Hillary in PA: Rocky Wouldn't Quit, Neither Will She

Speaking in Philadelphia today, Hillary Clinton says she's like Rocky Balboa -- he wouldn't quit and neither will she. From her prepared speech:

One thing you know about me is that when I say I’ll fight for you, I’ll fight for you. I know that there will be hurdles and setbacks between now and November. But I also know that I’m ready. I know what it’s like to stumble. I know what it means to get knocked down. But I’ve never stayed down, and I never will.

....[J]ust as it’s getting time to vote here in Pennsylvania, Senator Obama says he’s getting tired of it. His supporters say they want it to end. Well, could you imagine if Rocky Balboa had gotten half way up those Art Museum steps and said, “Well, I guess that’s about far enough?”


Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people.

We have a lot of work to do together, and we won’t get it done by quitting or walking away. We’ll do it by staying and fighting and standing up for what we believe in.

< Obama's Liberal Survey: Did He or Didn't, Does He or Doesn't He? | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:13:37 AM EST
    Did you see the Krugman mention of you and TL?

    Now Nancy Pelosi, according to AP (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:19:22 AM EST
    today, says its o.k. for Clinton to stay in the race but the Super-Ds, who Pelosi now states can vote their consciences, should declare themselves now so the Dems. can wrap this up and go after McCain.

    Fair enough. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:21:43 AM EST
    I don't think she is saying they should all declare now,  but that they should be declaring between now and shortly after the last primary,  so that it will be pretty clear who the nominee will be.

    I can't disagree with that.


    And all it took (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:22:38 AM EST
    Was some threatening from donors...Hey is she still "undecided?"

    Pelosi was asked about The Letter. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:27:23 AM EST
    She sd. it didn't mean a thing to her.

    Right Right (none / 0) (#164)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:24:36 PM EST

    I'm of the school of thought (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:26:23 AM EST
    that thinks its better to vett Obama before the nominee is selected. Why hurry?  [Yeah, I know, to start campaigning against McCain as soon as possible.]

    Although, a cynically political reading of this (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:29:13 AM EST
    would focus on Pelosi's emphasis of the superdelegates getting involved now. Source

    The general feel right now would likely aid Obama. The prospect of a long drawn out primary when he is ahead in the pledged delegates would likely cause superdelegates to endorse Obama, if they followed Pelosi's advice of "getting involved" now. While it is certainly true that they can switch their endorsements (not many do), if many suddenly support Obama, it could signal the end of Hillary's chances.

    My view is that the primaries should continue with little say from the superdelegates; the superdelegates will be in a much better position to endorse once all the contests are over.


    Why freeze them now? (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Faust on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:03:10 PM EST
    Lets be consistent. They should all be frozen all the time, or they should all be free all the time.

    Clinton had 158 super delegates before voting even started. So now suddenly it's a good idea for supers to sit on their hands so they have "all the information?"

    It's funny how "what the supers should do" varries week to week and from camp to camp.

    Bottom line: in this contest, with the current rules, supers are free to endorse whenever, and for whatever reasons they wish.

    Everything else is spin from Clinton or Obama. Of course that spin does affect what happens. So I guess I can't blame everyone for spinning like tops. I just don't like how everyone pretends that it's anything other than tactical rhetoric. On BOTH sides.


    No disagreement (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:32:34 PM EST
    "Clinton had 158 super delegates before voting even started. So now suddenly it's a good idea for supers to sit on their hands so they have 'all the information?'"

    I never recall saying that was an appropriate move.

    "It's funny how "what the supers should do" varries week to week and from camp to camp."

    It does vary; however, I give props to Hillary over Obama because her position changed once, when Obama gained significant momentum. Obama has shifted his positions several times with an air of arrogance that does not befit a candidate appealing to "the people."

    Considering the heated campaign currently underway, it would be wise to wait until all the contests are finished. I'm not saying the superdelegates have to, and I'm not saying they are bound by the rules to do so. I'm simply saying that it's the most reasoned, intelligent option available to the superdelegates. Making an informed decision, as Fabian notes, includes waiting to see the results in total. Again, it is not mandated. I just happen to think the full results of a primary designed to choose a nominee should be consider in choosing a nominee.


    Although, I should note (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:38:25 PM EST
    that Hillary's position change is in line with my argument that supers would do well to consider the full results of the primary. By advancing this argument, she is making a strongly supported claim that is in perfectly alignment with the rules. She is not asking the superdelegates to constrain their votes within a particular methodology or to use any other standard than their consciences. She asks that those consciences be informed by the full results of the primary but not limited to them.

    Obama, on the other hand, has offered various methodologies to constrain superdelegate votes. One such mandate was that SDs should vote according to the results within their congressional districts. He abandoned that proposal after Super Tuesday because it would have required Kerry and Kennedy to change their endorsements to Hillary. He then (and this is the arrogance) said that any SD who had already voted for him should keep that vote.


    I think you exagerate (none / 0) (#138)
    by Faust on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    the degree to which Obama has changed his positions.

    Neverthless, I tend to agree with the sentiment that they should probably wait at this point, however, it makes very good sense for Obama supporters to push them to decide. He's currently ahead so the current atmosphere favors him.

    I think most supers would prefer to wait, the endorsements have slowed down a lot since March 4th, and for obvious reasons.

    Most supers strike me not as bold leaders but as herd animals that will move in a big block if things become clear by June. For the good of the party I hope the decision is clear one way or the other.


    Does it feel good to laugh in all caps? (none / 0) (#145)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:30:05 PM EST
    As though you've just achieved a smackdown? Well, you haven't. And the arrogance does not do well for discussion.

    1. I never implied that it was wrong for Obama and not for Hillary. I was simply making the observation that her position on the superdelegates is still within the limits of the DNC rules, and that the shift in her position was not anyway near as radical as Obama's.

    2. - 4. I misspoke about the congressional districts, and for that I admit the error. It should have read "states." Here is a link to the information. The original source provides some further details on Obama's inconsistencies in other areas--namely, personal attacks. Oh, and here is another article on Obama's position on the superdelegates.

