!!!, thinks DADT shouldn't be revoked, and yet wants to completely OUTLAW video games like grand theft auto? She also completely bailed out on supporting trans people in ENDA. SHAMEFUL!!! Her priorities are seriously screwed up, to the point where one wonders if she has a mild mental illness.
She voted FOR the war and is now so against it. This bitch will say anything to get elected.
She is utterly fake, a shameless user and pathetically DESPERATE.
If you can't see that then you are very easily manipulated.
Posted by: andy | May 22, 2008 3:53:53 PM
Aeres
We will have to agree to disagree for the time being.
We must remember that what we are currently dealing with is dem vs dem primaries/ caucuses. The general is so vastly different when repub against dem that nothing we are seeing currently in the dem primaries can be used to figure what will be then.
The mere fact that we have a 71 going to be 72 year old runniong as the repub throws a whole bunch of wrenches into the coming general election. The vast majority in polls say they do not think our president should be that old. Yet an argument could be made that older generations might change their mind and flock to the older guy. If that happens then the question is will the younger generations come out and vote in the general in the numbers they have been voting for both dem candidates.
Heck, I am just waiting for the rules comittee to meet and figure out what to do with Michigan. You couldn't pay me enough to deal with that situation.
Obama/ Clinton 08
PS Per an article over at Huffpo, Bill Clinton is pushing for Hillary to be VP. I personaly like that idea. There are a lot of Obama supporters who currently (could be persuaded I bet) do not
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 3:56:34 PM
poster Andy
I wish there was an "Ignore button" option here at Towleroad.
LOL, though the majority would probably put me on ignore. :-)
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 3:59:05 PM
JIMMYBOYO, have you ever heard of a term called "truthiness". If not you should look it up. It's a lot like willful ignorance.
Posted by: Andy | May 22, 2008 4:04:43 PM
"poster Andy
I wish there was an "Ignore button" option here at Towleroad."
JimmyB:
We can at least agree on that! ;-)
And if I remember correctly, its a Time magazine article thats prompting this talk of Bill pushing HRC for VP. (which is also being pushed by Drudge - the perfect HRC opinion bookend to the Huffington Post)
Honestly, I'm completely torn as to whether she would (or should) accept it were it offered. Lately I've been leaning towards no. But that opinion will change in 5 minutes
Which I think may in a nutshell sum up the wildly swinging opinions/emotions held by alot of HRC supporters these last few weeks. Sigh.
Posted by: AERES | May 22, 2008 4:31:55 PM
no, SEAN, perhaps YOU should. if you think the depiction of the dismemberment of a woman by a group of men is not misogynistic, buy a new dictionary.
i am completely aware of the context of this scene in the original movie. i thought then, as i do now, that the movie is hilarious. however, in the present application it is, indeed, "...a mean-spirited, violent, misogynistic, unfunny video." i would hope that the "monty python" crew had nothing to do with this abomination.
@ANDY (no, not blog ANDY), change your fu*kink username!!!! btw, if JIMMYBOYO were to look up "truthiness" he would find your "what, me worry?" mug next to bill ohreally's and dubya's as illustatives.
Posted by: nic | May 22, 2008 4:34:39 PM
this is what happens when i get annoyed.
the words should be "fucking" and "illustratives".
Posted by: nic | May 22, 2008 4:43:36 PM
@ dc8stretch: "This is the real American Idol (but with less voters)- if pundits pontificated about AI, they would have been calling for David Cook to drop out, that David Archuleta was the presumptive winner all season. We now know how that turned out."
So, the perfectly pressed and prepped candidate of inevitability was heavily favored to win at the beginning (like the senator from NY) loses because the people vote for the guy who takes creative risks and advocates change, and you're using this as proof that your candidate should stay in? Next, you'll be saying that votes from all previous episodes should be totaled and counted, but only the votes of real voters, girls between the ages of 8 -17 and women, white women, aged 60 and over, because those really are the swing voters that we have to win in the fall.
