Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Clinton stumbles in latest state voting



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 08 May 2008
HILLARY Clinton is clinging on to the presidential nomination race by her fingernails after failing to dent Barack Obama's lead after primary elections in Indiana and North Carolina.
And revelations last night that she has lent her campaign $6 million (£3m) to pay outstanding bills have further damaged her chances of matching her rival in the remaining contests.

Mr Obama has confounded critics, and pollsters, by winning a double-digit victory in North Carolina on Tuesday.

Although Mrs Clinton squeaked home to victory in Indiana, the results leave her further adrift from Mr Obama in the race for nomination delegates.

The result puts Mr Obama in the driving seat for the six primaries that remain: He has a majority of 169 elected delegates, a lead almost impossible for Mrs Clinton to match from the 217 delegates still up for grabs.

Mr Obama acknowledged as much in his victory speech in North Carolina: "Tonight we stand less than 200 delegates away from securing the Democratic nomination."

Mrs Clinton insists she will keep fighting, saying her victory, by 51 per cent to 49, in Indiana, was a tie-breaker: "We've come from behind, we've broken the tie, and, thanks to you, it's full speed on to the White House."

The reality may be rather different. Her staff announced yesterday that she has loaned her campaign $6 million from her own funds, following a $5 million loan earlier this year. The Clintons have an estimated personal fortune of $100 million.

There is nothing improper about a candidate financing their own campaign, but the loan is an admission that she has failed to match the fund-raising power of the Obama campaign. It will weaken her argument to the party-appointed superdelegates that she is the stronger candidate.

The 277 un- committed superdelegates, who include senators, congress members and party chiefs, must still decide who will be the nominee, with neither candidate able to cross the finishing line on their own. But the chances that they will opt for Mrs Clinton after these latest results are diminishing.

Some commentators say that, after Indiana and North Carolina, the race is effectively over: "We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be," said cable news channel MSNBC's anchor, Tim Russert, who speculated that Mrs Clinton's campaign is all-but dead.

Certainly Mrs Clinton's options have narrowed after this week's results. She had hoped to take advantage of what has been the lowest point of Mr Obama's campaign thus far. His poll numbers had plunged after his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, made incendiary comments about race in the media. Mrs Clinton still leads among both women voters and blue-collar whites, but these leads are narrowing. For Mr Obama's supporters, it is proof that the Wright affair is behind him.

"This has been the worst three weeks of his campaign," one Democratic party source told The Scotsman. "With Rev Wright he got beat up a bit, but he came through it."

Short of some new scandal engulfing the Obama campaign, Mrs Clinton's last realistic chance is to convince the party to reinstate the delegates of Florida and Michigan, where she won comfortably earlier this year.

Both states had their elections ruled invalid by the Democratic Party after bringing their primary dates forward without permission. The party's rules and bylaws committee has the power to order to re-validate the results when it meets on 31 May.

But such a decision could be open to a legal challenge from Mr Obama, who did not even stand in Michigan following party instructions.

Without the Florida and Michigan delegates, there is no realistic chance of Mrs Clinton catching Mr Obama. Nor does there appear much likelihood that the superdelegates will go against the popular vote and give her the nomination regardless.

Carl Bernstein, a Clinton biographer, told CNN that her campaign staff are floating the idea that she should be vice-president, running alongside Mr Obama.

The Obama campaign staff have already scotched the idea, but Mr Bernstein said that Mrs Clinton may argue that it is the price to pay to end an ever-more toxic primary campaign.

FIGURES NOT STACKING UP

PRESSURE may grow on Mrs Clinton to make a graceful exit from the race. Her slim victory in Indiana may be enough to allow her to continue through the next round of primaries, but Tuesday's results and the maths make it difficult for her to win the nomination.

West Virginia holds a primary next Tuesday. Kentucky and Oregon vote a week later and Puerto Rico has one set for 1 June, followed by Montana and South Dakota on 3 June. The New York senator is favoured in Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico, while Mr Obama is favoured in Oregon, Montana and South Dakota.

Mrs Clinton had hoped a sweep of Tuesday's two contests would allow her to sow doubt about Mr Obama's electability and persuade some superdelegates – party insiders who are free to back any candidate at the nominating convention – to move towards her.

Race over, says former presidential candidate

FORMER Senator George McGovern, a 1972 presidential candidate and a close friend of the Clintons, yesterday switched sides and urged the New York senator to withdraw from the race.

Democrats fear the long nomination fight will damage the party's chances at defeating Republican John McCain in the November general elections.

Mr McGovern's switch was largely symbolic since he is not a superdelegate – the group that will likely decide the nomination. But his defection was the second by a high profile Clinton backer in under two weeks. Last week, the former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew – a superdelegate – switched allegiance to Mr Obama, despite having been named to the top party job by former President Bill Clinton.

Mr McGovern said he called in Mr Clinton to tell him of the decision, adding that he remains close friends with the Clintons.

"I will hold them in affection and admiration all of my days," he said.

Mr McGovern said he had no regrets about endorsing Hillary Clinton months ago, even before the Iowa caucuses."She has run a valiant campaign. And she will remain an influential voice in the American future," he said.

But Mr Obama has won the nomination "by any practical test" and is very close to a majority of the pledged delegates, said Mr McGovern, who is 85.