    Now, are you going to take Bill O'Reilly's position that quoting large segments of a transcript is taking it out of context?

    I agree with the waiting making their (none / 0) (#73)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:41:54 AM EST
    decision seem stronger.

    More and better data should lead to better decisions.  We need reproducible results, which means gathering as much data as possible and analyzing ALL of it - not just some of it.


    What the Democrats need to do (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:32:32 AM EST
    Finish voting on all the remaining primaries.
    Deal with FL and MI.
    Ensure that whatever candidate wins is legitimate.

    Calls for candidates to drop out are premanture.  Calls for superdelegates to weigh in are premature.  These calls can only hurt the legitimcay of the process and work against party unity.  Why can't the DNC leadership see ths clearly?


    Calls for supers to weigh in are valid. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Faust on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:08:41 PM EST
    Both candidates have been pushing for supers to weigh in every day since before Iowa.

    Not when it is used as a tactic (none / 0) (#137)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:10:52 PM EST
    to stop the process before all voters have voted.  Can't you see how that hurts legitimacy?  It is like asking the judges at a boxing match to declare the winner before all the rounds are over.

    I heard her on NPR this morning. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:37:30 AM EST
    She came across as incredibly wishy washy, all "Yes, but....." and "Yes, but..." that.  Painful to listen to.

    In the end, the only clear message I came away with was that Democrats should attack Republicans instead of each other if they want to win in November.  


    I hate to say it... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:09:05 PM EST
    but if I were a SD, I'd turn around and tell her that I'll declare myself when I'm damn well ready...and I won't be told otherwise by her or anyone else.



    My opinion on Pelosi (none / 0) (#116)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:18:17 PM EST
    has been that she was throwing a sop to the Sheehan leaning members of her constituency who see Hillary as a "war mongerer".

    She may be pro-Obama in truth, but her comments (as her impeachment watch link on her website) are a sop to the far left in a district where the far left matters.


    My opinion on Pelosi (none / 0) (#118)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:20:36 PM EST
    has been that she was throwing a sop to the Sheehan leaning members of her constituency who see Hillary as a "war mongerer".

    She may be pro-Obama in truth, but her comments (as her impeachment watch link on her website) are a sop to the far left in a district where the far left matters.


    Oops. Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#48)
    by Claw on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:32:31 AM EST
    Dean has also said they should declare by June 1st.  I agree with him.  At some point we (whether the "we" is Clinton '08 or Obama '08) HAVE to start pouncing on McCain and his "McCain moments."    

    July 1st is what Dean said (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:35:16 AM EST
    not June 1st. The difference is the voting will be over.

    Calling for a premature end to the voting is anti-democratic, I agree, but Dean indicated it should be decided after the primaries and before the convention.


    Big Rambo fan, were you? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by blogtopus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:21:05 AM EST
    I have to hand it to Stallone, he is much deeper than we think.

    On the subject at hand though, I tell you: I would rather see Hillary comparing herself to a fictional boxer than watch Obama throw gutterballs in an entirely different kind of fiction.

    So here is what the Obama campaign should do: (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by macwiz12 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:29:27 AM EST
    Many of the Obama supporters argue that Clinton should drop out "for the good of the party." They base this on the argument that she cannot catch Obama in delegates or win the popular vote. They seen certain that this will be the case even if the votes and delegates from Florida and Michigan are counted.

    If the campaign is so confident that this will be the case, they should simply say that the DNC should approve those delegates right now. To be effective, however, announcing support for seating those delegates and counting those votes must be done BEFORE the end of the primary season. To wait until after the other results are in would not have the same weight. It would be a statement that "Since the votes cast by the voters of these two states don't matter anyway, we might throw them a bone and seat their delegates."

    The voters of Florida may have difficulty with poorly designed butterfly ballots but they can recognize a self serving action when they see it.

    Personally, I think this move could very well give the Obama campaign what it wants, a quick conclusion to the nomination process.

    The view of myself is (none / 0) (#136)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:10:30 PM EST
    ...I guess that settles it, then.  What a relief.

    Now, could you fill me in on how things will go in Florida this fall?  I know you don't live or work there, but maybe a quick vacation would be in order and then you could give us the FACTS which we are all so anxious to have.


    So why not count the votes in Florida? (none / 0) (#139)
    by macwiz12 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:12:08 PM EST
    The playing field was level and 1.7 MILLION registered democrats voted in the closed primary. I was one of them. For the record I did not vote for either Obama or Clinton. I still haven't decided who I prefer. I can tell you that a proposal by the Obama campaign to count the Florida vote would go a long way toward making up my mind.

    I can also tell you that a lot of registered democrats here in Florida are mighty mad at Howard Dean and the DNC for falling into the republican trap to help the republican nominee win the general election in Florida. Many of us have decided not to donate to the democratic party if our votes are ignored. Waiting until the nominee is settled will NOT solve the problem.

    If you are so sure your candidate will be selected, why not stand up and urge his campaign to count the votes in Florida?


    Newsflash for you, ObamaMama (none / 0) (#154)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:04:26 PM EST
    It doesn't matter what the polls say, it doesn't matter what the pundits, columnists, experts or comedians say. What matters is what the VOTERS say. And they haven't finished saying yet. So why not wait until they have finished their say, since their votes are what count in the end. And I want Hillary to stay in. I think she has a good chance of taking the nomination, all your polls aside, and I sure as hell don't want a president who takes the easy way out whenever he can. I want one that will stay in to the bitter end. Hillary has already said she will work for the Dem candidate, no matter who it is. Has Obama said the same thing?? If so, I haven't heard of it. Have you?

    And what happens when (none / 0) (#165)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:35:50 PM EST
    Hillary is behind in popular vote after ALL the primaries? Oh, that's right, then the supers step in....if she's close enough in PV.......so the "will of the people" only matters until Hillary gets close enough for the SDs to overturn the "will of the people"
    Makes perfect sense to me.

