Is this how HILLARY intends to unite the country?

[Industrialsize]

How many states has the Clinton campaign dissed?


"Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states — outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama."
​

- Mark Penn

"I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress," Clinton told the paper. "There has got to be something at work here. How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."
​

- Hillary Clinton

"It’s not a factor," was how Clinton dismissed Obama victories in Maine, Nebraska, Louisiana, Virgin Islands and Washington state in an interview with WJLA and Politico on Monday.
​

- Hillary Clinton

"You know, I know that there are three things, when you think about electability. Number one, I've been winning the big states we have to win.
"You know, with all due respect, unless there's a tsunami change in America, we're never going to carry Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho. It's just not going to happen. But we have to carry the states that I'm carrying, the primary states, the states that really have to be in the winning Democratic column."
​

- Hillary Clinton

"The caucuses aren’t good for her [Hillary Clinton]. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change."
​

- Bill Clinton

She said she never expected to do well in any of those contests, even though she had been favored to win Maine. Clinton repeated her criticism that the caucus system is undemocratic and caters mostly to party activists.
As for Louisiana, "You had a very strong and very proud African- American electorate, which I totally respect and understand," Clinton said.
She noted that the states she won on Super Tuesday were all states Democrats must win to succeed in the general election. Many of the states Obama won that night, such as Alaska and North Dakota, would not be competitive for Democrats next November, she said.
​

- Hillary Clinton

"I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate," said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s senior campaign adviser.
​

- Mark Penn

"I’m telling donors and supporters: Don’t be overly concerned about what goes on in the remainder of the month of February because these are not states teed up well for us," Mr. Nemazee said.
​

- Hassan Nemazee, national finance chair

Clinton also told about 100 people in Charleston that he was proud of the Democratic Party for having a woman and a black candidate and he understands why Obama is drawing support among blacks, who may comprise up to half of Saturday's turnout.
"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender," he said. "They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here."
​

- Bill Clinton

"Superdelegates are not second-class delegates. The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic."
​

- Joel Ferguson, Michigan campaign co-chair

"It is highly unlikely we will win Alaska or North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska," she said, naming several of Obama's red state wins. "But we have to win Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Michigan ... And we've got to be competitive in places like Texas, Missouri and Oklahoma."
​

- Hillary Clinton

"Sen. Obama, in contrast, won with large margins in Alabama and Georgia, two states that have been in the Republican column in the last two elections. He also won with large margins in a string of caucus states with comparatively fewer voters - Alaska, Idaho, Utah, and Kansas - and have also been in the Republican column. Of course, he won his home state."
​

- Mark Penn

"I agree he’s done well in those caucus states — we didn’t make as much of an effort as we probably should have," Ickes said. "But those states simply are not going to vote this year for a Democratic president, Andrea.
​

 

[ZOS23xy]

This is because she's fallen into the slime ball factor. She entered the race seeing almost no opposition, and she was pretty interesting and issue oriented and that all changed when Obama tossed his hat into the ring. Pressure does this to people.

In my view, she's lost a lot of ground for pettiness. In my view, she's lost me.

 

[Industrialsize]

I used to really respect Senator Clinton.......I was so excited when she announced her bid for president........what happened to the Hillary I admired?

 

[B_Nick4444]

I used to really respect Senator Clinton.......I was so excited when she announced her bid for president........hat happened to the Hillary I admired?

showed her true colours

 

[Pecker]

I used to really respect Senator Clinton.......I was so excited when she announced her bid for president........hat happened to the Hillary I admired?

She lowered the mask.

 

[playainda336]

I see.

 

[Act2_Begins_Now]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Industrialsize

I used to really respect Senator Clinton.......I was so excited when she announced her bid for president........hat happened to the Hillary I admired?

She lowered the mask.

I have always thought that it 'all' was a show. Just a gut feeling.

 

[IntoxicatingToxin]

I used to really respect Senator Clinton.......I was so excited when she announced her bid for president........what happened to the Hillary I admired?

I'm with you on this. :frown1:

 

[D_Kaye Throttlebottom]

I used to really respect Senator Clinton.......I was so excited when she announced her bid for president........what happened to the Hillary I admired?

Unfortunately, she's like that with all of her detractors, Republicans, her own party democratic colleagues that disagree with her.

She said it herself, "you have to do what is right for you."

