Your bet in the Kentucky derby has died after coming second to the Big Brown
Your Second Grade Report Card was leaked from White House documents. The report shows that you had flunked Mathematics . No wonder you hesitate to see that the math/stat is heavily against your prospect for the candidacy. It's virtually impossible for you to win from here on.
What's more:
1) Former senator George McGovern -- your staunch supporter -- switching his endorsement from you to Obama saying "It's time to quit"
2) Looming financial state of your campaign.
don't look rosy at all and if that's not enough,
Mark my words--within the next couple of weeks, most of the remaining (some 280) Super-delegates will sway towards Obama, forcing you to take an exit from the race anyhow. Florida and Michigan cannot be resurrected.
It's time to show some grace, beautiful lady. Get out of the way and let the big brown take on the old man
Hillary is getting really annoying claiming michigan and florida victories. They broke the rule. Is she willing to break the rules if that will allow her to win the nomination? Not that she will get it anyways.
She poured ( lend) more than $6 billion just yesterday in hope she will get strong financial back up. I am not a die heart fan of Obama, but still don't wanna see anymore clinton legacy in white house, so want her to be defeated. I would have favoured her if her husband Bill Clinton was not in president previously.
But yet, I really must admit she is very strong, intelligent, capable and also beautiful women. But what do I have to do with all of this just watch and wish for Obama's Victory as..... I can't vote !
Anyone seen JohnMccain's life history..? I was really impressed by that. I dont know if he is capable to be president or not in such economic times, but I definately think that he has served much more for his country directly than Hillary or Obama.
Birbhadra, it's not voters who broke the rule why would be they got punishment rather punishing to who took that decision, no wonder Howard Dean lost last time because of his this kinda judgement .michigan and florida equally matters to win general election as well then why are they cutting em off now? Dosen't make sense at all.
I know what sampada meant with "clinton legacy" but don't you think it's unfair to an individual, to that individual who has shown the capabilites of moving the whole mountains even though things are not going exactly as she'd planned?
yeah like Times Magazine had full front cover coverage to Obama . It should've given Mccain equal place as well.
b4 i was like hillary... should support her bill clinton was one of the best presidents he really got things done made negotiations in middle east economy was good he had an affair and all but that’s his personal business and then HC started lying and lying... being attacked by some sniper then she was like oh i misspoke then she is like shame on u barak when she is making so many attacks on him as well.
so i think I still admire her like sampada said she is strong and independent but i dont think she is deserving of being 1st female president. I think barak’s plan will be more beneficial for women than what she wants to do.
I guess it's not me or you who can say what is fair and unfair to Hillary. We can simply put our opinion.
I guess those who can vote (American people) will vote and show who is the most fair candidate to them. Whatever the outcome is, is fair and the opposite is unfair.
However as a person there are lots of things as I mentioned above, that I really admire about her.
pacifier, she won't take the offer to run as VP (if she is offered that is). last i heard, the likely candidates, if Obama was to win the nominations, were Kansas and Arizona Governors (both women).
sampada, McCain certainly has loads of experience and a cross-over appeal as well. If he wins, he would make a better president than Bush in my opinion (but then if pitted against Bush, anyone can potentially fare better than him for that matter ), but his adamant stance on continuing with the war is not gonna help his cause -- not when the country is under humongous burden of economic recession. people are looking for change as is shown by the trend in these primaries already.
spring, michigan and florida cannot be included simply because when primaries were held in those states, candidates were not even ready (Obama was not). Heck in most of the counties, Hillary was the sole candidate running. Now having come this far (time-wise), and spent billions already, it wouldn't be of greater interest and advantage for the democratic party to hold another rounds of primaries in those states especially and more importantly when the general trend of voting in the rest of the country has shown that Obama is the better choice.
and yeah, hillary is a potential women president who, in my observation, is equivalent to any other men presidents we have seen so far clad in woman's outfit (talk of change and and the idea of electing the first woman president)
Time and again, the wish of the voters has been reflected in the
outcome of the primaries (even if you don't consider the delegate
counts) -Obama is the undisputed Democratic nominee. It's time for the party to get together and seal the deal for it is in the party's interest as well.
I
had a dream that a black man (or any non-white) will go to the White
House and sit on the head of each meeting table. Lo and behold, it
seems the time is already ripe.
Hillary/Obama
will not accept the VP offer? Come on let's get real. Which
presidential candidate will be stupid enough to accept the VP offer
even before the race is over for that candidate? If the candidate will
accept that offer outright then he/she is not even fit to run. Please
ask that question again after nominee (D) is decided and only then you might get
the true answer.
As I have always been mentioning, these three
candidates appear to be unusually promising and even Warren Buffet cannot agree more. (Needless to say, any candidate would be better than
the current- the W.) Now speaking of McCain, he too has a great
prospect of being elected. His stance on the economy and the war needs
to be re-aligned to suit the voters expectations between now and
November. Not only that if he picks his VP based on who emerges out as
the Democratic opponent then McCain has a great probability of
succeeding as well. Bottom line is : whoever out of the three gets
elected, we shall all release a great sigh of relief when Bush exits. Thanks God, the Bushes has no more children to run for President,
as least for now.
Why so much oppose Hillary for being Bill's
wife. Bill left an overall positive legacy with world peace, extended economic boom etc unlike W Bush, upon attacking Saddam Hussein's Iraq, who
reminded of the banal Hindi cinema dialog "..Dus saal pehle tum ne mera
pitaji ka khoon karne ki koshis ki ab tum tadap tadak ke maroge..."
If you are still despising the Clintons, then the next para is especially for you.
Here is what bumper sticker on a redneck's truck read during the lowest points of the Iraq war "No one died when Clinton lied"
Sampada,
Yes ma'am, that was what I was doing like you did, putting forward our opinion. I ,too, agree with what you said about her,She's strong ,smart and all. Then why should one gutsy, strong,capable individual be overshadowed by the last name she carries with her?. That's all.
