Mainstream media is finally waking up to Clinton's psycotic strategy for winning Democratic nomination

[Phokus]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...l?source=mostpop_story

After last tuesday's 'win' for Hillary, the MSM was swooning about Hillary being 'the comeback kid', having 'regained momentum'.... i even heard one idiot MSM commentator say that Obama and Hillary were 'neck and neck'.

I was wondering if these idiots were completely oblivious to the fact that it is nearly impossible for Hillary to overcome the pledged delegate gap.

It's finally refreshing to see someone in the MSM reveal the maniac that is Clinton and her campaign team.

 

[Double Trouble]

The hildabeast knows that this is her one and only realistic shot at the ring. She's going to do anything within her power to get it. You can sense the desperation in her and her supporters, it's palpable. I've talked to a few who just seem to demand that she be elected.... I can't fathom the thought of hildabeast actually going back into the oval office, hopefully the American public is smarter than that.

 

[Pliablemoose]

From the article:

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.

I knew she had it in her, and we haven't seen anything yet... She's a scorched earth kind of candidate, always has been.

She'd rather see McCain win than Obama.

 

[Dari]

Now she's putting out feelers out there about a Clinton-Obama ticket. Yeah right.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Dari
Now she's putting out feelers out there about a Clinton-Obama ticket. Yeah right.

LOL. If folks can't see through that charade...

 

[trenchfoot]

at the moment, those superdelegates have the future of our nation in their hands. you know, the same dem politicians that flubbed the last two elections for the dems. how's that for a frightening thought.

i wonder what kind of bartering is going on right now between the interested parties, including whatever influence the repubs have in the process.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Dari
Now she's putting out feelers out there about a Clinton-Obama ticket. Yeah right.

LOL. If folks can't see through that charade...

Never underestimate the gullibility of the American electorate.

 

[M0RPH]

Wow, a Hillary-hating Obama fan wrote an article. That's great. The rest of the media realizes she has every right to still be in the race since she has garnered 49.5% of the vote.

 

[M0RPH]

For every article you post calling for Hillary to drop out, I can find one encouraging her to stay in.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/16424716.html">One Last Thing: Who can go the distance?
Not only will Clinton likely get nominated, but she'd be a better candidate, too.</a>

Finally, while Obama might lead McCain in theoretical matchups, Clinton can make the case that her voting coalition will be more formidable in the general election.

Obama's support comes in large part from reliably Republican states such as Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina. Democrats have no chance in those states come November. Meanwhile, Clinton will have won at least eight of the 11 largest states, including must-win battleground states such as Florida and Ohio (and Pennsylvania).

Remember, too, that Obama's coalition is composed of more reliably Democratic base voters: African Americans, voters making over $100,000, and young voters. These are groups that Democratic candidates carry most easily. If Clinton is the nominee, she can take these groups for granted.

By contrast, Clinton's coalition - women, older voters, whites making less than $50,000, Catholics, Hispanics - would be McCain swing voters in a race against Obama. Obama hasn't been successful in wooing those voters yet, so it's unclear why anyone would believe he will finally carry them (and then defend them from a very appealing McCain) in November.

In other words, if you look at the underlying fundamentals of the race, and not just the theoretical polls, Clinton can make a strong case that she is the candidate better suited to challenging McCain and winning the White House.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
For every article you post calling for Hillary to drop out, I can find one encouraging her to stay in.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/16424716.html">One Last Thing: Who can go the distance?
Not only will Clinton likely get nominated, but she'd be a better candidate, too.</a>

Finally, while Obama might lead McCain in theoretical matchups, Clinton can make the case that her voting coalition will be more formidable in the general election.

Obama's support comes in large part from reliably Republican states such as Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina. Democrats have no chance in those states come November. Meanwhile, Clinton will have won at least eight of the 11 largest states, including must-win battleground states such as Florida and Ohio (and Pennsylvania).

Remember, too, that Obama's coalition is composed of more reliably Democratic base voters: African Americans, voters making over $100,000, and young voters. These are groups that Democratic candidates carry most easily. If Clinton is the nominee, she can take these groups for granted.

By contrast, Clinton's coalition - women, older voters, whites making less than $50,000, Catholics, Hispanics - would be McCain swing voters in a race against Obama. Obama hasn't been successful in wooing those voters yet, so it's unclear why anyone would believe he will finally carry them (and then defend them from a very appealing McCain) in November.