The comments you have highlighted, showing Hillary flagging the states she did not carry is more proof of her polarizing nature. Historically she does this. She talks about Republicans and right-wing conspiracies for her failures or her husband's indiscretions that again polarized the nation. Or she blames her inability to pass bills as a senator on the fact that she thought Al Gore was going to be president.

If she really means that, then what she means is she wants a democrat in the oval office and democratic majority in congress. Those comments are the reason she won't do what is right for the democratic party, she is going to do what is right for her, no matter how it divides democrats against one another.

She cannot take her losses in stride and recognize, she has to work with her detractors again at some point. As a result she leaves her opposition bitter and less inclined to find any common ground on the policies she wants to put forward. Instead she has an argument for why she wasn't successful and it's always the other guy's fault.

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that if Obama doesn't lock the nomination, I won't vote this year. I cannot vote for Hillary and what I've learned about McCain (he was my second choice, because he could pull away from his party when it mattered...no longer, he's as corrupt as they come) and I cannot vote for him either.

Here's hoping Obama keeps the 100 delegate lead ahead of her throughout the rest of the race (and it's likely that he will). I just hope Superdelegates are true democrats and vote with the majority of the voters. If Superdelegates are voting by what is in the best interest of the democratic party, they have to know that Hillary has done more to divide the democrats, whereas Obama has the ability to appeal to more people, democrats, independents and Republicans. He's what is best for the party.

Go Obama!

 

[Trinity]

Hillary will unify the country because she will accomplish what she says she will.

Caucuses clearly do not work and I would go so far as to say that they are undemocratic. An American should be able to cast his or her vote and go home. (The caos from the Texas Caucus is ridiculous)

Political experts have given reasons for why Barack Obama is doing well in Caucuses. To his credit Sen. Obama is doing well because his campaign made a considerable Investment in the caucus states, conducted a grass roots machine, and Obama is inspiring young voters and many who appeal to the inspirational message.

But also because one of Senator Clinton's strong voter base earns less than $100,000, another strong voter base for Sen Clinton has not earned a college degree. It is believed that these groups may not have the luxury of getting off work, spending 3 hours in a caucus, or can get child care.
These are valid concerns and these obstacles should never be in the way of someone voting.

I wouldn't want Hillary to win on the fact that caucuses were a bad form of government. I want a true head to head. The best candidate wins.

As for the Big State argument. It has been discussed by political experts and it is a valid argument politically. No state is better than another. Political significance depends on what you are discussing and the time frame. Hillary needed Rhode Island to help her continue her campain. The statement "She won 3 out of 4" sounds a whole lot better when Industrialsize will fairly point out the delegate count and debate who really won Texas. Let's get real people. This is politics.

On one hand you have to inspire the people, you have to change the direction of the country but you have to maintain that you are a viable candidate to win the race. We have Red State, Blue State and Purple State analysis for a reason. It matters in the general election. Understanding how voters vote and why...they have degrees conferred in it. It is naive to ignore it. If it comes down to super delegates. One side will make their argument and the other will make theirs...and the majority will way all arguments and decide what matters the most. But to imply that it isn't a political argument because it is devisive? that's just silly.

I don't want to vilify Obama. I support the candidate I feel is more experienced and better prepared Hillary Clinton.

 

[SteveHd]

Hillary who?

Seriously, I don't see where anyone should be surprised nor disappointed since she has a history of being a badass at times. It's something that I (sometimes) like about her. :smile:

 

[Supersized]

The pressure has caused her to down shift psychologically. She is less cerebral and more reptilian briain now. In short, she's suffering some serious battle damage.

 

[B_raylewis]

she is a size queen,thats why she has so many black secret service men around her

 

[playainda336]

I wouldn't want Hillary to win on the fact that caucuses were a bad form of government. I want a true head to head. The best candidate wins.

I wouldn't want Hillary to win on the fact that she's been vilifying, patronizing, and ostracizing Senator Obama for the past three weeks either.

