Comments on: Hillary’s Plan to Win

By: Patricia

Patricia — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:01:50 +0000

I’m sure Obama’s people are out promising money for campaigns right now for all the superdelegates. Money is about all he has right now. He squandered his race card by hanging with Wright.

Of course Hillary is the winner here. And so what? If she did provide Wright’s tapes to all the media, she had a right to, because it’s germane to the election of the president whether or not he associates with advisers who hate America.

They have lanced the boil of racial hate. Let’s see where it leads us.

By: John Cunningham

John Cunningham — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:51:29 +0000

The Demo contest is a hilarity-fest that keeps on giving. we have not only the “stupor delegates” but also the rule cited above which seems to permit pledged delegates to switch their choice even on the first ballot. This is Calvinball on a grand scale. Surely a laughfest. I am looking forward to rioting in the convention arena in Denver. Please, all gods, let it be so!!
also, I advise people who support McCain to sign up with the Nader campaign. in most states, nader needs large numbers of petition signatures to get on the ballot. Putting Nader on the ballot could swing a state or two to the GOP side.

By: EW1(SG)

EW1(SG) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:32:00 +0000

12. Steven Den Beste:

The last time the Democrats picked a candidate primarily based on “electability”, they got John Kerry.

Looks to me like they are trying to do worse this time.

But maybe that’s just me.

(Psst, Stephen: I wanted to make a comment at your site about the history of agriculture in the Willamette Valley, but couldn’t figure out how without having to sign up for a blog. I’m not able to maintain the one I have now…is there a way around that?)

(oh yeah, Willamette Valley agriculural history. That ought to get somebody motivated.

By: DRJ

DRJ — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:22:12 +0000

Heh. That’s so true.

By: Steven Den Beste

Steven Den Beste — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:12:25 +0000

The last time the Democrats picked a candidate primarily based on “electability”, they got John Kerry.

By: SPQR

SPQR — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:25:09 +0000

This is what is cracking me up about the Democratic party. In 2004, after 4 years of George W. Bush, everyone was telling me how Bush could not get reelected because he was so dumb, so corrupt, so this and so that. It was a slam dunk. So the Democrats nominated the least likable person who was running then, John Kerry and picked the Breck girl as VP. Hilarious.

Now in 2008, everyone has been telling me that it is a slam dunk for the Democrats – again – to take the White House. So the Democrats are going to choose from either Obama, or Hillary? And create the largest split in a party since the Republicans split up over Teddy Roosevelt?

Hilarious.

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:15:08 +0000

If delegates to the Electoral College retain the right to not vote for the candidate as a given state’s Sec. of State directs them to do, I see no problem with a political party pledged delegate exercising that very right.

By: Pablo

Pablo — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:12:37 +0000

Last I checked, he’s still ahead in the polls, and he’s got more than five weeks for this Wright thing to blow over. My money says he’ll be back on his game in two weeks tops, especially with Hillary trying to jack his delegates.

He may be doing OK against Hillary, but he’s dropped 7 points against McCain over the last few days. Revotes in FL and MI, along with Hillary’s projected lead in PA may well keep this thing a horse race until August, when it will be decided not by a photo finish, but by the party apparatus.

No matter what happens, a significant part of the Democrat base is going to be extremely unhappy and they won’t have the 9 months to get over it that the Republican base will have had learning to live with McCain. I think we’re watching an implosion fueled by identity politics, and I think we’re going to see the second presidential election in a row that the Dems should have walked away with, yet screwed up fantastically.

More popcorn, please.

By: DRJ

DRJ — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:40:55 +0000

I knew you were referring to Obama and Clinton but given the GOP’s love for earmarks, it’s still hard to tell the difference.

By: nk

nk — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:27:35 +0000

I meant Hillary vs. Obama by “both sides”, DRJ. I don’t know whom to give the edge to. Both their antecedents are gangsters. Obama’s well known and Hillary’s slightly less — her husband’s step-uncle who gave him his start.