In other words, if you look at the underlying fundamentals of the race, and not just the theoretical polls, Clinton can make a strong case that she is the candidate better suited to challenging McCain and winning the White House.

One thing people forget is that the battle between Barack and Hillary is just that. Her winning big states may mean little if she opens the gates to a lot of anti-Clinton Republicans. The other thing is in Obama you have someone that can bring Republicans, Independents, and new voters to the party.

Tell me, which would you rather have, an influx of your opponents or an influx of more people on your side? Would you rather have a negative or a positive? Hillary is a very divisive figure and she shows it on the campaign trail. She's not even trying to reach out to moderates or Republicans. Furthermore, since she's not a likeable figure, she would need people to vote against McCain. Simply put, McCain is a likeable guy, making that an impossible task. It's a recipe for disaster that anyone can spot a mile away. Why can't you?

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Dari

One thing people forget is that the battle between Barack and Hillary is just that. Her winning big states may mean little if she opens the gates to a lot of anti-Clinton Republicans. The other thing is in Obama you have someone that can bring Republicans, Independents, and new voters to the party.

Tell me, which would you rather have, an influx of your opponents or an influx of more people on your side? Would you rather have a negative or a positive? Hillary is a very divisive figure and she shows it on the campaign trail. She's not even trying to reach out to moderates or Republicans. Furthermore, since she's not a likeable figure, she would need people to vote against McCain. Simply put, McCain is a likeable guy, making that an impossible task. It's a recipe for disaster that anyone can spot a mile away. Why can't you?

Because my reasoning is based on rational thought process, instead of just a dislike for Hillary Clinton, and assuming that everyone else dislikes her as much as you do. That seems to be the biggest argument form Obama suporters, the unlikeability of Clinton. They seem to conveniently forget that 13+ million people, 49.5% of primary voters, cast their ballot for her.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Dari

One thing people forget is that the battle between Barack and Hillary is just that. Her winning big states may mean little if she opens the gates to a lot of anti-Clinton Republicans. The other thing is in Obama you have someone that can bring Republicans, Independents, and new voters to the party.

Tell me, which would you rather have, an influx of your opponents or an influx of more people on your side? Would you rather have a negative or a positive? Hillary is a very divisive figure and she shows it on the campaign trail. She's not even trying to reach out to moderates or Republicans. Furthermore, since she's not a likeable figure, she would need people to vote against McCain. Simply put, McCain is a likeable guy, making that an impossible task. It's a recipe for disaster that anyone can spot a mile away. Why can't you?

Because my reasoning is based on rational thought process, instead of just a dislike for Hillary Clinton, and assuming that everyone else dislikes her as much as you do. That seems to be the biggest argument form Obama suporters, the unlikeability of Clinton. They seem to conveniently forget that 13+ million people, 49.5% of primary voters, cast their ballot for her.

They aren't voting for her, as some of your fellow supporters will occasionally admit here. They are voting for her husband, whom administration they miss dearly. But why don't you keep dismissing the likeability factor, which is critically important in any Presidential race...

 

[Fern]

I really don't understand the logic behind these Hillary supporters.

So Hillary can win in Dem states like CA and NY and that somehow makes her a better gen election candidate?

Jeebus, the Dem's could run a ham sandwich on their ballot and win those states. Obama will win there too.

And he may actually win in some usually Red States, while Hillary certainly will not.

Fern

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Fern
I really don't understand the logic behind these Hillary supporters.

So Hillary can win in Dem states like CA and NY and that somehow makes her a better gen election candidate?

Jeebus, the Dem's could run a ham sandwich on their ballot and win those states. Obama will win there too.

And he may actually win in some usually Red States, while Hillary certainly will not.

Fern

The reason you are confused is because you refuse to listen to the logic that is presented to you. Where have you been while I've repeatedly been saying in this forum that the key factor is swing states like FL, OH, PA, MI. States that Clinton has a better chance of winning with her support blocks. It's not about CA and NY, and nobody said it was. Do you want to give up the large swing states in the hopes that Obama MIGHT pick up a smaller red state or two? Good luck with that.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Fern
I really don't understand the logic behind these Hillary supporters.

So Hillary can win in Dem states like CA and NY and that somehow makes her a better gen election candidate?

Jeebus, the Dem's could run a ham sandwich on their ballot and win those states. Obama will win there too.

And he may actually win in some usually Red States, while Hillary certainly will not.

