Yesterday Hillary Clinton compared her fight to break DNC rules and seat the delegates from Florida an “epic American struggle” similiar to the fight against slavery.
Now she is comparing the Democratic nominating process that SHE ENDORSED to the recent fraudulent elections in Zimbabwe…
“We’re seeing that right now in Zimbabwe,” Clinton explained. “Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people,†Clinton told the crowd of senior citizens at a retirement community in south Florida.
Hillary Clinton compared her effort to seat Florida and Michigan delegates to epic American struggles, including those to free the slaves and win the right to vote for blacks and women.
The Democratic National Committee rules are the same as Jim Crow Laws? Howard Dean is like Jefferson Davis? The DNC is no better than the racist, sexist politicians of times past who tried to keep blacks and woman ‘in their place’?
She’s in for an epic struggle all right- trying to explain THAT one.
In late December Governor Strickland said the Democratic caucus process was “hugely undemocratic” because it “excludes so many people.”
With the Iowa caucuses only days away, the Clinton campaign immediately responded saying that Hillary and Strickland “strongly disagree” on the issue of caucus voting and that “the process must be protected.”
That was then.
Today in an interview on Cleveland radio she said: “We’ve got to change the way we nominate presidents for a lot of reasons. I personally believe these caucuses are terribly unrepresentative.”
Wow!
A few months ago, when she had all the money and the momentum, the process needed to be protected.
Now that it looks like she’s going to lose, the process needs to be changed.
It looks like Ted was right. Well, at least about the caucuses.
Hillary is moving the goal posts again- and lying to West Virginians in the process.
In a short speech in West Virginia today she called the WV primary “one of the most important elections in this entire process.”
Which, of course, is a load of crap. The nomination is typically wrapped up by the time West Virginians ever get to vote. And even if she does win big there next week- they only have 39 delegates so it isn’t going to help her much.
She also said: “I personally believe that West Virginia is one of those so-called swing states, Democrats need to win it in the fall”
West Virginia has 5 electoral votes. Not exactly a “must-win state” for either party.
And it is FAR from a swing state.
In 2004, Bush won the state by 12 points. He also won there in 2000 by slightly less.
If WV is doing any swinging, it’s further to the right and away from the Dems.
For some reason HRC’s campaign thought it would be a great idea to have her ride to work with some working class Indiana guy – stopping along the way to fill up at a gas station full of reporters.
They picked a guy who drives an F-250 pickup (10 mpg) 45 minutes to work every day because, I guess, that’s the kind of guy her gas tax “holiday” might appeal to.
(Obama voters drive smaller cars and live closer to work)
The problem came when they stopped at the gas station and Hillary admittedshe hadn’t pumped her own gas in years. Nor, we assume, has she even driven a car.
Sounds pretty elitist to me. And certainly no way to connect with working class folks.
A new poll from Monmouth University shows that some New Jersey Democrats have changed their mind since voting for Hillary in February’s primary…
Clinton bested Obama in the New Jersey presidential primary on February 5th by a 54%
to 44% margin. However, the ongoing nomination contest seems to have given some Garden
State Democrats second thoughts. Currently, more Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents say they would like to see Obama (45%) rather than Clinton (38%) get the party’s
nomination.
“It appears that less than three months after giving Hillary Clinton a 10 point victory in
the state’s primary, some New Jersey voters feel buyer’s remorse,†said poll director Patrick Murray. “Many state Democrats are concerned that the prolonged battle could hobble their party’s eventual nominee in November.â€
Except for the wonderful live discussion here at PB, I think we can all pretty much agree last night’s debate was pretty lame. From the bad questions to the bad commercials (do that many people really have problems pooping?) it was pretty much a waste.
Of course, the Clinton camp immediately announced that Hillary had won the debate.
According to her communications director the debate was “very important and illuminating” … “Game-changing” even.
Their reasoning: Obama “tried to dodge and weave†questions about guns. “Sen. Obama needs to be more forthright” they said.
Speaking of being forthright- the Clinton campaign continues to deny that Hillary ever said “Screw ‘em” – referring to the working class southern whites in January, 1995.
“‘Screw ‘em,’ she told her husband. ‘You don’t owe them a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.’
This quote was actually published in a book by Benjamin Barber ( “The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House”)
Uh oh! Someone’s not telling the truth here.
And I think I’ve got a pretty good idea who it is.
Slowly but steadily, a string of Democratic Party figures is taking Barack Obama’s side in the presidential nominating race and raising the pressure on Hillary Clinton to give up.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is expected to endorse Sen. Obama Monday, according to a Democrat familiar with her plans. Meanwhile, North Carolina’s seven Democratic House members are poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group — just one has so far — before that state’s May 6 primary, several Democrats say.
Nice graphic in the article demonstrating what has changed since the candidates were about equal in pledged delegates and Clinton had a big superdelegate advantage. Clearly, the pledged delegate count favors Obama and the super gap has closed and continues to do so today:
A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community — and anyone else who will listen — to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.
Oh wait. I remember! Haven’t we had enough deficit spending? We need a President who is ready on day one to better manage the finances of this country! No to Hillary Clinton!
“We worked very hard to put together these events on a moment’s notice and do absolutely everything to a ‘t’ to make it look perfect on television for her and for her campaign,†said the employee. “Sen. Clinton talks about helping working families, people in unions and small businesses. But when it comes down to actually doing something that shows that she can back up her words with action, she fails.â€
Way to “walk the talk” Hillz. Good stuff! If her campaign is any indication of how she’d run the country, we are in trouble if she succeeds in stealing the nomination.
“There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama. Now, obviously that’s a decision that only she can make. Frankly I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate.”
This morning Howard Dean announced that he wants all of the super delegates to endorse by July 1st.
July 1st!? That’s over three months from now! I’m not sure I can take three more months of Hillary and Barack beating each other up over tiny, meaningless things that may or may not have been said or happened.
I know that Montana and South Dakota are holding their primaries on June 3rd – how about we make the superdelegates decide by June 4th?
Better still: let’s move up the rest of the primaries and caucuses – Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia Democratic, Kentucky and Oregon – to April 22nd and make all of the super delegates decide by May 1st. Then we can all start focusing on the general election and beating McCain.
Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, “Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama’s primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.” In academia, there’s a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.
Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.
Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
I’m searching for the right commentary here. Fuck off seems about right. Yeah. Fuck off! How petty and pathetic will the Clinton campaign get? It’s breathtaking the levels to which they’ll stoop. Love that they are sticking with the “just words” theme that – despite wild accusations of plagiarism – was soundly rebuked.
This Clinton campaign is starting to look like Mike DeWine circa 2006.