Last night, the Obama campaign dropped broad hints it was time for remaining unaligned superdelegates to take sides and settle the race.

"We think the Clinton camp has gotten away with a little bit of creating these alternative views of reality" about her chance at winning the nomination, said Mr Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

ALL THE LATEST FROM THE US ELECTIONS

The full article contains 1132 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Angus Ogg,

08/05/2008 00:04:30

Well given President Bill Clinton's remarkable reputation as the "Comeback Kid", I think this is the way Hillary Clinton must be figuring on reaching the Democrat Nomination.

That and waiting for Senator Obama to have a serious faux pas sometime in the next few weeks.
2

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 08/05/2008 01:24:36
She should step down now and support Obama against Mc Cain in the real contest. Obama president, Clinton as deputy, now that's a force to be reckoned with!!!!
3

Jim Baxter RIP,

Sai KungHong Kong 08/05/2008 01:39:58
There is no place in honest politics for the Clintons.
Obama should have nothing to do with them.
4

American,

08/05/2008 02:47:26
#2-scotindy-"now that's a force to be reckoned with!!!!"-- You're kidding, right?
5

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 08/05/2008 02:51:10
we won't be sure the wicked witch named Hilary Clinton is dead until the convention is over, Obama is the nominee and she is not the VP candidate. If Obama picks her as VP candidate, then it would be like signing his own death warrant.

But I can't support either of these 3 top candidates left because they all 3 support the ethanol subsidies and also support expanding those subsidies. It costs more energy to produce ethanol from corn than the ethanol produced through that process provides. The ethanol subsidies take taxpayer's money, spend it on something uneconomical and succeeds only in destroying both food and fuel so that the price of both will go up. and Barack Obama supports that just like the other 2 do. These policies will result in the starvation deaths of tens of millions of people.

A vote for either of these 3 candidates is an active choice for evil. Don't do it Americans!!! Choose life instead. If you life in one of the 35-45 states that will have the Constitution Party's candidate on the ballot, then you can vote for Chuck Baldwin. and you can always write in the name Ron Paul. You don't have to choose for evil. and the ethanol subsidies are nothing but pure evil.
6

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 08/05/2008 03:11:35
Hilary Clinton and her money grabbing husband will keep going until the bitter end because the money they continue raise for campaigning belongs to them after the Election. The Clintons have a net worth of 110 million. After she concedes that total will probably go up by a minimum of 30 million. Nice work if you can get it.

She is a disgrace, and so are the US Media which is owned by the likes of Murdoch. This Australian who dumped his nationality so he could run his media empire in a US that had strict rules on who could own media there. Foreigners were excluded, but in that abortion of a country, they dont respect themselves or the Constitution Scots gave them. Stop being such a corrupt role models to your kids and Vote for Obama. Yes we understand that you are a nation built on bigotry and fear. Time to throw all that away. Show the World that you are throwing off the shackles that have held you back, and stop fearing someone because he is black. Judge the book, not the cover.

We have your type here in Scotland. They are called Unionists or Westminster Lapdogs who betray their country. We are getting rid of them, so you lot can stop following a mad woman or a silly old man, who has to get help to have a pee.
7

indune1,

Canada 08/05/2008 03:14:41

#2 - You must be high on something. The Clintons represent, to me, everything that is wrong with modern-day American politics.

Only her ego stands between the Democratic Party having any chance of victory next November.

As to Obama - great speaker but the veneer is awful thin.

Good luck.
8

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 08/05/2008 04:43:45
The Clinton campaign is doing poorly financially. Hilary Clinton has lent her campaign $11.4 million including $6.4 million in the last month and $5 million a few months ago. I don't know how she'll ever get that money back, but she may. That she has invested so heavily in her campaign worries me. Has she been promised the nomination? If the Democrats' leaders decide to count Michigan & Florida and also if the super-delegates go heavily for Hilary, then I think she can win. that would be the nightmare, for the will of the voters to be over-turned by party leaders.
9

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 08/05/2008 06:11:23
Good bye Hillary. You're a bonny fechter, and lost a good fight. No disgrace.
10

Joe.,

Nairobi, Kenya 08/05/2008 06:41:12
Clinton VP??

If I were OBAMA I would NOT even consider CLINTON to be part of my administrative staff! By all means DO NOT even touch her political soul with a 10 FOOT POLE!

Clinton represents the old face of American politics that gravitates towards power play and an acute bout of political cons. If she can freely MIS-SPEAK now..what about in the WHITE HSE at 3.00AM as her advert goes?

A clean break from business as usual and ushering NEW WORLD ORDER...SORRY, CONVENTIONAL NEW WORLD ORDER is what the world looks up to America and just this once in as long as American currency has been existence, there exists this opportunity in OBAMA!
11

Liam,

08/05/2008 08:05:08
The Democrats are about to throw the White House away yet again. She's the right candidate, but the Democrat party activists have made a self-indulgent and unwise choice in backing Obama. They will find McCain a formidable opponent, and with the wrong candidate they have no chance of securing victory in the general election. Hopefully they'll get their house in order for 2012 as America desperately needs a change.
12

Dbxsteve,

West Kilbride 08/05/2008 08:48:31
#11 The Democrats are about to throw the White House away yet again.