    The primaries aren't over yet.. (none / 0) (#171)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:37:01 PM EST
    why don't you wait until they are to decide who has the most votes? What if..is a waste of time. Wait until your worst case scenario plays out. Then complain. I live in FL. You can imagine how much I have to complain about. The DNC is letting the Republican legislature get away with picking the candidate. THEY were the ones who set the date for the primary, not the Dems. But, hopefully, the superdelegates will take that into consideration when voting, and count the FL and MI votes as an indication of the will of the people, even if the DNC doesn't. But hey, go ahead, gin up fake outrage over something that hasn't happened yet. Never mind the things that have.

    Right on (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:29:55 AM EST
    I've always loved Clinton's fighting spirit and I always will.

    ObamaMama (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:23:19 PM EST
    You are at 17 comments today and it's just noon. I've already told you that your limit is 10 in 24 hours. Any further comments by you before tomorrow will be deleted.

    I thought accusing a candidate of lying (1.00 / 0) (#144)
    by herb the verb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:29:28 PM EST
    was a deletable offense.

    I've never called Obama a liar here or anywhere else.


    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by spit on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:30:56 AM EST
    are you seriously arguing that we should decide who is or isn't "pathetic" based on a myspace page?


    I didn't think this election could get much stupider, but if we're going to judge who should win the presidency based on their musical hipness and whether they have lists we personally like on their myspaces, then we've reached a whole new level.

    Personally, I will only vote for the candidate that listens to Xiu Xiu. :P

    Yep (none / 0) (#95)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:56:39 AM EST
    I'm still waiting for a Marilyn Manson-loving candidate.

    OK, in all seriousness...

    While I was some distance from NYC on 9/11, I had several friends and relatives in the city (all were OK, as it turned out).  That afternoon, after standing in the living room and watching TV coverage for hours, it finally got to be too much.  I went outside, sat in my car, and repeatedly played at a painful volume level the opening of one of Manson's songs, where the first thing he says (before the lyrics) is, "YOU CAN'T KILL ME M___ F___!!!"  

    I must have replayed those opening 15 seconds 50 times before I had the strength and composure to return to the house and the bitter glass teat.


    Rocky (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:34:16 AM EST
    lost the fight in the first Rocky movie.

    But good to use Rocky....Rocky was based on real life journeyman boxer Chuck Wepner who was from blue collar Penn.  Good knowledge of the local culture.  

    It's an apt analogy for her argument (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by magster on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:27:12 PM EST
    that she'll beat Obama in 2012.

    I believe he won the fight (none / 0) (#83)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:48:10 AM EST
    He went the distance and each was barely standing but the judges awarded it to Apollo.

    Yes, the black guy (none / 0) (#166)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:37:35 PM EST
    won in a decision by the supers. Great analogy, Clinton campaign

    Interesting (none / 0) (#170)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:42:27 PM EST
    I was not even thinking color. So not great analogy. We are all just different shades of beige. I was actually thinking of Gore/Bush when I wrote judges.So please do not blame the Clinton campaign. I was just stating the facts of the movie.Sometimes a fact is just a fact.

    Carly Simon over Celine Dion any day! (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:50:04 AM EST
    Now - back to your regularly scheduled topic.....

    actually... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:16:44 PM EST
    If you look at the larger storyline, the external loss (or tie) doled out by the judges does not reflect the internal win that the character had with his own arc and development.

    Thought experiment (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by digdugboy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:46:19 PM EST
    Let's suppose a few things here:

    1. The longer the primary battle continues, and the candidates attack each other, the more likely it is that McCain wins in November.

    2. If the primary battle were to end right now, the candidate who is the  victor could start focusing his or her campaign on those states that are going to be swing states in November, instead of campaigning so much in states that are certain to be red.

    3. In most years, the votes in the states holding primaries at the end of the cycle don't really count for anything, inasmuch as the candidate has already been chosen by voters in the earlier primaries.

    I don't think any of this is really controversial.

    With this context, let's say that Clinton and Obama each have a 50-50 chance to prevail as things currently stand. We would all agree, I imagine, that it is more important for democrats to choose their candidate by voting than it is for one of them to step aside so the other has a better chance against McCain.

    On the other hand, let's say that one candidate -- in this example, Clinton -- had the nomination wrapped up so that the only thing that could derail it was a scandal of enormous magnitude or the candidate's death. At that point would you agree that all other candidates should concede and that democrats should turn their focus to the general election?

    I am certain that nearly every person who posts here would cheerfully concede that it would be time for Obama under those circumstances to step aside and let Clinton move forward.

    Let's change it a little. Suppose Obama could mprove his chances to 10% by pulling off a victory in a state in which he's currently polling 20% down. Otherwise, Clinton has the nomination wrapped up. Should the extremely remote likelihood he could pull this off, and improve his chances for the nomination only marginally, be reason to stay in the race?

    I reject one of your assumptions (none / 0) (#148)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:40:39 PM EST
    You assume a long primary is bad for the eventual nominee but recent history does not bear this out.  Kerry had the nom wrapped by mid-february, but that just gave the Republican machine 9 months to go after him and him alone.

    B. Clinton didn't have the nom until June and then he won in November.

    Other bloggers such as digby have argued that a long primary is good because it keeps the Republicans from being able to pick a narrative against the Democrats.  i think there's truth to that.

    Also, every state that has participated has seen an upswing in Democratic voter registrations - why shouldn't we want that to also happen in the 10 remaining contests, many of which are swing states?


    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#149)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:42:13 PM EST
    was deleted as ObamaMama is suspended for chattering and ignoring posting limits.

    Oops (none / 0) (#152)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    I thought I was replying to digdugboy.  Sorry!

    Instead of debating the premises (none / 0) (#159)
    by digdugboy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:53:48 PM EST
    can you answer the question? We can talk about the premises later.

    Why? (none / 0) (#162)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:05:51 PM EST
    If I don't agree with the premise, why would I argue the question?  you assume that one has to drop out and then ask if I would demand that Obama drop out.  I dont think one has to drop out at all.  Nor do I think that that only way Obama is not the nominee is a major scandal or death.  So why debate a hypothetical that is based on erroneous premises?  I can set up a strawman just as well, but I'm not going to insist people defend it.

