http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-cle ... 85516.html

If thats true...Clinton very well may be in trouble.



Heres the schedule:

2/9: Louisiana - 68 Delegates
2/9: Nebraska - 31 Delegates
2/9: Washington - 97 Delegates
2/9: Virgin Islands - 9 Delegates
2/10: Maine - 34 Delegates
2/12: D.C. - 37 Delegates
2/12: Maryland - 99
2/12: Virginia - 103 Delegates
2/19: Hawaii - 29 Delegates
2/19: Wisconsin - 92 Delegates

3/4: Ohio - 162 Delegates
3/4: Rhode Island - 32 Delegates
3/4: Texas - 228 Delegates
3/4: Vermont - 23 Delegates
3/8: Wyoming - 18 Delegates
3/11: Mississippi - 36 Delegates

The only ones remaining in Febuary Clinton will likely win are Nebraska and Maine. Obama Louisiana, Washington, D.C. Maryland, and Virginia all have high African Americans or Barrack ahead in poll and he grew up in Hawaii and Wisconsin has very, very little Latino and Asian folk though it also has little African American folks. However, in December Hillary lead Barack in polls 39-26. One would think the gap has closed considerably since then.

And that leads to another problem for Hillary. With Barrack the clear delegate, vote, and state leader heading into March 4th, do the people in Ohio change their minds? Same for Texas.

Either way it would take massive, landslide victories in both for Hillary to take the delegate lead which would be extremely unlikely given momentum.

Obama doesn't really need Gore. I don't think he needs any other endorsement at this point.


But yeah, Gore supporting Obama would be something.

a bitch slap to Hill & Bill.

don't think they'll have a reunion anytime soon

Nope, don't reckon so.

Gore still hates Clinton for lying to his face about the Lewinsky scandal, where he told Gore that it wasn't true. Gore then assured everyone it wasn't true, and when Clinton later admitted it, Gore rightly felt betrayed. He didn't ask for Clinton's help in the 2000 election because of it, and he might have even lost the election because of it. Clinton's help in a few places could have gained one or two more states and Gore would be President now.

Damn those principles getting in the way of gaining power! That's something the Clintons don't understand at all, of course.

Gore to endorse Obama?

I've been thinking that this was becoming more probable and more likely as time has gone on. I think Edwards will eventually do this as well. I think it will be a good boost and more unifying of the dem party for this to happen.

Needs them, yeah, I don't know. Probably not. But it certainly does help.

It's hard to say whether these endorsements hold substantial, or even minimal, weight (as Ted Kennedy's proved), but I agree that any high-profile Democratic endorsement will certainly give the appearance that the establishment has cemented itself behind Obama. Though I could see Richardson going for Hillary, a Gore/Edwards/Richardson trifecta... that'd be big for him.

I'm also curious to see what Biden and Dodd might do. They have more of a history with Hillary, if I'm not mistaken.

You have to do what needs to be done to win an election. The Clintons understand that. Too many Democrats don't and the public identifies them as losers. Clinton is the only Dem. President in the last quarter of a century and is the only Democrat to win by more than one percent in the last 44 years. Actually, if you disregard 1964 and Johnson's landside due to the sympathy of Kennedy's assissination, Clinton is the only Dem. to win by more than 1% in 60 years.

Gore did numerous stupid things to sabatoge himself. He could have had Clinton work Arkansas and Tennesee the last two weeks. He could have picked Edwards, Graham, just about anyone would have been a better pick than Lieberman for the VP. Then he had a horrible legal team (Boies was not a good choice) for the Florida recount and got his ass handed to him time after time in the public relations war. He should have fought harder, Bush didn't deserve any benefit of the doubt.

All the Republican politicians do things as bad or worse than the Clinton's, but they never get called on it. Rudy G has been married 3 times and left his wife for his mistress in his first two marriages. John McCain screwed around with numerous women when he got back from Hanoi and married Cindy, because her father was a powerful Anheiser-Busch Distributer. Yet, all I ever read about on these forums and in the media is how ruthless, ambitious, and immoral the Clintons are. I am tired of it, especially from Democrats who should know better, but unfortunately Democrats are showing themselves to be just as ignorant as Republicans.