Fern

The reason you are confused is because you refuse to listen to the logic that is presented to you. Where have you been while I've repeatedly been saying in this forum that the key factor is swing states like FL, OH, PA, MI. States that Clinton has a better chance of winning with her support blocks. It's not about CA and NY, and nobody said it was. Do you want to give up the large swing states in the hopes that Obama MIGHT pick up a smaller red state or two? Good luck with that.

What makes you think she'll win those against a Republican? What makes you think Obama won't?

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Dari


They aren't voting for her, as some of your fellow supporters will occasionally admit here. They are voting for her husband, whom administration they miss dearly. But why don't you keep dismissing the likeability factor, which is critically important in any Presidential race...

Likeability is already reflected in the votes, for both candidates.

 

[Farang]

The only polls we have shown Clinton losing California to McCain, and Obama winning. Of course facts don't matter to M0RPH, facts hate Clinton because she is a woman.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
From the article:

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.

I knew she had it in her, and we haven't seen anything yet... She's a scorched earth kind of candidate, always has been.

She'd rather see McCain win than Obama.

That's an hysterically stupid and untrue statement.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Farang
The only polls we have shown Clinton losing California to McCain, and Obama winning. Of course facts don't matter to M0RPH, facts hate Clinton because she is a woman.

ROFL, let's see that poll. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet.

:laugh:

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Dari

They aren't voting for her, as some of your fellow supporters will occasionally admit here. They are voting for her husband, whom administration they miss dearly. But why don't you keep dismissing the likeability factor, which is critically important in any Presidential race...

To lump millions of voters into one catagory and assume you know the single reason they are voting is really ignorant. I've heard people give a variety of reasons that they're voting forher. I've also heard many Clinton supporters who really don't like her but are simply voting against B.O because they like him even less.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
From the article:

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.

I knew she had it in her, and we haven't seen anything yet... She's a scorched earth kind of candidate, always has been.
She'd rather see McCain win than Obama.

That's an hysterically stupid and untrue statement.

Perhaps not. Her recent statements imply that the only potential commanders-in-chief qualified for the position are she and McCain, not Senator Obama. Also consider that an Obama loss to McCain would leave her well-positioned for another run in 2012, where an Obama presidency would likely leave her out until 2016, if then.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Fern
I really don't understand the logic behind these Hillary supporters.

So Hillary can win in Dem states like CA and NY and that somehow makes her a better gen election candidate?

Jeebus, the Dem's could run a ham sandwich on their ballot and win those states. Obama will win there too.

And he may actually win in some usually Red States, while Hillary certainly will not.

Fern

The reason you are confused is because you refuse to listen to the logic that is presented to you. Where have you been while I've repeatedly been saying in this forum that the key factor is swing states like FL, OH, PA, MI. States that Clinton has a better chance of winning with her support blocks. It's not about CA and NY, and nobody said it was. Do you want to give up the large swing states in the hopes that Obama MIGHT pick up a smaller red state or two? Good luck with that.

I don't think that hildabeast can count on running unopposed in FL and MI in the general election.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
From the article:

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.

I knew she had it in her, and we haven't seen anything yet... She's a scorched earth kind of candidate, always has been.
She'd rather see McCain win than Obama.

That's an hysterically stupid and untrue statement.

Perhaps not. Her recent statements imply that the only potential commanders-in-chief qualified for the position are she and McCain, not Senator Obama. Also consider that an Obama loss to McCain would leave her well-positioned for another run in 2012, where an Obama presidency would likely leave her out until 2016, if then.

she was saying that McCain has more experience than Obama... I don't see how even the most hard-core partisan liberal could deny that.

but judging by Hillary's own performance, the voters are preferring hope over experience.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
From the article:

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.

I knew she had it in her, and we haven't seen anything yet... She's a scorched earth kind of candidate, always has been.
She'd rather see McCain win than Obama.

That's an hysterically stupid and untrue statement.

Perhaps not. Her recent statements imply that the only potential commanders-in-chief qualified for the position are she and McCain, not Senator Obama. Also consider that an Obama loss to McCain would leave her well-positioned for another run in 2012, where an Obama presidency would likely leave her out until 2016, if then.

she was saying that McCain has more experience than Obama... I don't see how even the most hard-core partisan liberal could deny that.

but judging by Hillary's own performance, the voters are preferring hope over experience.

thats of course based on the false assumption that hillary was any real 'experience' of her own.

 

[miketheidiot]

m0rph do you have anything to say about the article or are you just going to ignore it like everything else because it isn't a hillary fluff job?