One week to Pennsylvania Primary

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

but Hillary beat him by 290,000 in Florida and 320,000 in Michigan that he doesn't want to count. Yes, the votes don't count for delegate purposes, but the individuals did vote.

I had a dream last night I paid $1mm cash for a new house, does that mean I get to move in tomorrow?

The votes in Mich and Fla are irrelevant.  If Ms. Clinton had not incorrectly viewed this as a coronation tour (this morning she was quoted from Harrisburg as saying she was undergoing the 'worlds longest job interview') she might be actually leading in popular and delegate votes.

Even if she were to lose today and in NC, I don't see her backing down prior to Denver.  Anyone who thinks she will has not been listening very carefully to what it is she's trying to do.  She keeps saying she's more electable than Obama and she feels she's got another four months to prove it.

Familiarity breeds contempt.  

So far we know that Obama flubs difficult questions.  That he has not returned one punch.  That he plays old politics and calls it something new and different.  That slowly disturbing facts are drifting out about his background.  

He has only really been in the public eye since December and the more we get to know him, the less he looks like someone who can win the presidency.

On the other hand, with much more practice and the paying of more dues he would be a stellar candidate.  Let's give him a chance to learn on the job in the vice-presidency.

Does anyone else out there feel like their party has been hijacked by MoveOn?  I mean have the inventors of General Betrayus ever won anything?  No.  And do they really think they are going to get the Republicans to hold off on the difficult questions this fall?  MoveOn, I was there at your beginning but this isn't San Francisco, this is the heartland and you don't get it.

Moveon is to the DNC what the far Christian Right has been to the GOP.  The majority of Americans are moving to the center, for certain the GOP has, if you look at their candidate for '08 and who they passed up.

I think the bullying of Obama is working against Hillary.  I believe to a number of voters, it represents the old guard picking on a relative new-comer.  

I also think there's more and more awareness of four more years of the last 20 years if Hillary is elected.  That's good in some ways, bad in others.  I think Hillary knows the situation in the Middle East pretty well but has countered the admins policies when it's been expedient.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

You all keep talking about how Michigan and Florida shouldn't count.

lol. Desperate times eh?

1. Hillary soundly defeated "undecided" in Michigan.  

2.

quote:The delegate allocations from those elections were stopped by Obama supporters

and that pesky agreement Hillary made with the DNC.

3.

quote:To not would be undemocratic and unamerican.

Proof that Hillary supporters are taking cards straight from the Republican deck!  Either that or Hermon Goering ("The people can quickly be made to do the bidding of the leader, just tell they are under attack.  And decry anyone who still stands for their lack of patriotism").

You're a Nazi!  I knew it.  [}:)]

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Proof that Hillary supporters are taking cards straight from the Republican deck!  

I take my cards from no one. I wouldn't even play poker with a republican unless I was dealing (that is untrue, I play poker with lots of republicans. They are so gullible enough to bluff and spend all their time counting their money instead of watching the cards).  

Hillary wins by more than 200,000 in Pennsylvania...I will bet a Topeca coffee or chocolate to anyone who wants in.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

For goodness sakes, RM, if you want to violate the rules and count the unconstitutional election in Michigan, at least only count the amount by which she won-

Unconstitutional?  This is a party nomination process.  The party makes the rules, there is nothing in the constitution that controls this process.  If they wanted to settle this with a game of pin the tail on the donkey, that is totally the right of the Democrat party.  Disagreeable, yes.  Unconstitutional?  No.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar
When you encounter a superior vessel sometimes it is better to fire only your smallest guns and keep the gunwales closed on your big canons until the ship comes about to demand your surrender.  Once she is broadside you fire your big guns without opening the shutters, sending a hail of splinters and cannon balls through her hull at point blank, taking her by surprise and sending her to the ocean floor without reprise.

I prefer sports analogies, but if you want to use battle examples...

Think of this as the battle of Gettysburg. It happened almost 145 years ago in the state of Pennsylvania. The Confederate army had a string of wins, especially throughout the south, but were stopped here. In my scenario, Hillary is the Union.