    Consider it a hypothetica question then (none / 0) (#175)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:56:26 AM EST
    Armando and Jeralyn are familiar with those. Just accept the premises and offer your answer. Then I'll be happy to debate you about the premises.

    I guess Obamamama was right -- nobody would have the guts to offer up an answer.


    Or (none / 0) (#179)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:34:49 AM EST
    I could argue that no one has the guts to offer up a question based in reality.  I mean seriously.

    That's a logical fallacy (none / 0) (#174)
    by Manuel on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:36:54 AM EST
    Assuming the moon is made of cheese, would you like a bite?  It makes for nice fiction but isn't very useful in the practical world.

    From a logical falsehood you can infer anything.


    Equating the truth value (none / 0) (#176)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:58:41 AM EST
    of the premises of my question with the assertion that the moon is made of cheese is hardly revealing. It's established fact that the moon is not made of cheese. On the other hand, the truth value of the premises I set forth is clearly open to debate. I happen to think they are true. But no matter. Folks will figure out a way to avoid answering the question at all costs, it appears.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#150)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:51:18 PM EST
    A long battle will not necessarily hurt the nominee.  McCain isn't getting a lot of attention positive or negative right now.  There is a plus in that.  There is plenty of time to get after him.

    The problem with stopping now is that the current state of the race lacks legitimacy.  The contest is too close.  It needs to be played to the end to achiieve closure.  I would hold this view no matter who was ahead.  The Democratic position should be to count every vote in a close contest.

    If a candidate is so far ahead, there is no need to call on others to get out.  You did not see McCain calling for Huckabee to get out relentlessly.  The Obama campaign finally seems to be getting this point.


    How about answering the question (none / 0) (#160)
    by digdugboy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    then we can debate the premises.

    The problem with answering (none / 0) (#151)
    by Nadai on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    is that I don't agree with your premises.  (Well, I agree with #3, and as a voter in NC it sincerely ticks me off that I routinely get no say in the primary.)

    I do not believe that Obama can beat McCain.  I realize that you do.  I think you're wrong.  Given that, why on God's green earth would I want Clinton to drop out for any reason whatsoever?  She may not be able to beat McCain, either, but I give her some chance.

    The battle between Obama and Clinton is certainly revealing weaknesses in both candidates, but the weaknesses were already there.  The Republicans were going to exploit those weaknesses, and probably others I don't know about, no matter what.  If anything, I think we're better off getting some of this out in the open now rather than closer to the general election.

    But the battle is having a positive effect as well.  Both candidates are constantly in the news, and the news is not all bad.  Some of it is essentially free airtime to push their candidacies.  People are energized by the whole thing, including a lot of people who are in states that usually don't bother with it until the general election.  Look at the number of people turning out to vote.  Look at the money both of them are raising.  This matters to people.

    And while I know the Obama people don't care for the legitimacy-of-the-winner argument, I don't think it's a small thing.  If Clinton loses - simply loses - I will almost certainly vote for Obama.  I don't like him and I don't trust him, but he'd be the Democrat and that's how I vote.  If Clinton gets shoved out and shouted down - maybe I'll still vote for him.  Maybe.  I haven't set an election out since I started voting in 1980, but this time I'm disgusted and infuriated already.  It's pretty much reached the "one more thing" stage with me.

    We've got plenty of time before the general election for the eventual nominee to campaign.  It doesn't need to start now.  They can both - and are - thrash McCain at the same time that they're going after each other.  I don't see any advantage to hurrying things along, particularly if it ticks off swathes of supporters on one side or the other.


    How about answering the question (none / 0) (#161)
    by digdugboy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:56:46 PM EST
    then we can debate the premises.

    Because your question (none / 0) (#163)
    by Nadai on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:16:15 PM EST
    makes no sense without agreement on the premises.  You might as well ask whether I've stopped beating my wife.

    Not remotely comparable (none / 0) (#177)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:02:18 AM EST
    The premises I set forth do not contain an inflammatory implication such as the one you suggest, and furthermore the truth value of is certainly open to debate. I believe they are correct. But it's no problem to put that question aside for the moment. For example, when an expert witness is testifying and counsel asks a hypothetical question, the witness assumes that the premises are correct in answering the question. That's all I'm asking you to do. The witness gets a chance to debate the correctness of the premises, but that doesn't mean that the question, with its debatable premises, can't be answered.

    So, will you answer it?


    If comments are still open (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:47:38 PM EST
    I was watching Keith Olbermann tonight (watching TH's is something I almost never do.  I've been ill...) and he was talking about whether Hillary's not quitting the race was bad for Democrats or not.  (Guess which way he thinks...!)

    Anyway, he played a tiny clip of Hillary's "Rocky" speech, and it was the oddest thing.  I'm not sure where the clip began, but I think it was at "Rocky and I have a lot in common."  Then she said, "I never quit."  THEN, her mouth flapped for a few seconds and there was silence, or a funny beep, and the clip ended.  Obviously, to me, there was another sentence or phrase that Olbermann didn't want the audience to hear.

    Looking at the quotes in this post, the entire paragraph is as follows, with what Olbermann didn't play for us in bold print.

    Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people.

    Pretty strong evidence of Olbermann's anti-Clinton bias, I'd say.

    That one's gonna get you banned. (1.00 / 0) (#59)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:35:57 AM EST
    and none too soon.

    that comment has been deleted (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:41:24 AM EST
    one more like that and Kostaway is permanently banned.

    Since Miss Devore (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    has been banned, and you are Miss Devore, you are now permanently banned and every comment you have made on this site is being wiped out along with your registration.

    I'm referring to (none / 0) (#142)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:26:24 PM EST
    a comment by Kostaway that s/he is Miss Devore who has previously been banned.

    Is Hillary the Great White Hope (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by AdrianLesher on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:32:09 PM EST
    Just askin'.

    I troll rated this (none / 0) (#147)
    by herb the verb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:34:10 PM EST
    And I think you know why. Dog whistle, dog whistle, dog whistle.

    What is it with this post that brings out the worst in the Obama supporter comments?

    Can't Obama supporters make their case without these puerile comments?