Liam. You are spot on. There is no way Americans will support Obama over McCain and so it will be business as usual as George W's mate takes over where he has disastrously left off.

The dream ticket for the Democrats would have been Hillay with Obama as VP.

I wonder how many people who criticise her have actually followed her campaign and listened to her speeches.

She is the consummate politician and I really hoped that she was going to be the next President of the United States.

The last thing the world needs right now is more of the same from Bush Mk II.
13

Voice of reason,

EDINBURGH 08/05/2008 09:04:55
No 12 ha ha ha - she is a pompous woman , drunk with power who will spit , scratch , lie and cheat her way to the nomination . I hope she wins , to see McCain wipe the floor with her .
14

veryoldbluefan,

Borehamwood 08/05/2008 09:37:57
I despair of US politics. Hillary Clinton is NOT wanted anywhere close to the White House, neither as VP to Obama or as President herself. The problem as I see it is the influence of her husband, Bill. A vote for Hillary in any way is a vote for Mr President, Bill.

Keep the Clintons out! 8 years of Bill was enough - a money-grabbing self-promoting individual and his wife is of the same ideal.
15

Dbxsteve,

West Kilbride 08/05/2008 09:58:24
# 13 lol....personality politics!

You need to look at substance and not personalities.

The Republicans under Bush and McCain have driven the US and soon the world economies into recession.....and the full scale of this will not be known for another 12 months.

They have failed to address global climate change because they chose instead to protect their own oil industry business interests.

They have upset the balance of world power and made the world a more dangerous and volatile place by their ill thought out, thuggish approach to Iraq and Middle East affairs.

How different the world would have been but for Al Gore's 'hanging chaffs' in Florida..... Bush wouldn't have become President....there would have been no Gulf war and the US would have taken a leadership position on the biggest issue ever to face us....global climate change.

So number 13 try to take a step back from your personality prejudice and look at the bigger policy picture!
16

CRAGman,

08/05/2008 10:34:26
President McCain here we come
17

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 08/05/2008 12:09:42
Hillary has not stumbled, she has fallen flat on her pushy face.

In thinking she could establish an American dynasty or "royal family" like the Kennedys she is sorely mistaken.

But she WILL go on this divisive fight to claw her way to the top, even if her credibility and dignity are daily being eroded.
18

Carolyn 1,

08/05/2008 12:35:10
#6 A Better Way, Edinburgh
It's telling that your statement is in reference to black/racism and not to sexism, obviously you'd vote for a guy before you'd vote for a woman. In the US, blacks could vote before women but you don't hear women, or Hillary screeching that from the political pulpit.

If you actually believe what you wrote, I think you've listened to one too many of Obama's empty speeches or read one too many bias reports by the Scotsman. To me, it's this comment of yours that is especially untrue and therefore offensively grating: "Stop being such a corrupt role models to your kids and Vote for Obama. Yes we understand that you are a nation built on bigotry and fear. Time to throw all that away. Show the World that you are throwing off the shackles that have held you back, and stop fearing someone because he is black."

I realize you are in Scotland and not the U.S. but the US has many many blacks in government. The US has no 'shackles that are holding us back'.
The following is a partial list of people who are black (and qualified for the high level that they attained) and have important jobs on our government:
General and Secretary of State Colin Powell,
Secretary of State Condi Rice,
Deval Patrick Governor of Massachusetts,
Ed Brooke, Attorney General, Senator of Massachusetts,
Michael Steele, Lt. Governor of Maryland,
J.C. Watts Congressman from Oklahoma,
Thomas Clarence Supreme Court
Thurgood Marshall Supreme Court Justice,
L. Douglas Wilder governor of Virgina

19

Carolyn 1,

08/05/2008 12:35:22
Whoever believes the US has not, and will not and can not elect a black person to an important office has successfully been brainwashed by 'news organizations,' or, 'black power' activists such as Al Sharpton and the Rev Wright.
20

Paul S.,

Muricetown, NJ, USA 08/05/2008 13:16:33
As soon as I had heard all the Democratic candidates for the first time, even back when there were many, I had a hunch that it would be Obama. There was one thing he did which was the clue: he rarely used the first person singular. He was all "you" and "we" and very little "I". Clinton has been all "I, I, I". And she seems to be ready to go out the same way.

As the nomination season progressed I also came to feel that Obama would be the best chief executive. One of the great predictors of how a presidency will operate is found in an examination of their election campaign. Obama, with no old-fashioned "machine" of his own, for the most part wiped the floor with those machines of the past (Pennsylvania excepted). He also brought out the future by attracting young and youngish first-time voters in droves.

As for substance, he has demonstrated that in great detail, just not put it out there in the big rallies. In interviews and on his website, there is definitetly substance.

Do we want someone who will doggedly keep fighting until they win? Is that not the very definition of Bush with his undiagnosed OCD? Clinton and her obsession would be a Bush in Democratic clothing.

Obama, on the other hand, has refused to be baited by hypotheticals posed to him. He is a thoughtful person who wants a cabinet which will be honest and allow him to hear all sides of a question. And then, it is obvious, he will deliberate instead of jerk his knee a la Bush.

As for McCain, he has been ignored by the Democrats long enough. When his own pastor scandals come out, when his pandering and ultra-military attitudes are revealed, and his economic inabilities held up to tight scrutiny, he will have a very hard time.