She needs to go away. Seriously. Go. Away. She has lost the nomination. She lost it a month ago. She needs to go home. But I guess you can't say that, because apparently reality is just sexist.
Posted by: Cameron | May 22, 2008 5:16:12 PM
Cameron- whats that sound I'm hearing? Is that you stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum?
Posted by: dc8stretch | May 22, 2008 5:34:28 PM
Since this is a competition, why not go to the very end? Do baseball players stop playing the game in the eighth inning because one team is up?
She just won two states by 30+ percentage points. I wouldn't drop out either.
Posted by: jmg | May 22, 2008 5:35:54 PM
NIC
LOL
You slipped into typonese like me. Now you just have to make atrocious gramatical mistakes and your conversion is complete
:-)
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 5:42:13 PM
JMG
I agree with you up to May 31st and however long it takes the rules comittee to do whatever it is going to do.
After that point, I have no consistent opinion. That fluctuating opinion/ emotions thing that Aeres mentioned though in context of an Obama supporter.
After may 31st and whatever the rules comittee comes up with.........we will have to talk then about going on or not
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 5:46:37 PM
Pretty pathetic ANDY...and viral?
Hmm you and your bama buddies may hope.
But as a Democrat and a gay man I RESENT being told that I have to vote for Obama to unite the party and heck where else can we go...(ask you buddy chris Crane about that asinie logic)
HELL That cochair of his Claire MacCaskill even said on CNN that it's Clinton responsibility to get her supporters to vote for him.
BULLS%@T!!
NO he needs to work for my support.
He does not get it by default.
And I'm Tired of his fear tactics as well...
If not me then more BUSH!!
That is just politicals as usual.
And the sooner you and the Obama campaign wakes up to that you might just be able to win in Nov.
So COUNT THE VOTES OBAMA.
What are you afraid of?
Posted by: MCnNYC | May 22, 2008 5:59:19 PM
MCNNYC
Hillary Clinton has already stressed many times that she expects her supporters to support the nominee even if it isn't her. Recently she stressed that it is a fight against the repubs and the continuation of bush and that all dems should be united on that.
I didn't see the Claire Mccaskill thing you mentioned so I really can't comment. BUT, if she said it exactly the way you mentioned then I would agree it was a bit callous. If that is the quote.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 6:11:28 PM
JIMMYBOYO, even though "the things that we're liable to read in the bible, ... ain't necessarily so", the bible does suggest that satan is a seducer.
you got your claws in me, boy. i must be strong, must resist.... typos are venial sins; grammatical errors are mortal. yet, you say resistance is fyoo-tile. lol.
Posted by: nic | May 22, 2008 6:33:57 PM
@ MCNNYC: Right on. To think that Hillary supporters automatically have to fall in line behind Obama is absurd. We can choose (1) not to vote at all (2) vote for McCain
I would definitely choose (1), but that's just me.
@ JimmyB: Seriously dude, are you the gatekeeper of all things Presidential Campaign? Must you always have a reply for everyone who disagrees with you or doesn't support Obama.
I have noticed that you've changed your tune to a more 'compassionate' one towards Hillary and pushing for the Unity ticket.
I for one am against that. I'd rather see Obama steer his sinking ship without Hillary on it. New Quinnipiac polls show him losing in all the key swing states by more than 5 percentage points to McCain -- polls take in the last 48 hours.
Make your own conclusions.
Posted by: TimmyYoYo | May 22, 2008 6:48:15 PM
NIC
LOL
:-) xxooxxoo
Timmy
SUSA the most acurate polling group this cycle shows differently. It even shows Obama taking former blue states like Virginia by 7% (Hillary also takes some Blue states from McCain)
SUSA and other polling groups show that BOTH dem candidates beat McCain and take former blue states. I bet that has you quaking in your boots and thus you a most likely log cabinite wish to stir trouble between dems because the repub brand is DOA
Peace be with you
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 7:09:21 PM
PS
Timmy
It was reported a few days ago that the McCain campaign is openly advertising for "TROLLS" to swarm the net and post bs. They are even given points for how many troll posts a person puts out. The McCain website hasn't stated what you get for the points, but maybe it is a shinny new nickel
Anybody suggesting not voting at all is anti american and to say dems should vote mccain is anti dem.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 7:17:12 PM
Nope, it's the sound of your candidate changing platforms... again. I think the time has come for her to start playing the immigrant card.