    Unlikely, (none / 0) (#156)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:18:09 PM EST
    the original meaning of "Great White Hope" was white boxers trying to take down Jack Johnson, the heavyweight champion 1908-1915. The movie of the same name is a semi-fictionalized bio of Jack Johnson. It starred James Earl Jones. So, if Hillary is the great white hope, then she is taking on a black champion..not how even his own supporters would describe Obama. And to compare her to a large black man whose main skill was pugilism..well. Might as well start calling her Muhammad Ali. Of course, they are both champs in their own way. Heh.

    gcp (none / 0) (#1)
    by gcp on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:13:34 AM EST
    the one problem with this analogy, which was the same problem with obama's analogy when he first used it last year, was that rocky lost.

    People really need to do some research before..... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    Yes, Rocky lost to Apollo.  He caught a beat down, trained w/Burgess Meredith, got better, and kicked Apollo Creed's a** in the end......hmmm the analogy seems to be working.

    They just want to stop counting (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by badger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:44:32 AM EST
    after the first movie.

    I sense a pattern.


    Ummmm.... reseacrh. (none / 0) (#89)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:52:42 AM EST
    "At round 13, Apollo knocks Rocky down and Mick instructs him to stay down until the count is up. Adrian comes out of the locker room and watches the ring and believes in Rocky and hopes he'll get up. Rocky gets back up and Apollo, dancing around sees that Rocky is standing and wants more. Apollo now exhausted, throws a punch a Rocky but Rocky moves him and jabs him twice in the chest breaking his ribs. The bell rings signalling the end of the round and the fighters are brought back to their corners. Rocky claims he can't see anything and tells Mick to cut him in order to open his eye. The bell for the final round rings and Rocky and Apollo take their time until Apollo tags Rocky in the face, Rocky moves in as Apollo is now protecting the other side of his ribs. More punches to the faces occurs on both of them until Rocky gets the last 10 seconds of the round and beats Apollo senses in the face. The bell rings signalling the end of the fight. Apollo tell Rocky that there won't be a rematch and Rocky responds that he doesn't want one. The ring is stormed by reporters and both the fighters managers. A reporter asks Rocky questions about the fight as Rocky shouts for Adrian. While Adrian makes her way to the ring. Jergans announces that the fight came out to be a draw and it was a spilt decision on who won. Adrian makes it to ringside to see Paulie being restrained from entering the ring. Adrians sneaks in and runs to Rocky and the two embrace."

    Never say never (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:40:11 AM EST
    "Yet, somehow, somewhere, sometime, 75% of the remaining SDs will endorse Clinton (and that's what she'll need, 3 out of every 4 undeclared SDs)."

    As you pointed out, she doesn't necessarily need 3/4 of the undeclared. She is perfectly capable of bringing some of the Obama superdelegates back to her side. Or is the transfer ever only one sided? Once you know Obama, that's all you need to know?


    She is poised to take most (maybe all) the remaining contests--which would cancel out Obama's winning streak earlier and end the primary contests with the story being: "Hillary wins big!"

    Which she typically does after people start declaring her dead.


    Same thing from you (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:43:51 AM EST
    every day.  Don't you get tired of coming here and posting the same old Hillary can't win, Obama has already won, it's over.  If you think it's over, why bother?  

    Rocky lost? (none / 0) (#29)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:25:44 AM EST
    been a long time since you've seen the original, heh?

    I can't remember it (none / 0) (#36)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:28:21 AM EST
    but according to Jake Tapper and Ben Smith Rocky lost in the original movie against Apollo Creed,  only beating him in Rocky 2.

    If you get your film criticism from pundits (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:43:21 AM EST
    I can understand your confusion.

    Rocky had to go the distance in the fight. Rip off of "On the Waterfront" in many ways.

    He goes the distance, and it's a draw. Considering Rocky was minor sparring partner at a neighborhood who beats the world champion to a draw, it's considered a victory for little guys everywhere.

    Shame Stallone made more than one. The series is ridiculous, but the first one is actually an excellent movie...

    Has things like ambiguity and other items you only find in good story telling.


    I am waiting for (none / 0) (#157)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:21:00 PM EST
    the "Rambo and Rocky take on everyone" movie. Stallone playing both parts, of course.

    Yep (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:45:01 AM EST
    He lost calling Adrian! Adrian! to Talia Shire.

    Burgess Meredith, at Rocky's direction, cut his eyelids with razorblades to reduce the swelling to let him continue to fight.

    Apollo Creed (Muhammad Ali) won.  Fancy pants, high-priced (black) boxer beat regular guy fighter.

    Based on a real fight in 1975 between Muhammed Ali and Chuck Wepner.


    It was a draw (none / 0) (#82)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:47:22 AM EST
    rent the DVD, or check the International Movie Database.

    That is not how I remember it (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:52:09 AM EST
    Here is Wikipedia's summary:

    Creed does not initially take the fight seriously, but Rocky unexpectedly knocks him down in the first round and the match turns intense. The fight indeed lasts 15 rounds with each fighter suffering many injuries. After the fight, Rocky calls out for Adrian, who runs down to the ring. As Creed is announced the winner by split decision, Adrian and Rocky embrace where they profess their love to one another.

    I have never heard of a tie in boxing.....The original Rocky was a good movie....Won the Oscar.

    Cinderalla Man with Russell Crowe, also based on a true story, was even better.


    Wiki has a lot of misinfo (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:59:18 AM EST
    End of the synopsis from International Movie Database (and industry wonk site where people in the bidness hype themselves and their projects).

    "A reporter asks Rocky questions about the fight as Rocky shouts for Adrian. While Adrian makes her way to the ring. Jergans announces that the fight came out to be a draw and it was a spilt decision on who won. Adrian makes it to ringside to see Paulie being restrained from entering the ring. Adrians sneaks in and runs to Rocky and the two embrace."

    Split decision. Draw. Besides, the deal was Rocky had to go the distance, and be standing when the bell rang.

    Victory for little guys everywhere.


    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    A split decision does not mean a draw.  Split decision just means that not all the judges agreed....