The Confederate army (Obama) had more men and proven generals who had seceeded from the Union seeking change. In the battle, the Union troops stopped the assault when the charge by the Confederates was met by flanking artillery fire.

The Union troops won that battle in Pennsylvania and many consider it to be the turning point of the Civil War.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar
When you encounter a superior vessel sometimes it is better to fire only your smallest guns and keep the gunwales closed on your big canons until the ship comes about to demand your surrender.  Once she is broadside you fire your big guns without opening the shutters, sending a hail of splinters and cannon balls through her hull at point blank, taking her by surprise and sending her to the ocean floor without reprise.

I prefer sports analogies, but if you want to use battle examples...

Think of this as the battle of Gettysburg. It happened almost 145 years ago in the state of Pennsylvania. The Confederate army had a string of wins, especially throughout the south, but were stopped here. In my scenario, Hillary is the Union.

The Confederate army (Obama) had more men and proven generals who had seceeded from the Union seeking change. In the battle, the Union troops stopped the assault when the charge by the Confederates was met by flanking artillery fire.

The Union troops won that battle in Pennsylvania and many consider it to be the turning point of the Civil War.

I'm curious RM. Are you a Journeyman Baiter? Or have you graduated to Master Baiter status?[]

[Conan71]

Latest pre-vote polls have Hillarity by 9%, still no exit polling data I can find.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/pa.primary/index.html

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Latest pre-vote polls have Hillarity by 9%, still no exit polling data I can find.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/pa.primary/index.html

Don't matter.....on to McPlain.

[cannon_fodder]

Rm, your Gettysburg analogy neglects that fact that the Union had all the advantages.  More money, more bodies, better organization, and a larger level of support both domestic and international.  And true to form, they managed to beat down the South in spite of superior battle experience.

Seems to me Obama is in the position of the Union.  If he wins the war will turn and the end is in site.  And if I'm not mistaken, a man from Illinois gave the victory speech following that battle.  

Clinton is in the position of army of Virginia.  Having early on announced her invulnerability and the certainty of her victory.  Though, her Super Tuesday defeat seems to be her Gettysburg, a loss after which the struggle continued but the issue was never really in doubt.

Yeah, I'm afraid I'd have to cast the Senator from Illinois as the Union... and the women from Arkansas as the Confederacy. [:X]

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

For goodness sakes, RM, if you want to violate the rules and count the unconstitutional election in Michigan, at least only count the amount by which she won-

Unconstitutional?  This is a party nomination process.  The party makes the rules, there is nothing in the constitution that controls this process.  If they wanted to settle this with a game of pin the tail on the donkey, that is totally the right of the Democrat party.  Disagreeable, yes.  Unconstitutional?  No.

The Michigan election was determined to be unconstitutional on other grounds.  http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/03/26/michigan/index.html?source=rss.  It just adds to the invalidity of any results.

[Conan71]

Salon.com where even hack pieces like this are filed as "News" not "Opinion"

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/04/22/horton/index.html

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown


Familiarity breeds contempt.

True dat.  Once I and other Illinois voters got to know Illinois Senator Carol Moseley-Braun better, we had alot of contempt for her...
http://www.slate.com/id/2078924/

I and other Illinois voters are familiar with Barack Obama and I assume New York voters are familiar with Hillary Clinton...

Super Tuesday results...
Illinois
Obama   1,301,954  65% -- 104 delegates
Clinton   662,845  33% --  49 delegates

New York
Clinton 1,003,623  57% -- 139 delegates
Obama     697,914  40% --  93 delegates

quote:Originally posted by Hometown


So far we know that Obama flubs difficult questions.  That he has not returned one punch.

REALLY?

"Whatchoo talkin' bout, Obama?"


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/15551/original.jpg
"at 11:00 on a Tuesday, a prominent politician spoke to Americans about race, as though they were adults."

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

That he plays old politics and calls it something new and different.  That slowly disturbing facts are drifting out about his background.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9601.html

quote:"She says I'm out of touch?"

The response was signature Obama: Attack first, sort out the details later, if at all. No apology, no immediate regret, just a sharp counterattack. For a candidate sometimes mocked for being too soft to win a political fistfight, he has shown an uncanny ability to take a punch and then rear back and deliver one in return.