I have yet to be given faith that Hillary will do anything in the White House other than things the Bill would tell her to. I don't want another Bill Clinton White House...I want something different...even if that means that I vote for Senator John McCain. And before anyone says that McCain will be the second coming of Bush, let us remember how McCain didn't have the support from conservatives because they thought him too liberal. I like McCain and Obama because they both have a big independent appeal. Both say things that are both liberal and conservative in the areas that count. Obama is more liberal and McCain is more conservative, but both have plans that would fix this country faster than "I think I can have a universal health care plan by the end of my second term." (Hillary Clinton)

I have yet to see her say anything that holds water for the economy and her foreign policy is botched up of things she just happened to be at the right place at the right time for. She was a very influential First Lady, but come on, Hillary...you didn't do half of the things you take credit for. She won her senate seat off the strength of NYC alone and has left a bad taste in the mouth of New Yorkers across the board. Now you expect me to let her do the same thing for the country?

Give me a president with morals. A president who reprimands his conservative colleague and tells him to retract the statements about his potential opponents on the Democratic side. A president who brings together both Democrat AND Republican under the symbol of change.

I don't want a President that is promising me another Monica Lewinsky scandal. I mean, that is the most memorable thing about the Clinton regime...oh, and Al Gore. Great guy, that man.

I don't want to attack Hillary's character, but her actions in recent weeks are speaking for itself.

 

[Industrialsize]

Hillary will unify the country because she will accomplish what she says she will.

Caucuses clearly do not work and I would go so far as to say that they are undemocratic. An American should be able to cast his or her vote and go home. (The caos from the Texas Caucus is ridiculous)

Political experts have given reasons for why Barack Obama is doing well in Caucuses. To his credit Sen. Obama is doing well because his campaign made a considerable Investment in the caucus states, conducted a grass roots machine, and Obama is inspiring young voters and many who appeal to the inspirational message.

But also because one of Senator Clinton's strong voter base earns less than $100,000, another strong voter base for Sen Clinton has not earned a college degree. It is believed that these groups may not have the luxury of getting off work, spending 3 hours in a caucus, or can get child care.
These are valid concerns and these obstacles should never be in the way of someone voting.

I wouldn't want Hillary to win on the fact that caucuses were a bad form of government. I want a true head to head. The best candidate wins.

As for the Big State argument. It has been discussed by political experts and it is a valid argument politically. No state is better than another. Political significance depends on what you are discussing and the time frame. Hillary needed Rhode Island to help her continue her campain. The statement "She won 3 out of 4" sounds a whole lot better when Industrialsize will fairly point out the delegate count and debate who really won Texas. Let's get real people. This is politics.

On one hand you have to inspire the people, you have to change the direction of the country but you have to maintain that you are a viable candidate to win the race. We have Red State, Blue State and Purple State analysis for a reason. It matters in the general election. Understanding how voters vote and why...they have degrees conferred in it. It is naive to ignore it. If it comes down to super delegates. One side will make their argument and the other will make theirs...and the majority will way all arguments and decide what matters the most. But to imply that it isn't a political argument because it is devisive? that's just silly.

I don't want to vilify Obama. I support the candidate I feel is more experienced and better prepared Hillary Clinton.

I see you've got the Hillary talking points memorized......and for the record, Obama won texas , he came away with more delegates......and Hillary herself once said, "It's all about the delegates".......or has she changed her mind?(and he's currently ahead in Wyoming 66%-33%.or does that state not count...I can't remember.

 

[deleted213967]

You folks should really consider toning down the rhetoric. Luckily, if the fracture within the Democratic voter base (although the grassroot people's voices always sound much shriller than average on both sides) plays in the hands of John McCain, we'll still inherit a much better president.

I do find it amusing that the same people who decry the Super-Delegate concept, which as you know well predates this election cycle, find the caucus method fair.

Our own Secretary of State (WA) called it "archaic".

Just look at the numbers, and parallel with, say, Texas:

Notwithstanding the remarkable increase in caucus participation in 2008, relatively speaking, hardly anybody attended those events. The people who go obviously do not represent the general voting population by any stretch of the imagination.

WA, as TX, had both primaries and caucus rounds. The ratio of participation was 20:1 in WA. Obama won the primaries as well but with a much much smaller margin, yet all the delegates are currently coming from the caucus although technically the DNC could consider the primaries results as well and the voter pamphlets were extremely vague about the dual system.

Had the DNC adopted the RNC winner-take-all approach , Hillary Clinton would already be the presumptive Democratic candidate.

There won't be caucuses in the general election, and the big state argument does have some merits. IMHO, Hillary would have to win the popular vote nationwide to nail the nomination.

 

[Industrialsize]

Hillary will unify the country because she will accomplish what she says she will.