Just look at the so-called "gas tax holiday" proposals of both McCain and Clinton. They pandered with disastrous and impossible proposals, while Obama told the truth and acted like a president with a long and well-considered view.

And look who won! We aren't a
21

Paul S.,

Mauricetown, NJ, USA 08/05/2008 13:17:50
(cont.)

We aren't as stupid as those truly elitist cynics — Clinton and McCain — thought.
22

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 08/05/2008 13:50:11
I was amused by a couple of posters asserting that Obama couldn't win against McCain because Obama is black. On another thread I put up a link to a poll taken a few days ago that shows Obama leading over McCain in that race by 51-40. I don't think Obama's race would hurt him. He's half white, and his african half may actually be partly arabic rather than all negro. Obama hurts himself on race with comments in his past writings that some interpret as being anti-white.

The only advantage I see in voting for Obama is that Obama differentiates himself slightly from the others when he 'says' he'll withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. As you know 2/3's of the Americans do want to give up on the Iraq adventure all-together and bring all the troops home. So, a politician who says he'll do that when others won't do it naturally gets attention. But in America we're very skeptical of politicians' promises because so many of our leaders have lied so prominently to us in presidential campaigns. And Obama also speaks in a very pro-war way when he speaks in general about the 'war on terror'. His speech to AIPAC was very pro-war as well. Obama is just like the others that he's supported the wars by voting them money, he's against the US Constitution, he's for a police state.

None of the 3 major candidates left is any good. A vote for the lesser of evils is still a clear choice for evil. That the ROTW (restoftheworld) would like us to make an anti-war choice is in itself not a good enough of a reason because it doesn't appear that Obama really is anti-war. If Obama wants to be anti-war, then he could vote to shut off funding for the wars. He's not done that.
23

Stefan,

NYC 08/05/2008 14:24:53
#18 Carolyn. I think you forgot the Governor of the great state of NY, who is both blind and black. Color means nothing to him! Sorry. It's the closest I could come to a joke.
24

Stefan,

NYC 08/05/2008 14:36:33
#26.1.... And Smoked Pot, did Coke and had affairs outside of his marriage. He's Bill Clinton without the lies, (and with better taste in women. Kind of makes you doubt Clintons faculties that a blind man gets better looking women that the sighted President of the US). In a brilliant move, he admitted everything, even though no one was asking. Kind of like showing where the bodies are buried before people start looking.
25

THE BPRENTICE,

08/05/2008 15:04:21
I reckon Obama will invite Hilary to become his vice-president...that'll be the second time she's been in that role...this time it will be official.

..ha haa I did not have sex with that woman...okay with believe you Bill...and put yer Tammy Wynette records back on Hills.

Boy, marriage seems tough for some couples...look at Mandela...locked in prison for all those years and he survives that BUT a year or so after coming out ..he couldn't handle being married to Winnie. Go figure.
26

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 08/05/2008 15:15:27
for those interested - Ron Paul with the Indiana primary of Tuesday has passed the one million vote mark. In the recent primaries of Indiana, North Carolina & Pennsylvania Paul got 8-10% in each state. McCain is only getting about 75% of the Republican vote though all the other candidates stopped campaigning. A lot of republicans turn out and vote for other republicans still.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26266

here's an interesting article in the conservative journal named Human Events. It says that conservatives don't really have anyone to vote for in this election (other than Ron Paul). and the article is correct.

America has been un-done.
27

Voice of reason,

EDINBURGH 08/05/2008 16:01:10
28 - she is too vain ever to be Vice President . Not enough money as well .
28

Sandi,

San Diego 08/05/2008 16:16:11
Mysoginism is alive and well on this board anyway.

Hillary Clinton is supported by at least half the Democratic party. She did not "stumble" in Indiana or North Carolina. Obama was expecting to win both and he was the one who called Indiana a "tiebreaker". Apparently that was only if he won. In N. Carolina, Obama was ahead by over 20 points, but won by a smaller amount. There is a large Black population there and since he called the Clintons racist before the S. Carolina primary, the Black vote goes to him by 90% or more. Why, I don't know as he refuses to visit Black neighborhoods and has done absolutely nothing,ever,to advance the Black agenda. Unlike Bill and Hillary Clinton who have spent years trying to do just that.

Hillary will not be VP. That position is fine for someone as a stepping stone. She doesn't need it and sh'll do more good staying in the Senate-IF she's not in the White House. Obama needs to be VP to gain some credibility and knowledge.

Contrary to what the MSM tells you, this is NOT over yet. Hillary will win by a huge amount in W. Virginia and kentucky. The votes and delegates from Florida and Michigan have to be included. If they are not and Obama is the nominee, there will always be a question mark beside his name. The Democratic Party cannot ignore the votes of over 2 million people.
29

Black Beard,

08/05/2008 16:30:08
My problems with Ron Paul:
1. Half his supporters are conspiracy theorist lunatics.
2. He has no chance of winning.
3. He will never ever form a consensus with the congress.
4. The a-ho1e votes no on nearly everything. As president he would veto us into a governmental standstill. The only thing he votes for is prohibitions on p-birth abortions and a very few other pet issues.