    We loved that movie....and recited the Adrian! Adrian! line in jest all over the place....I got into an raw egg drinking contest in high school in a stunt that mimicked Rocky's training regimen in the movie.  Rocky lost by split decision....I will rent the DVD...

    The point of Rocky II was that he won.


    And there's this to think about (none / 0) (#115)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:17:56 PM EST
    "Over the weekend New Hampshire moved from Leans Democratic to Toss-Up and Wisconsin shifted from Likely Democratic to Leans Democratic. Last week, a Missouri poll shifted that state from Toss-Up status to Leans Republican."

    (From Rasmussen today - link is too long to post here)


    The point to Rocky II (none / 0) (#128)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:38:19 PM EST
    was to make money.

    The referees announced a split decision and a draw in the movie. (not my inference, note).

    All he had to do was go the distance, which meant a victory for little guys everywhere.

    Which is what allowed R II ad nauseum to be made.

    The first movie had ambiguity for those who didn't get it the first time round.

    My last movie analysis post.


    Here is the text of the script (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:29:45 PM EST
    Here is the script, via  ABC:

            Judge Walker scores it eight-
            seven Creed... Judge Roseman
            scores it eight-seven Balboa.



    Apollo is rigid.  Fear radiates from his eyes.  To lose the
    crown on this night after the fight he fought would kill
    him... A silence has blanketed the arena.


            Judge Conners scores it nine-
            six Creed... Winner and still
            Heavyweight Champion of the
            World, Apollo Creed!

    Two judges for Apollo Creed, one for Rocky Balboa.  Creed wins.


    ObamaMama (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:49:17 AM EST
    is limited to 10 comments a day in 24 hours. She is chattering and becoming excessively repetitive and trying to dominate the threads, see the comment rules.

    Seating FL and MI (none / 0) (#153)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    will change the numbers needed to get the nomination.  Since Obama isn't ahead in either, there is no chance seating them would put him over the top.

    I really wish Hillary wouldn't.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by proseandpromise on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:14:04 AM EST
    talk as though Obama hates democracy.  

    This quote from her recently I find completely offensive.

    "My take on it is a lot of Senator Obama's supporters want to end this race because they don't want people to keep voting," she told CBS affiliate KTVQ in Billings, Mont. "That's just the opposite of what I believe. We want people to vote. I want the people of Montana to vote, don't you?"

    While I disagree with those who've called for Hillary to end her campaign, it is clear that their motivation is not "they don't want people to keep voting" like their is some intrinsic democracy-hating tendency amongst Obama supporters.  Even at our most cynical we could say, "They don't want Hillary to gain any ground" but it isn't simply that they hate when people vote.  The rationale they would no doubt give (and I think it is important in debate to uphold the rule of logic that says we should be fair and charitable in representing our opponents) is that the on-going race is hurting the Dems chances in November.  

    And this over-the-top, insulting rhetoric didn't come from a surrogate.  It came from Hillary herself.  This is exactly like when Cheney and Co. said we hated America if we didn't support the war.  Criticizing an opponent by suggesting that they stand in opposition to America's most baseline values (like Hillary questioning Obama's commitment to democracy, or Cheney questioning my commitment to patriotism) is the lowest you can get in public debate.  

    I will still support Clinton in November, but I wish we could agree that this kind of rhetoric is unacceptable.

    I wish Obama wouldn't criticize her (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:16:18 AM EST
    Too, you know.

    And Obama doesn't want revotes.  This has been discussed.  And yet, voting is a core American value.


    It's not criticism... (none / 0) (#7)
    by proseandpromise on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:18:01 AM EST
    It is a ridiculous assertion.  She can't believe that that is what Obama's surrogates were saying.  It is pure spin.

    And the re-vote issue has everything to do with winning, and almost nothing to do with American values (at least as far as BOTH candidates are concerned).  Clinton's pandering on this is transparent and infuriating.


    I believe (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:19:30 AM EST
    That is what they are saying.

    You believe... (none / 0) (#26)
    by proseandpromise on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:24:41 AM EST
    that major US Senators hate when people vote?

    I don't know if I can keep discussing things here.  I've enjoyed it, but if we can't agree on this clear example of dirty politics, I'm not sure this place is any less partisan than DKos.


    I know republicans do (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:25:34 AM EST
    That's why they try to suppress it.

    Why are Dean and Obama trying to suppress votes in FL and MI?


    I believe (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Nadai on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:52:35 AM EST
    that given a choice between having people vote against him and not having people vote at all, Obama supports the latter.  And if you're not for having people vote even when they'll vote for your opponent then, yes, you hate voting.  Tying your support to the outcome makes voting no more than a means to an end.

    Do I believe that (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:58:39 AM EST
    major Senators, whatever kind of senator that is, hate when people vote? No. I believe that some senators, being politicians would keep people from having a chance to vote or re-vote if it hurt them or their chances.

    Again and again people have said that it doesn't matter whether FL and MI help or harm one candidate or another. Everything that happens in this country is not about Hillary or Obama. It's about the voters. It's about democracy. And it's about doing the right thing.

    But that doesn't matter much anymore because quite obviously the right thing isn't going to happen. Sadly, a lot of Democrats are not going to accept this quietly.

    Obama supporters may not like what this disenfranchisement of American citizens will bring. And seating the Delegates after a nominee is chosen is adding insult to injury. Just how stupid does Pelosi and Dean think the people of this country are?


    It is not dirty politics (none / 0) (#90)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:52:57 AM EST
    to respond to what has been said about your candidacy.  If Hillary drops out of the race, the voting stops.  Sorry, but that is the way it works and that is what has dominated the news cycle the last week.  Would you not expect Obama to be responding if the tables were turned?

    And if your threshold for discussions is that we always agree, it might be the wrong place for you but the discourse here is nothing near the partisan level that it is on Dkos.    


    The voting stops? (none / 0) (#131)
    by wasabi on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:49:11 PM EST
    Really?  If Clinton drops out, then nobody votes any more?

    Loses PA by 3%? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Nadai on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:53:53 AM EST
    Isn't that roughly like saying he'll support a revote when hell freezes over and all the little devils go ice skating?