Does anyone ever wonder why the media and the Republicans try to demonize the Clintons so much? It is because they are the most powerful Democrats in the land, the only ones that have been in the WH and can get there again.

Please understand that I am a democrat who voted for Clinton twice and will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.

That doesn't mean I agree with everything they do 100%. I am mad at Bill for lying to me and the rest of the country over Lewinsky, I am mad at him for race baiting Obama, and I am tired of both of them being phony and doing whatever it takes to get elected. I would like my politicians to be better than that. Winning isn't everything.

Gore ran a terrible campaign, I agree, but my point was that had he used the Clinton "Winning is everything" philosophy and lowered his standards like they have done throughout their career, he would be President now.

Every poll ever done showed McCain stronger against Clinton than against Obama. Keep dreaming.

I don't see how Clinton could win Nebraska. If anything, it'll be another 70-30 Obama landslide like Kansas.

Obama would tool on him. Any time the wa ron Iraq would be brought up, if it was Oaba vs. McCain, McCain would get booed and Obama would make him look like an idiot. McCain has said he has no clue what to do about the economy, so wheres the match?

So does Karl Rove. And I think Obama's success is due in no small part to people who are tired of that mentality.



"THEY" are not running for president. SHE is. You are doing what her other supporters are doing and using HIS presidency as an argument for HER qualifications. I heard another pundit saying the same thing - we want to go back to the Clinton years of the 90's of peace and prosperity.

This strategy rides her husband's coattails instead of letting her accomplishments speak for themselves. She has to lead, not "them" and not him.

Just as polls showed a tightening race in South Carolina, the latest one showing a 3% difference, and he beat her more than 2-to-1. Selective amnesia is a funny beast.

I'd take Oprah's golden spoon over corporate PACs' golden dildos. Remember that big fundraising gala Clinton held with defense-industry luminaries post 9/11 in 2007? I'm sure you don't.

And the idea that Oprah is somehow financing Obama's campaign is a rather transparent lie. It's the meme of the right and now, apparently, of some of Hillary's more rabid supporters. But lying like that is nothing for them. "Anything it takes to win." That's their motto.

Obama doesn't have $5 million to donate to his own campaign, and Oprah is limited by law as to how much she can contribute just like everyone else.

We told you this before, but apparently facts are meaningless to you.

1. That was my basic understanding of your message, although it seems a bit confusing at times, which is understandable when emotions are involved. Politics at its core is appealing to emotions, no matter how cerebral we want to pretend the decision making process is.

2. Who agrees with anything or anyone 100%? I think I agreed with Dean about 70%, thought he was full of shit about 10% and just plain wrong about 20%. However, I supported him, because I thought he was the closest thing to the best candidate for my needs and the countries.

I think most Democrats are mad with Bill about his behavior on some level if they are honest (in the Lewinsky matter). What exactly was he supposed to do though? I remember when I found out that it was definitely true. I had assumed it was true on some level, but I didn't want it to be and his "denial" gave me false comfort. When the news broke he was going to admit to the affair, I was devastated. I thought he should have resigned and let Gore finish his term.

However, if he had resigned that would have meant the Republicans had succeeded in toppling a democratically elected popular president on trivial grounds. The Supreme Court did the American public a grave disservice with its Paula Jones ruling that a sitting President can be sued in a civil lawsuit. It opens up the President to fishing expeditions by the party out of power. I would not be surprised to see the Republicans use this tactic again to tarnish a Democratic President if Clinton or Obama win. The Republicans have no problem impeaching a Democratic President that lied about relations of a sexual nature, while the Democrats can't be bothered to impeach a Republican President that lied about national security issues to screw over this country and Iraq.

Can you elaborate on the race baiting? I think it is possible, this has been hyped by Obama's campaign as a way of garnering sympathy for Obama. David Axelrod was all over Clinton's "racist" Jackson remarks. Here is the transcript. Perhaps not the best political spin, but I don't find it racist at all.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... hback.html

It is "dirty" politics. It makes me more supportive of Obama if he is willing to fight this hard for the nomination. It would mean he understands framing and is willing to do the more unsavory things, that sometimes are necessary to win. The more likely scenerio (until I have concrete proof) is the media is pushing this angle to make the race more competitive and weaken the Democratic Party in the minds of voters.