Things about him I like.
1. He wants to repeal the income tax.
2. He wants our paper currency backed by actual assets, not more paper.
3. He's a strict constitutionalist.
4. He is against foreign wars and entanglements.
30

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 08/05/2008 17:06:56
Black Beard in 32:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/05/paul_makes_best.html

Ron Paul's newly released book went to the #1 position on Amazon as soon as it was released and has now gone to the #1 position on the New York Times best-seller's list.

I think the 'problems' you list with Ron Paul reflect what I consider to be a fact that we are inundated with an atmosphere of lies. I think if Paul were president, then he would have no agreement with Congress. IMHO that would be a good thing.

Prior to 1975 a president did not have to spend the money that congress allocated in the budget they create. He could choose to spend less than what they allocated to any given item in the budget if he wanted to. After 1975 the president is required to spend the money exactly as Congress approved it. So Ron Paul would likely not be able to implement much of his agenda if elected as a result of this. But he would certainly be able to end our involvement in foreign wars.

Regarding Paul's alleged unpopularity I like to recount a story of his campaign. When he started campaigning 1 year ago he was showing up at 0% in the polls of likely republican voters. By December he was 10-15% in many polls. In one poll he was at 15% and McCain was at 17%. McCain & Guiliani both started out at 30+% in those polls and both came down while Paul went up. Guiliani of course was a total bomb, Paul beat him in every state but one and that was Florida. I contend that Paul was marginalized by media propaganda that did not allow his views expressed and repeatedly said he had no chance of winning.

the mass media in America is not really free and is propaganda.
31

Dr Egg,

Bam 08/05/2008 17:19:23
Sorry, which one's for the trams again please...?
32

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 08/05/2008 17:35:25
Sandi in 31: I give you a quote from that CBS article I linked to for you yesterday, it is an article quoting a poll that CBS did in the last few days.

"Among Democratic primary voters (those who have voted or plan to vote in a Democratic primary) Obama’s lead over Clinton has increased -- he now leads Clinton by twelve points, 50 percent to 38 percent. That’s up from his eight point lead in the poll released just a few days ago."

and I think Obama also does well among non-Demcorats compared to Hilary CLinton. A lot of people have joined the Democrat Party as a result of Obama and many independents & republicans even like Obama.

What happened in Michigan & Florida were as follows: the national democrat party wanted them to hold their primary at a different time from what the state democrat parties wanted. and out of this argument the national party told the major candidates to boycott the michigan & florida primaries. at least in Michigan all the candidates took their names off the ballott except Hilary Clinton. and so Hilary Clinton won big in that state. But the national party said prior to the vote that it would not be counted. So 2 major states have their votes taken away like this. Both of those 2 states are among the 5 or 6 biggest states. Fair votes were not held in those 2 states as a result of these games. and now the Clinton people want those votes to be counted. This trick, plus if Clinton gets the large majority of the 'super-delegates' who were not elected are the only ways for Clinton to win now. and we see Sandi, the Clinton campaign worker, tell us that this will happen while she lies about Clinton's popularity.

In America lies on a grand scale have become completely normal. I tell you that the foul-ups in Michigan & Florida were done on purpose so that in the end party leaders could be king-makers by deciding whether to count those votes.
33

Black Beard,

08/05/2008 17:40:34
Trams is Ralph Nader.


Wally, I did not say he was unpopular. I said he wouldn't win. Of course I may be wrong.

His voting history is not a lie it's a factual record. He votes No on nearly everything. Could everything be wrong in his eyes?

Exactly what is he still running for? It's very hard to support a guy who wants to be nominated for a post that has already been filled.

If Ron Paul runs Independent I'll vote for him.

This isn't because he's a wise and competent leader. It's because he's not Hillary, Obama, or McCain.
34

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 08/05/2008 18:09:06
Black Beard in 36: When I said that lies have become ubiquitous I was not intending to say specifically that something you said was a lie. You're correct that Ron Paul stands no real chance of being elected. and you're correct that he likes to vote 'no' on almost all legislation.

Paul's not actively campaigning, but won't take his name off of the ballots.

I don't blame you for your rationale in voting - that Hilary, Obama & McCain are not good to vote for.

Paul doesn't want to run as an independent. If he were to do that it would be expensive & difficult to get on the ballots in many states. Remember in 2004 there were at least 3 'third party' candidates and they were each on the ballot in 35-45 states only. But Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party has views that are pretty similar to Paul's.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080502.html

35

Sandi,

San Diego 08/05/2008 19:11:11
Wally,

I'm sorry to say that you clearly do not understand what happened in either Florida or Michigan.

In Florida, where the State legislature has an almost 2-1 Republican majority, the change of date for eth Primary was tacked on to a election bill which included several very important issues to Democrats, including a paper trail from touch-screen terminals. Because of that , the Demcrats voted for it, believeing that teh penalty from the DNC would be losing half thier delegates. That is what the DNC rules say. However, the DNC and Dona Brazile decided to take away all the delegates. As the Democrats in Florida had no control over the date, and it couldn't be changed without another vote of the legislature-and the Republicans refused to do that-the Dems in Florida were stuck. many people believe that his entitles the Florida vote to stand as it is. Obama was the only Democrat to campaign in Florida, where he ran television ads. The argument that becuse "nobody"campaigned in the State the results are unfair is silly. There had been 17 nationally televised debates prior to the Florida primary.