    Then maybe (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:19:12 AM EST
    Sen Obama shouldn't send all his surrogates out saying she is "damaging the party" and that somehow she is doing something wrong by, you know, not dropping out when she hadn't lost.

    He could prove her wrong (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:19:22 AM EST
    by supporting revotes, or agreeing to seat the FL/MI delegations as selected in the original primaries.

    Somehow I doubt he will.


    interesting post at, of all places (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:23:46 AM EST
    HuffPo on this:

    Could the Republicans Pick the Democratic Nominee? -- The Untold Story of How the GOP Rigged Florida and Michigan

    Imagining a convention without delegations from these large and politically volatile states has become the nightmare of every thinking Democrat. Polls indicate that a nominee who refuses to count the 1.7 million Floridians who voted in a level-playing field primary, or to find a way for them to vote again, will wind up wasting whatever time and money he or she spends there in the general election campaign.


    He won't do that because he's afraid (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    that he'd lose, which I imagine is true.  For all the high handed BS from the Obama side, it really is all about him and not about the party or the country.  Defending denying MI/FL the right to vote for the nominee is just silly.

    No (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:51:25 AM EST
    the reason for re-votes is so that the VOTERS get to have their say. It doesn't matter if it benefits Hillary Clinton or Obama.

    And if it's all over then what's the problem with allowing voters to re-vote or to have the votes all ready cast count? If he's got a lock, what the heck are you afraid of? Even rapid Obama supporters should be able to see that this makes him look bad.


    Obama opposed every revote plan (none / 0) (#102)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:02:34 PM EST
    diaried and documented here multiple times.

    Well (none / 0) (#107)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:08:24 PM EST
    Since the DNC approved the Michigan revote plan, all that the legislature was waiting on to vote was Obama's blessing.  He then chose to change his mantra and said they didn't want a revote.

    False (none / 0) (#114)
    by Faust on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:16:57 PM EST
    Of course he can stop it. He has supporters in the two state legislatures that can function as surrogates for his will.

    I think it's a bit of an exageration to say he blocked FL, but it does appear from what I've seen that he ran out the clock in MI.

    It's suprisingly hard to find good information on the subject.

    It's not really a question of whether he blocked them or not in the end. It's a question of whether the objections raised against the proposals were good ones.

    Given that Michigan has historically held a caucus one would think that would be OK but of course camp Clinton opposed that plan. And she gets a pass because caucuses are undemocratic.

    Sometimes I get dizzy just thinking about this stuff. So much spin to get through just to get to the facts.


    I believe (none / 0) (#121)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:25:03 PM EST
    The Michigan "caucuses" were not like the Iowa caucuses - it was regular voting with mail in ballots and even internet voting in 2004.

    Well that's interesting. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Faust on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:29:59 PM EST
    I know they have been refered to as caucuses historically, but from what you say it sounds like maybe they were a hybrid?

    Makes me wonder if the caucus plan that was floated would have allowed the kind of activity you describe..i.e. mail in etc.

    If so, is that kind of caucus more democratic than other kinds of caucuses?


    The reason I care (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:08:50 PM EST
    is because the polls are blinking red state for the must win Michigan. They must be seated. Florida too. For the good of the party.

    The "no reason to revote the states" comment gives you away.

    The reason you don't want a re-vote is because with a re-vote, perhaps Obama isn't the nominee yet that you think he is.


    Why won't he accept (none / 0) (#94)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    DNC-approved revote in MI then?  I am always amazed at how the big line Obama supporters use is that "we want to follow the rules."  "We can't change the rules."  The RULES allowed for a revote, the DNC approved the plan in MI.  So, I guess Obama and his supporters don't like it when people vote.

    False, shortsighted, and strange: (none / 0) (#99)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:01:21 PM EST
    There's no reason to revote those states. The only reason you care about revotes is because it would help Hillary.

    Here are 2 good reasons to revote those states:

    1. They're very important to our chances in November, and we ought to be making sure that voters in both of them understand that the national Democratic party values their participation.

    2. On principle, it's wrong to punish voters by disenfranchising them when they have done nothing wrong.

    Here's a third:  Obama would benefit by agreeing to plans put forward and agreed to by the DNC.  He needs credibility for the GE . . . I know this is hard for someone who is deeply identified with him to understand, but it's true.  Millions of voters are still skeptical about him; he could use their support.

    Not true (none / 0) (#143)
    by echinopsia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:29:20 PM EST
    seems to me like the only official position Obama has ever taken is "We'll support the DNC decision."

    We've been over this again and again.

    The DNC approved Michigan's plan. Obama rejected it. End of story.


    Yeah... (3.00 / 1) (#24)
    by proseandpromise on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    By this logic: progressives (like all of this on this site, I imagine) could have "proven" Cheney wrong by supporting the war.

    Obama's opposition to MI/FL has nothing to do with his feeling on democracy.   Clinton's support for re-votes has nothing to do with democracy.

    None of you are addressing the issue of this KIND of argument.  Continuing to make the argument is also what the repubs did with patriotism.  It's 2004 all over again but now we're talking democracy instead of patriotism.  

    I haven't been this frustrated with either candidate all political season.  This quote just kills me.  It is painful for me to think about revisiting those years of "If you disagree with the position of the leader, you hate the country."  ANything even CLOSE to that has no place in progressive politics.


    Well the fact (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:29:10 AM EST
    that they are trying to get her to quit before the rest of the states votes mean that they are, IN FACT, calling to end the democratic primary process. So really she's telling the truth! Gasp!! I know. Crazy!

    What other logical conclusion (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:35:21 AM EST
    can you draw from calls for one candidate to drop out of the race?  Will they still hold the rest of the primaries/caucuses if she drops out of the race?  

    It is not over the top.  How many cable news programs, news articles and Sunday shows have repeated ad nauseam the story that Hillary should drop out of the race because she can't win and she is hurting the Democratic party.  That is what is over the top.  


    He never called for her to drop out... (none / 0) (#173)
    by proseandpromise on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:52:14 PM EST
    the fact that you got rec'd giving false information is telling.