Caucuses clearly do not work and I would go so far as to say that they are undemocratic. An American should be able to cast his or her vote and go home. (The caos from the Texas Caucus is ridiculous)

Political experts have given reasons for why Barack Obama is doing well in Caucuses. To his credit Sen. Obama is doing well because his campaign made a considerable Investment in the caucus states, conducted a grass roots machine, and Obama is inspiring young voters and many who appeal to the inspirational message.

But also because one of Senator Clinton's strong voter base earns less than $100,000, another strong voter base for Sen Clinton has not earned a college degree. It is believed that these groups may not have the luxury of getting off work, spending 3 hours in a caucus, or can get child care.
These are valid concerns and these obstacles should never be in the way of someone voting.

I wouldn't want Hillary to win on the fact that caucuses were a bad form of government. I want a true head to head. The best candidate wins.

As for the Big State argument. It has been discussed by political experts and it is a valid argument politically. No state is better than another. Political significance depends on what you are discussing and the time frame. Hillary needed Rhode Island to help her continue her campain. The statement "She won 3 out of 4" sounds a whole lot better when Industrialsize will fairly point out the delegate count and debate who really won Texas. Let's get real people. This is politics.

On one hand you have to inspire the people, you have to change the direction of the country but you have to maintain that you are a viable candidate to win the race. We have Red State, Blue State and Purple State analysis for a reason. It matters in the general election. Understanding how voters vote and why...they have degrees conferred in it. It is naive to ignore it. If it comes down to super delegates. One side will make their argument and the other will make theirs...and the majority will way all arguments and decide what matters the most. But to imply that it isn't a political argument because it is devisive? that's just silly.

I don't want to vilify Obama. I support the candidate I feel is more experienced and better prepared Hillary Clinton.

Don't you mean caucuses clearly do not work for Hillary?

 

[Skull Mason]

Give me a president with morals. A president who brings together both Democrat AND Republican under the symbol of change.

So obama will do this? I mean, he says he will. But I say I am going to be king of the world, and that probably won't happen. I think the thing is with obama, we have no idea what he will do, we don't know him yet. He could be a smooth con artist for all we know. At least with hillary, we know what we are getting.

 

[B_becominghorse]

So obama will do this? I mean, he says he will. But I say I am going to be king of the world, and that probably won't happen. I think the thing is with obama, we have no idea what he will do, we don't know him yet. He could be a smooth con artist for all we know. At least with hillary, we know what we are getting.

Exactly, and this 'uniting the country' is more feelgood stuff than reality. In fact, he's already having to quit using a lot of that 'inspirational stuff', because it didn't keep working. That should explain how superficial it is--if you have to give it up and start in on the mudslinging, it had always been a ploy anyway. Yeah, Hillary is some broad, flawed like crazy but like a fucking volcano, strong as an ox. Krugman is excellent today on how the Dems not only have to use the economy as the main issue now, but also politically than CAN use it and very effectively.

 

[Industrialsize]

You folks should really consider toning down the rhetoric. Luckily, if the fracture within the Democratic voter base (although the grassroot people's voices always sound much shriller than average on both sides) plays in the hands of John McCain, we'll still inherit a much better president.

I do find it amusing that the same people who decry the Super-Delegate concept, which as you know well predates this election cycle, find the caucus method fair.

Our own Secretary of State (WA) called it "archaic".

Just look at the numbers, and parallel with, say, Texas:

Notwithstanding the remarkable increase in caucus participation in 2008, relatively speaking, hardly anybody attended those events. The people who go obviously do not represent the general voting population by any stretch of the imagination.

WA, as TX, had both primaries and caucus rounds. The ratio of participation was 20:1 in WA. Obama won the primaries as well but with a much much smaller margin, yet all the delegates are currently coming from the caucus although technically the DNC could consider the primaries results as well and the voter pamphlets were extremely vague about the dual system.

Had the DNC adopted the RNC winner-take-all approach , Hillary Clinton would already be the presumptive Democratic candidate.

There won't be caucuses in the general election, and the big state argument does have some merits. IMHO, Hillary would have to win the popular vote nationwide to nail the nomination.

actually that statement is false.......there has been analysis done where we would be if the dnc adopted winner take all.......and it's right where we are now.

750 Volts » Imagining the Democratic primaries using winner-take-all.