Loote, that's the story after they took the decision.If DNC had problem with that they shouldn't have allowed to even vote at all.
Timely but rude love letter for Hillary. May be Obama can make a lovelier request.
Even with Florida and Michigan votes counted, Hillary will be behind in both delegates and popular vote count. Moreover, she was a single contestant in Michigan.
Whatever, she will give up before the end of June. She did say she will be behind the nominee whoever it is. She knew what she was talking about when she said that.
Also, she will thankfully accept the offer for Vice President if Obama makes one. The bad thing for her is the more cynical she becomes of Obama, the lesser the chance of such offer. I wish she becomes the first women President but only after Obama.
Time to throw in the Towel Hillery Dahling !!! Or your political life might end up like Barbaro or Eight Belles. Only Miracle from "History of the World" can save her now.
Guys Dont say bad about the John McCain. He is the "Maverick" and no maverick can be bad. Beside he is the truest maverick. He doesnt do what is politically correct , he just cares about the people. You know that everybody thinks he is old right; but since he is the truest Maverick, he keeps on aging. Won't getting younger would be politically correct? Unlike Hillary and Obama who do anything to appease poeople he doesnt care unless if it is far right evangelical votes.
Dear Hillary is Hillary-ous sometimes. Now she is coming out saying that the reason she is on the race is because white Americans want her and Obama is losing white votes.
How in the world Obama is winning if he is losing white votes? I think the only reason she is STILL on the race and her ONLY hope that can save her is some Reverend Wright type of controversy.
It is another lie. It is Obama, who is bringing all races together, thus winning, not Hillary, who has lost huge black votes.
I think she should be more cautious before making such remarks, for this remark is not going to be as cheap gimmick as the so called "gas-tax holiday."
I think she has made Barack Obama a stronger candidate and for that she deserves a big thank you. I hope she finds a way to gracefully exit the race at a time of her choosing.
Clinton has too larger an ego to run as VP under the same ticket with Obama. Obama has clearly indicated (at least few months ago) that he wouldn't run for VP if Clinton was to win the nomination. So I don't see the prospect of Obama/Clinton ticket and the Clinton/Obama ticket seems to be out of question anyways from where we stand today.
If you ask me, someone like Richardson (who has a stronger hispanic voters' base) would be a much better and smarter choice as a running mate for Obama.
There is no doubt that Clinton is waiting to see if some drama (like Rev. Wright's fiasco) happens over the next few weeks (before the last round of primaries). There is no other way she is going to make it from here on. Oh well, unless Obama slips off his bathtub one of these fine days.
Hell, if the crossover voting ("operation chaos" encouraged by the conservative radio host Limbaugh) hadn't taken place, Indiana would have easily won by Obama in the first place.
Rohitgrg, I don't deny it was rude. That's my flair for someone who deserves to be treated like that.
The New Republic Go Already!
by Jonathan Chait Hillary Clinton, fratricidal maniac. Post Date Thursday, March 06, 2008
The morning after Tuesday's primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign
released a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." I eagerly dug into
the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the
Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates.
Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton
should run against John McCain--i.e., "Hillary is seen as the one who
can get the job done"--but nothing about how she actually could. Is she
planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The
memo does not say.
The reason it doesn't say is that Clinton's path
to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn't going to win at the
polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not
sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio
win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to
pull even with Obama. She isn't going to do much to dent, let alone
eliminate, his lead.
That
means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to
win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already
committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin
of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely
reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The
only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general
election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand
the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified
response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her
repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.
Clinton's justification for this strategy
is that she needs to toughen up Obama for the general election-if he
can't handle her attacks, he'll never stand up to the vast right-wing
conspiracy. Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, "Democrats may
have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy." So
Clinton's offensive against the likely nominee is really an act of
selflessness. And here I was thinking she was maniacally pursuing her
slim thread of a chance, not caring--or possibly even hoping,
with an eye toward 2012-that she would destroy Obama's chances of
defeating McCain in the process. I feel ashamed for having suspected
her motives.
Still,
there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is
that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in
the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they
come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost
exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced,
lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As TheWashington Monthly's
Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts
have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and
then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message.
If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat
validating McCain's message every day.
Second,
Obama can't "test" Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to
claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate
to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly
polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But,
because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans,
Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big
bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised
because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but
not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.
What's
more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won't
exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have
outnumbered males by nearly three to two.) Clinton's claim to being a
tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost
unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn't qualify
you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won't quite say that,
because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate.
John McCain wouldn't be so reluctant.
Third,
negative campaigning is a negative-sum activity. Both the attacker and
the attackee tend to see their popularity drop. Usually, the victim's
popularity drops farther than the perpetrator's, which is why negative
campaigning works. But it doesn't work so well in primaries, where the
winner has to go on to another election.
Clinton's
path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an
eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the
first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile
cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a
contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results
at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and
Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results
would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has
periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates
might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position
to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.
Some
Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg,
have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time
and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the
process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually
damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost--to wrap up the nomination,
and spend John McCain into the ground for four months--uniquely high,
but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing
state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and
Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the
case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't
create a more damaging scenario if you tried.
Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his
November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven
weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to
privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of
defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?
Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic.
NOTE: The opinions
here represent the opinions of the individual posters, and not of Sajha.com.
It is not possible for sajha.com to monitor all the postings, since sajha.com merely seeks to provide a cyber location for discussing ideas and concerns related to Nepal and the Nepalis. Please send an email to admin@sajha.com using a valid email address
if you want any posting to be considered for deletion. Your request will be
handled on a one to one basis. Sajha.com is a service please don't abuse it.
- Thanks.