    I don't see why (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:37:54 AM EST
    The affect of her dropping out would be to stop the voting.  If they have no problem with people voting - and if they are confident in the outcome - they wouldn't want her to drop out.

    I know, I know, it's inconvienent when people don't vote for Obama.  But if it keeps happening, then perhaps there's an issue there we should explore further....

    "Bad for Obama" is not the same as "Bad for the Party."  The reverse could be true if he proves to be a weaker candidate than suspected.


    Obama's legitimacy would benefit from FL,MI revote (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:40:22 AM EST
    Would you agree?

    Well, I don't know how you can credibly argue (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:08:08 PM EST
    that Obama and his surrogates want people to keep voting - there is nothing about the constant calls to get out, withdraw, drop out, give up, that suggest they want people to come out and vote - it's just not there.  

    Amd we know why, don't we?  The more votes she gets in these contests, the greater the chance that she eats into his lead or pulls even with him in the popular vote.  The closer the race, the more of an issue Florida and Michigan are, and the superdelegates have to begin to look at his general election chances - and God knows, we wouldn't want the SD's having to think, would we?  

    We already know Obama isn't interested in what the voters in Florida and Michigan decided, and apparently, he isn't interested in what the voters in the remaining primary states have to say.  When you combine the weeks of hedging, stonewalling, obfuscating and double-talking on the issue of re-votes, with the non-stop harangue for Hillary to concede, it's very difficult to conclude that Obama is interested in any process that threatens his victory.  

    Sorry, but working to make people's votes less meaningful, discouraging people from voting by making them think their votes are a wste of time is not working for democratic principles; if you are offended by that, I think your issue is with the people working against the vote, not the people who want to continue to participate and be heard in the process.


    In fairness, Obama went there (none / 0) (#15)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:20:18 AM EST
    first with the Rocky analogy in Philly.

    Given that Apollo Creed won on a split decision,  I'm not sure if this means that Al Gore will get the nomination at a brokered convention.

    heh. I'm not sure if (none / 0) (#31)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:26:17 AM EST
    Ageist much? (none / 0) (#18)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:21:22 AM EST
    I'm 21, and I rather enjoy Carly Simon.

    Hillary got me involved, and I think you (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:33:03 AM EST
    would be surprised by the number of young voters who listen to older music. All my friends have vinyls.

    Retro is always in.


    Let me get this straight (none / 0) (#56)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:35:10 AM EST
    Because there are so many young people voting, she should lie and say she supports Rilo Kiley, or perhaps the Killers, or Rhianna?  Wouldn't that be pandering?

    Pop quiz (none / 0) (#97)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    Which would seem more natural: Clinton faking the music preferences you mentioned, or Obama bowling?

    Bigger droves (none / 0) (#61)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:36:42 AM EST
    More middle age and older voters than the young voters. That is why the Stones are still universal. Do-Wop is still cool on PBS, It's Smokey.People complain about disco but find it great for dancing. The Boomers who were watching the first year of SNL with Chevy Chase are the ones who can afford to donate to a campaign.

    I think you're out of touch (none / 0) (#117)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:20:03 PM EST
    Rocky references would only work on like... 40ish people.  I'm college aged and I can tell ya from first hand knowledge that us young people are not big into Rocky.

    Rocky is a universally well known PA pop culture figure.  It could be called pandering because of where she is, but it's also a fitting metaphor and makes her stump speech a little more engaging.  Just like Obama's chicken dinner references.  Was it Mississippi when he asked the crowd if they had Popeyes for breakfast?


    Oh, I remember (none / 0) (#120)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    I believe it was Texas when he made the fried chicken references.

    who is it? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:25:03 AM EST
    I'll erase their ratings.

    Your ratings have been erased (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:31:01 AM EST
    You rated several comments a "1" that were not poorly written or objectionable. You can't rate a "1" just because you disagree with the view expressed.

    Try being accurate in your comments. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:02:06 PM EST
    You were 1-rated because of the wild inaccuracy of your comments.
    When you put things in CAPS, try to make sure they are correct.

    Actually I know you're wrong, for example when (none / 0) (#146)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    you said that Hillary was a Goldwater supporter in high school, or, more substantively, when you claim that insurance companies favor mandates.

    in *college* I mean.. which was your claim. (none / 0) (#155)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:07:39 PM EST
    SUSA (none / 0) (#60)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:36:05 AM EST
    Used to be a 19 point (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:55:28 AM EST

    Contrast (none / 0) (#104)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:04:37 PM EST
    Was the point.  The facts that polls righten is always the case.

    Correction (none / 0) (#105)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:05:30 PM EST
    Meant to say "the fact that polls tighten" is always the case.

    Sinclair (none / 0) (#66)
    by bettym47 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    She won't quit while the Larry Sinclair Affair is still out there. When is the mainsteam media going to pick up the story? There is a reason Obama wants her out and that's because I feel he could implode if the media reports the issues around Obama fairly. He wants her out of the race before it happens.

    that has been discredited (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:40:18 AM EST
    and won't be discussed here. It's an unfounded, personal smear on Obama. You are warned.

    I like those two pictures. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Faust on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:09:26 PM EST
    Fun juxtaposition.

    there were at least 7 Rockie Movies (none / 0) (#124)
    by pluege on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    ummmm, how many did he lose in: literal and metaphorical.

    Bowling For MI and FLA (none / 0) (#168)
    by zimmjim on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:29:44 PM EST
    Hillary challenged Obama to a bowling match and said she would go ten frames.  Although. she now says this is an April's fools joke, I think She should go ahead with the idea as long as MI is added if she spares in the tenth and Both MI and Fla if she strikes.  Of course if she loses, well we don't even need to count the supers.

    Rocky Lost (none / 0) (#169)
    by ROK on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:48:43 PM EST
    Lost, tied, won, won, lost

    Which Rocky does she want to be? I liked Cold War Rocky.

    I like Rocky and Bullwinkle (none / 0) (#178)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:58:17 AM EST
    if we're now aligning ourselves with fictional characters.

    Though allegedly, for years, the Reagan Right has been lobbying to have Rocky inducted in the Boxing Hall of Fame.