In Michigan, the situation was different, however nobody require Obama to take his name off the ballot. it was his idea alone and he talked John Edwards into doing it too. Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel all left their names on the ballot.

Here is an extremely interesting article about the usurping of the Democratic Party this year:

http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/05/new-american-disenfranchisement.html

Hillary Clinton polls better than Obama against McCain. That is what superdelegates should be watching.
36

Sandi,

San Diego 08/05/2008 19:12:57
I'm sorry about all the typos. I have a really bad headache today.
37

Sandi,

San Diego 08/05/2008 19:15:20
Wally,

One more detail, the DNC did not tell the candidates to "boycott" Florida and Michigan. They asked them not to campaign personally in either State. Nobody did except Obama. All of them had in-state campaigns.
38

okanaganguy,

kelowna, b.c. canada 08/05/2008 19:53:12
I have been watching the Democratic race with great interest and am somewhat confused. Perhaps some of my U.S. friends could help me. Sen. Obama is running on a "time for change" platform. However, I am still waiting to hear what He plans to change. He does not seem to address the issues and what His solutions are. Hillary, whether you believe her or not, does seem to offer up solutions. I think it is about time Sen. Obama started to tell the American people what He is going to change and how He plans to implement the changes, regards
39

mike - across the pond,

wally.... 08/05/2008 20:23:50
you keep quoting the CBS/NYTimes numbers...

know ye anything of "statistics" and "outliers"

regardless of the fact that I assert that they are "in the pocket" of BO...

their NUMBERS are significantly different from all the other polls... making them an "outlier"... most of the other polls being inside the "margin of error"..

here is your "litmus test" for CBS/NYTimes (no I have not looked it up)... how do THEIR numbers compare to actual poll numbers... I'm betting they are 7-15% off of the real numbers... which does not bode well for their credibility OR BO's chances in November...

when you compare polling vs the voting results, ALL the polls are overstating the actual poll results by 7-9%... and this REALLY spells trouble for BO when you knock 7% off of the results, CBS is the only poll even left in the "margin of error"
40

jj veritas,

08/05/2008 20:28:29
Clinton lends her campaign £6 million. Presumably the punters will have to pay her back plus interest.
41

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 08/05/2008 20:31:40
thank-you Sandi for that very nice article you linked to in #38. You are correct that I surely don't know much about the Florida & Michigan situations for the democrats. But it does seem very odd to me that the national party would want to dictate the dates of their primaries, and much more odd that the national party would say it won't count their votes.
42

Djookers™,

Edinburgh F H 08/05/2008 20:35:12
5 Wally

Nutter
43

John Blackley,

Florida 08/05/2008 20:51:16
#40 Sandi, I'm afraid you've made a mistake when you say, "They asked them not to campaign personally in either State. Nobody did except Obama."

Mrs. Clinton was the only Deomcratic presidential candidate to campaign personally in Florida. Mr. Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan and therefore had no reason to campaign personally there.

For the Florida Clinton campaign please see:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-29-Democrats_N.htm
44

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 08/05/2008 20:53:40
Sandi, here is another article that says Obama has demonstrated a better propensity to get votes than Clinton.

http://www.euro2day.gr/ftcom_en/126/articles/320902/ArticleFTen.aspx

This one is from Financial Times. I don't have any preference between Obama & Clinton. I considered voting for Obama in November and I explained in #5 why I won't do it. In November I am not going to vote for what I think is the lesser of 2 evils. I've done that before. That is how Bush got elected.
45

Sandi,

San Diego 08/05/2008 21:12:40
#44 Wally,

Wuite a few millions of us agree that it's odd that the national party won't count those votes.

Here's an article I just saw from the Washington Post relating to Michigan:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/349a27

#46, John Blackley,Florida

No, I didn't make a mistake. Senator Clinton travelled to Florida to appear at a celebration after the polls closed on primary day. That was allowed as it was after the election.

46

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 08/05/2008 21:19:07
and here's an article from the Washington Post today.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/08/obamamania_hits_the_house_floo.html

Note how Obama's Republican colleagues wish him well. Thats not the way it is for John McCain. McCain's republican colleagues generally don't like him. Because of McCain's temper & foul mouth behind closed doors.

If Obama can win the nomination, then I don't think he could be stopped in November. He's much more popular than the other 2 I'm convinced. Will Democrat party leaders take the nomination from him by counting the Michigan & Florida delegates who were not elected in a fair election, and will the super-delegates back Obama very disproportionately? These are the only things that can stop Obama IMHO.

and if he's elected, then we'll be electing a candidate who votes for the ethanol subsidies though those will end up killing tens of millions of people. That is why I like to quote a verse from Psalm 137 and by coincidence Reverend Wright likes to quote from the same chapter I learned by watching his sermons on YouTube.

"Psalm 137:4 How shall we sing the LORD'S song in a strange land?"

how can we be happy when our vaunted election ends with such a result? and though we will vote for Obama the one that is the most anti-war and who speaks of hope and change, we will still have more wars and our government's policies will starve the poor. and the world will blame us. Yet it was not our intention that the government do these things.
47

Stu_R_20,

Sunny Edinburgh 08/05/2008 21:19:51
#31 Sandi,
It sounds to me as if your one of the many 'support Clinton because she is a fellow women' voter, if that's the case it's very sad.