Posted by: Cameron | May 22, 2008 8:25:06 PM
I love it! I am so looking foward to November. You will have to remove Clinton's claws from the podium at the convention because she will not go away quietly. Funny...I think.
All I want to know is what the hell is up with our wonderful congress? The dems have been in control for some time now and I am still a legal stranger to my partner, we are still at war and gas is $4+ per gallon. Well, I would say job well done. Oh yes, and their approval rating is actually LOWER than George W's! What an accomplishment.
All I have to say is DRILL NOW!!! We have to open refineries, drill the hell out of Anwar and get the economy moving. However, I do not see the Pelosi/Reid show getting off their collective asses to accomplish anything. Simply a joke! And we are worried about Clinton and Obama...REALLY?!
Posted by: RB | May 22, 2008 9:06:48 PM
Did anyone think that the first major party black nominee was going to have an easy time of it??
Posted by: anon | May 22, 2008 10:07:33 PM
RB
long time no see
The one conservative repub that I remember respecting on other issues. :-)
Anyway; Clinton is a good dem and will support Obama 100% if and when he is declared the official nominee.
On the dem congress.....With a slim majority in the senate, no veto proof majority in either house, and a stuborn SOB Bush in the white house threatening to veto anything worthwhile for the american public....
We do have 3 braqnches of government despite what bushco thinks.
Wait till the majority in the house is veto proof (will happen 08), a large majority in the senate, and a dem president = You will be floored by what the dems will do
:-)
I also want to add to something I said earlier.
Anyone!!!! who says to not vote is an option is spitting on all of those who died to enable us the right to vote.
Any dem wether clinton or obama supporter who says vote mccain is being intelectualy dishonest with themselves.
Either group of supporters would be better served writing in Clinton or Obama in protest without spitting on everything they once supported. That way you can support your prefered candidate, register a protest vote, and remain intelectualy honest.
If somehow the rules and bylaws comittee rules all of Obama's wins null and void for whatever reason and Hillary is the nominee then if one can not vote for hillary then simply write in Obama (never betray yourself by voting mccain)
If in the end Obama is the nominee and Hillary supporters can not vote for Obama for whatever reason then simply write her name in (again never betray what you once stood for by voting mccain)
Kumbya and all that jazz
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 10:52:23 PM
Its a shame people only talk about voting options as either:
1) Vote for the Democrat (be it HRC or BHO), or
2) Vote for McCain
One could also:
3) Write in (like JimmyB mentioned), or
4) Vote for Nader (i.e. Dem-lite) or
5) Vote for Barr (i.e. Repub-lite)
I wouldnt go so far as to call HRC supporters voting for McCain as "intellectual dishonesty". To me the sentiment is more akin to a protest vote - which in my opinion - would be better registered by a vote for Nader. (though my personal preference is still none of the above pending a BHO VP announcement)
Posted by: AERES | May 23, 2008 12:04:36 AM
Aeres
Yeah, Nader is an option I forgot about.
Barr :-(
Of course in my perfect world
Obama/ Clinton 08 and we all get along Kumbya pass the peace pipe
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 23, 2008 1:05:56 AM
Thanks Jimmyboyo! I am back after a short time away. As usual, I enjoy reading your posts. Glad to be back. Either way it is going to be an interesting election. And remember, while I may be a conservative repub, I have NEVER voted for Bush and I am NOT a fan! I will be as happy as anyone in January when he is gone!!! There...I feel better.
Take care
Posted by: RB | May 23, 2008 6:39:25 PM