On the phoniness issue, that seems like framing. I can't think of a politician in my lifetime that wasn't phony, Republican or Democrat. If they really cared about the common man or woman, they wouldn't pass the laws that benefit the rich and the status quo. We would have a health care system that worked for all, not just the ones lucky enough to have a job, or not have pre-existing conditions. We would fund things that were necessary and not the lobby that cut the biggest check.

3. I don't mean to harp on Gore. He ran a campaign in which Bill saddled him with some handicaps to overcome. He didn't want to appear too close to him, because many "values" swing voters were upset with Clinton's actions. I wish Gore had been ruthless enough to win, and he unfortunately wasn't. I don't think being ruthless is a negative. Roosevelt and Truman were ruthless and they got things done. You can't get things done being Mr. Nice Guy. Maybe you can if you are Gandhi, you have overwhelming numbers and the patience of a saint. There aren't that many Gandhi's, unfortunately. Obama doesn't strike me as the next Gandhi, maybe I am wrong.

Gore tried to have it both ways himself (all politicians do), and I think he got stuck trying not to offend too many voters that were never going to vote for him, while not giving voters attracted to him enough of a reason to vote for him. He obviously had the entire mainstream media against him, but go read the Daily Howler for that history.

His success is also due to co-opting that type of politics. Obama's campaign has used many of the same themes as Bush 2000: changing the tone of Washington politics, experience and ambition in politicans are bad, "I'm with stupid" (the likability quotient)., etc. If people get promised the same things as in the past, why should they expect a different outcome?




Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are a team, more so than any other couple that has ever resided in the White House. They stated it back in 1992 in that Steve Kroft interview. He ran in 1992 and she helped in a supporting role. The roles are reversed this go around. I am not sure how that is any different from RFK taking credit for things done in JFK's Presidency, Bush I in Reagan's or Eleanor Roosevelt in FDR's.



http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger ... ry/nya.cfm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_ro ... r_politics

If Obama's wife Michelle had been a popular President, why wouldn't he tout his experience being the First Husband? Your point reeks of sexism, or the education system has failed you on the impact of First ladies on their husband's adminsitrations.

You have got to be kidding. Um, promising a change in tone isn't "that type of politics" and not only is no one sick of that, all of the candidates have jumped on the "change" bandwagon now that voters have shown that change is what they want.

And the change they want is not just a change from Bush, but a change in the kind of "anything it takes to win" attack politics that you mind-bogglingly advocate and that Clinton practices.



Because it's not experience. Is it your opinion that Nancy Reagan is qualified to be president because she was married to one? If not, then you're a SEXIST, right?

Seriously, your arguments are moronic. Sexist? How pathetic.

Btw, your support of Hillary over Obama clearly means you're a racist.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/ ... 0418.shtml

Campaign Slogans

2000 George W. Bush I am Uniter, not a Divider
2004 George W. Bush Yes, America Can!
2008 Barrack Obama Post-Partisan
2008 Obama Yes We Can


http://www.failureisimpossible.com/need ... logans.htm
http://www.presidentsusa.net/campaignslogans.html

It's the same old BS themes repackaged as new and improved just like Tide.




I noticed you ignored Roosevelt. Typical, you can't effectively answer it, because you can't really process that First Ladies have impact. Due to your sexist criteria for experience.

I think Nancy was qualified to be President, maybe more so than Ronald was. She was much healthier and didn't have Alzheimer's which the Press hid from the public. I wouldn't vote for her, but many people would have had she declared after his Presidency and she was encouraged. She couldn't have been any worse than Ronald.

Many spouses have served and run after their spouses have died: Mary Bono, Jean Carnahan, and Muriel Humphrey, to name a few.

You can't argue any of the points, so you resort to name-calling, which has been your M.O. for awhile on these forums. What happened to you, dude? If you could coherently argue your for Obama's candidacy, you might conver people. However, you are so negative and shrill, your posts don't realy resonate with anyone not already sipping the Kool-Aid.