Clinton will ultimately lose to Obama, however, the election will be a close one....
48

John Blackley,

Florida 08/05/2008 21:35:00
#48 Sandi, I take your point and I stand corrected. Now, would you please explain the "except Obama" part?
49

Sandi,

San Diego 08/05/2008 22:12:47
#50 Stu_R_20,Sunny Edinburgh

LOL! There are many, many reasons to support Hillary Clinton. She is brilliant, wrm, has a great sens of humor, and she knows policy inside and out. She can explain in minute detail, with no prompting or preparation, why she believes policy "a" is better than policy "b", or why she beleives one idea will work better than another.

Much of the dislike of Hillary Clinton goes back to the Repoublican lies and innuendo of the 90s. The Obama campaign has picked a lot of that up and has used it constantly since last summer. Almost anyone who actually sees her in person, or meets her, will tell you how warm and friendly she is. Quite the opposite of the personality that is promoted by her opponents. Her fellow Senators think very highly of her. Since her election to the Senate, she has worked diligently with Senators from both parties, incuding the Sentaors who led the impeachment hearings against her husband. Quite recently, in Pennsylvania, she was interviewed by the editorial board of one of the Pittsburgh papers, the one owned by Richar Mellon Scaife. You may not be aware, but he provided the money behind the "Arkansas Project" which was set up in 1990 to create misinformation about Bill Clinton prior to his election as president in 1992. Hillary was very surprised to see Scaife in the room with the editorial board. He left teh meeting with a completely different opinion of her. He strongly admired her courage and her intimate knowledge of policy. His paper ended up endorsing her. That is how politicians reach out across the aisle. Hillary has much successful experience in this area. Obama has none.

As for I support her because she's a woman. Well, if both candidates were absolutely equal, that would be true. 54% of the population of this country is female. About 12-13% is Black. I'd rather see a woman president at this time and I believe that Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president.
50

Sandi,

San Diego 08/05/2008 22:16:49
#51, John Blackley, Florida

Obama ran television commercials which overlapped into a large part of Florida. Their excuse was that it was a national "buy" and it couldn't be controlled. However, none of the others had that "problem". Intended or not, it was campaigning in Florida.

Also, I think that Obama appeared at at least one fundraiser in Florida. That was apparently OK as it was a fundraiser not just campaigning.
51

Sandi,

San Diego 08/05/2008 22:18:00
I can spell quite well, really I can. LOL!
52

Linda Mae,

Suffield, CT 08/05/2008 23:02:51
Hillary is NOT clinging by her fingernails. Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot but every other candidate left their names. Those who voted the empty - remind you of someone? - slot, knew they were voting for Obama. The latest Gallop poll states that 60 % of those questioned believe Hillary should stay until the convention. Nothing is being said about either candidate that won't be used by McCain anyway. Of the last 3 primaries, Hillary won 2 and Obama won 1. Yet the American press - who love Obama - announce it that Hillary won one, Obama won one and came in a close second in the other. Neither will earn the correct number of primary delegates. The "super" delegates will have to decide. This has historically been their task. If Florida and Michigan are counted, then Hillary is ahead. It is too close to count. Is it racism not to vote for a black candidate because of the color of his skin? Is it racism to vote for a black candidate because of the color of his skin. I've read the transcripts of Obama's appearances on Ted Russert, for example, and am amazed how poorly he expresses himself. He says nothing. Read the transcripts to see. It is not as apparent hearing him. He can act out a speech very well. He has Ted Sorenson - JFK's speech writer - write out the words for him. "Ask not what your country can do for you..." Ted's work spoken by JFK. Obama has no experience. There is no hurry as far as I'm concerned. Every day gives me more info to use in selecting where my vote goes.
53

indune1,

Canada 08/05/2008 23:25:28

Rather curious that commentary on a story in a Scottish newspaper is drawing the attention of and debate between so many Americans.

Linda Mae - I think anyone in Hillary's camp hoping that Florida and Michigan will be counted is dreaming in technicolour.

Also the Dem's stupid policy of apportioning delegates rather than a winner-takes-all (like the Repubs) approach has landed Hillary where she is.

Another sign of desperate times is the news that Hillary has, for the second time, been forced to bail her campaign out with her own money. As a veteran of five national elections here in Canada, I would say such an action is evidence of a failing campaign: failure to attract and sustain not only support but financial support as well.

When I watch Hillary and review her track record on votes, policies etc; I sense consistent opportunism and, to a degree, a certain amount of hypocrisy.

NAFTA? If her influence was so strong and experience so great in the highest decision-making circles; why did Bubba embrace it so enthusiastically, despite her deep opposition to the agreement??

She was a disaster on Healthcare reform (appointed to this responsibility rather than elected).

Obama - speaks well but the veneer is so thin.

I firmly believe that if Hillary believes in the Dem party, deeply cares about its future and would never make it vulnerable to the Repub attacks, then she should withdraw - now.

However, the Clinton ego must be fed. Any seasoned political operative would see this and if in a position of influence, offer advice to his/her candidate to take the logical, sensible and, above all, the honourable course of action.

Watching Hillary the last few days has been akin to watching a snake slowly swallow a frog - displeasing but fascinating.