When Obama responds this way, it leaves him open to charges that he's undermining his so-called politics of hope. But, showing remarkable dexterity, he has a knack for using these flare-ups to pivot back to the central theme of his candidacy: that politics is broken, and he knows how to change it.

Obama, it turns out, has been a devout observer of a philosophy future President Bill Clinton laid out in 1981.

"When someone is beating you over the head with a hammer, don't sit there and take it," then-Gov. Clinton told Time magazine. "Take out a meat cleaver and cut off their hand."

Barack Obama ---- "For we have a choice in this country, we can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle — as we did in the O.J. trial — or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina, or as fodder for the nightly news ... We can do that.  But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction ... And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, 'Not this time.'"

You know, it's not Obama who's out of touch.  We live in a state where we will not have a vote.  This state's idea of democratic politics is when a candidate for governor trots out his kids and makes them parrot his position on using a state lottery for education...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AGDqVoHdJw



Pretty pathetic if you ask me.  And if Barack Obama somehow through some twist of fate were to win 48 states, I believe Oklahoma and Wyoming would be the lone holdouts...  IMHO, Oklahoma is the polar opposite of Massachusetts when it comes to politics... both states are hopelessly "out of touch" with what's going on in the rest of the country and the "heartland"...

[FOTD]

"Don't blame me, I voted for McGovern" was our moto when I lived in Boston. We were the lone wolf back then.....

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Rm, your Gettysburg analogy neglects that fact that the Union had all the advantages.  More money, more bodies, better organization, and a larger level of support both domestic and international.  And true to form, they managed to beat down the South in spite of superior battle experience.

Seems to me Obama is in the position of the Union.  If he wins the war will turn and the end is in site.  And if I'm not mistaken, a man from Illinois gave the victory speech following that battle.  

Clinton is in the position of army of Virginia.  Having early on announced her invulnerability and the certainty of her victory.  Though, her Super Tuesday defeat seems to be her Gettysburg, a loss after which the struggle continued but the issue was never really in doubt.

Yeah, I'm afraid I'd have to cast the Senator from Illinois as the Union... and the women from Arkansas as the Confederacy. [:X]

I like war analogies, they mirror politics!  But from what I know of the Battle of Gettysburg, I would view Hill more as General Lee.  In fact, just for fun, I took Tucker et.al.'s version of the battle analysis and replaced references to the "players of old" and inserted today's cast.


Throughout the campaign, General Hillary seemed to have entertained the belief that she was invincible; most of Hillary's experiences with the party had convinced her of this, including a great victory in the senate.  Although high morale plays an important role in victory when other factors are equal, Hillary could not refuse her campaign's desire to fight.

To the detrimental effects of their collective blind faith was added the fact that the campaign of Obama had many new and inexperienced commanders, and it had recently lost Ohio, one of its most important primaries.

Hillary's method of giving generalized orders and leaving it up to her lieutenants to work out the details contributed to her downfall. Although this method may have worked with Bill, it proved inadequate when dealing with corps commanders unused to Hillary's style of "command & cackle."  Hillary faced dramatic differences in going from defender to invader—long supply lines, a hostile local population, and an imperative to force the enemy from its position. Lastly, after the primary, the Democrats were simply not able to coordinate their attacks. Hillary faced a new and very dangerous opponent in John McCain, and the campaign of the Republicans stood to the task and fought well on its home territory.

[cannon_fodder]

But Gas, Lee fought with his entire heart for what he believed in (his home, Virginia).  He was a great tactician and leader by all accounts a true gentlemen.  After the war he was the leading voice for reconciliation.

Hillary is clearly not a great tactician as she had no plan for failure on Super Tuesday.  She fights for Hillary, pandering to whatever interest seems to suit the moment  - not for any cause.  I have never heard her accused of having strong leadership credentials and I doubt she will be a lead voice in the party she has sworn to tear apart if need be to get her power.

I original wrote Lee instead of "Confederacy,"  but I have a lot of respect for Lee.