54

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 09/05/2008 00:10:23
here's an article about Michelle Obama's racist paper she wrote in college.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/michelle_obama_racism132.html

none of them are any good you know. Barry Goldwater was right when he said that you can tell the honest men in politics because they have the arrows coming out of their backs.
55

Sandi,

San Diego 09/05/2008 02:05:09
#56,

If Obama is the Democratic nominee, he will be attacked unmercifully by the Republicans because of his own actions. It will have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.


56

Pictavia's child,

Virginia 09/05/2008 02:20:57
There is an old saying in Americal politics. You can always tell when a Democrat is lying.....their lips are moving.
57

indune1,

Canada 09/05/2008 02:24:04
#56 - Sandi - aside from stating the obvious, what is your point wrt my posting?
58

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 09/05/2008 04:23:21
I'll prove the point Sandi made in 58 to be correct, that Obama will be attacked unmercifully if he's the nominee. Read this article by Chris Floyd.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1503/135/

Barack Obama supports that war. All the Republicans have to do is point out that simple fact about him. It makes no difference that John McCain (& Hilary Clinton) all support that war also. When you climb down into the mud-pit with the Republicans and sleaze around with them, then they're going to punish you for it. Nobody's better at sleaze than the Republicans. Since Obama is a neo-con on foreign policy he's vulnerable. If he had the integrity to actually oppose the republicans on policy, then he would be able to defeat them. But he doesn't have enough integrity to do that.

Also, consider all the new tax & spend bills that Obama supports. Here's a link on that.

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=80015

Obama's not willing to differentiate himself significantly from the Republicans where the Republicans are weak. and yet he goes for all this tax & spend. and here's a link to the church Obama went to for 20 years.

http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

note how it says specifically that this is a church for black people. They're going to roast Obama. Because no white politician can go to a church that is specifically for white people, and so people won't let Obama get away with it either.
59

Dáithí,

San Jose 09/05/2008 04:47:48
#61 - Wally

>"They're going to roast Obama. Because no white politician can go to a church that is specifically for white people, and so people won't let Obama get away with it either."

Wally, I'll start out here being decent and agreeing that I wish that any organization that was based on race, color or creed could not survive in the 21st Century.

As a moderate, I dislike the bigotry that I see on each end of the political spectrum, but I don't think that you'll see any condemnation of all-Black churches any more than you'll see an end to the NAACP.
60

Mashimaro,

China 09/05/2008 16:30:07
This Punch and Judy show is a farce
61

American,

09/05/2008 20:24:50
#15-dbxsteve-If you believe and think that global warming is all man-made and the biggest threat our world then maybe you should save a little energy and shut down your computer. BTW-The democratic majority ruling party have much more power than the president. And, Mccain is far from being a conservative, he's even far from being a republican.
62

American,

09/05/2008 20:27:56
#56-indune1-You're right about obama. He does speak well, which is really what got him so far. I think people thought hitler spoke well too.
63

American,

09/05/2008 20:29:53
#56-indune- I think all three candidates are a disaster. I cant believe mccain is the best that the republican party could have picked.
64

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 10/05/2008 23:45:18
American in 66:

Ron Paul was the best candidate that the Republicans could've picked.

http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi
65

57Nomad,

california 24/05/2008 08:47:11
#41 O

Nicely done. The question of "change" is the emperors new clothes of 2008. What's odd is that it is the same message that Bill Clinton used in 1992. Then, as now, no one in the media is asking the question that is screaming to be asked, "change what into what?"

Can a campaign based on such a nebulous premise prevail? We will see. In the end, the major questions will most likely determine the outcome. Those are the questions of national security and the economy. The Democrats this year are a one trick pony with Obama's candidacy.

The war in Iraq, which was spotty for the past several years was the single issue upon which the radical left wing of the Democrat party hung their hopes. They were, and still are, trying to recreate the '60's. They have failed in that regard. Todays youth are a long way from the radical bomb throwers of forty years ago. Plus, as it becomes more obvious every day, we have won the war in Iraq.

The radicals on the left are widely seen to have been enablers of the jihadis that were causing the trouble in Iraq. Once again, an attempt to bring back vietnam. They were striving to give the jihadis a victory on the streets of America what they could never win on the battlefield. What they didn't take into account was a simple error is assessing the lay of the land. The major difference in Vietnam and Iraq? No jungle. No place to run, no place to hide. The US military has carved them up and strewn the pieces across the Iraqi desert and everyone in the region knows it because it happened right in front of their eyes. Everyone in the region has seen the jihadis to be very brave when confronting helpless women and children, but when the time comes to square off against the Marines, they run and everyone there has seen them run. Both the Sunni and the Shi'a are united in driving out the jihadis and that job is nearly complete.

The war is over, we won, and no amount of defeatist caterwauling is going to change this obvious fact.
66

57Nomad,

california 24/05/2008 08:48:33
#68 contd

When there are two minutes to go in the forth quarter and your side is up by five touchdowns it's difficult to sell the idea that that's the perfect time to walk off the field and forfeit the game. This is what the Soros/Moveon.org/Obama axis is trying to sell. It won't work.

Obama will be nominated and he will be trounced in the general election by a substantial if not historic margin. Change? What change? The change he has the biggest chance to bring about is the deat of the Democrat party as we know it today.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In