Current talking point attack lies about Hillary Clinton's campaign

[Tom Rinaldo]

Current Attack Meme Lie Number One:

"Hillary has no chance of winning" feeds into...


Current Attack Meme Lie Number Two:

"Hillary must now only be in this to make Barack Obama lose the election" (so she can run in 2012) which feeds into...


Current Attack Meme Lie Number Three:

"Hillary really wants McCain to become President and hopes to be in his Administration"


These are the current talking points being used to take down Hillary Clinton. They have been seeded into the echo chamber. It doesn't matter that they are lies, they are good ways of tearing Hillary Clinton down.

These smear talking points ARE a scorched earth policy, because they insult the intelligence (literally) of the half of the Democratic Party that wants Hillary Clinton to win the nomination and become our candidate in the Fall Election. Repeatedly call the Democrat who half of the Democrats in the nation want as President a complete traitor and double agent working for the Republicans, and see how easy it will be to win Clinton supporters over to even vote for Obama in November if he becomes our nominee, let alone actively work hard to get him elected. Good luck with that.

I would work for Obama because I know how important a Democratic victory is in the Fall. The inverse should also be obvious to Obama supporters who are recklessly tearing the party apart with their constant demonization of a Democrat who has massive grass roots support. McCain wins a majority of Latino votes when he runs in Arizona. Latinos overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton OVER Bill Richardson when he was still in the race. And then there are female voters who see Hillary being taken down with every trick in the book and don't exactly like the implications of that. I am not even bothering to talk about white voters in general.

It is the same passive aggressive campaign being waged against Hillary Clinton on discussion boards across the nation. People honestly prefer Obama over Clinton for any number of reasons, and then they go in for the kill. The passive aggressive part is the constant accusation that Clinton is doing terrible things that in fact THEY are doing with their accusations. Accusing Hillary Clinton of wanting to divide the Democratic Party so that she can throw the election to McCain IS dividing the Democratic Party, and that MAY throw the election to McCain.

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. Note that no Candidate Barack Obama has been harmed in the making of this thread

Nor have I accused any specific Obama supporter and certainly by no means all Obama supporters of being party to this type of smear.

[elleng]

23. THANKS,

Tom!

[kid a]

2. OPEN YOUR EYES...Open Your Eyes...open your eyes...

The problem with your post is that not only are those the facts, but reality based evaluation supports the discussion.

[Arkansas Granny]

4. One would assume that if those statements were indeed facts, Obama would have been

declared the nominee by now. The fact that he hasn't been declard the winner of the nomination leads me to believe that those are not facts, but speculation.

[Straight Shooter]

31. There is no one who sees more clearly than Tom Rinaldo.

He takes time to write his posts and the clarity of his words reflects the clarity of his perception.

You just dismissed a thoughtful set of observations with a wave of your hand, as if Obama has done and can do no wrong. This is one of the major grievances Hillary supporters have against Obama, that his campaign distorts perceptions to serve his purpose, then blames the Clinton campaign for what they themselves are doing.

[SoFlaJet]

3. how about number 4 TR?

that she's in the red and almost out of money? Which are two different things...

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. That is part of why the odds still strongly favor Barack Obama

I do not argue that she does not have a real uphill battle, I reject that she has no realistic chance of winning. Hillary Clinton was counted out because of a lack of money once before, remember? Then she raised what would have been a record amount of money in one month except that Barack Obama raised an even higher record amount of money in one month.

She will always be out of money now for as long as this campaign lasts because she needs to spend it as fast as it comes in since she is being outspent in the field. The fact that she is "broke" is no surprise to me. She has been "broke" for months - it goes as fast as it comes in.

The nature of this contest changes weekly - Hillary is doing very well in PA and WV, she has the very popular there Senator Evan Bayh campaigning for her in Indianna, and she closed to within one point in a recent NC poll. Her fundraising may be surging as we type.

[Usrename]

13. You are making an argument that she can still win.

Can you explain a plausible scenario for a Clinton victory? No one else has been able to.

I'm still curious about what you think Hillary's path to victory really is.

How is she going to win this thing? Can she lose the delegate race, lose the popular vote, and somehow come away with a win from the convention?

And if she does somehow manage to get the nomination while losing the vote and the pledged delegates, this scenario helps the party how? She won't ever win a general if she does that, will she? Her negatives will be even higher than they were when this thing started.

A year ago, half the people in the country wouldn't vote for her. If she snakes the nomination away from a movement that won more votes and more delegates, then she'd be almost guaranteed to lose every state in the general election. Half of the people that can still stomach her now will never vote for her if she continues in this fashion. It might be a different conversation if she were winning, but she isn't. She is losing badly. At what point do you think losing badly should become a loss? When she has no possibility of winning the Whitehouse?

So, (and feel free to use your imagination) how does she get elected to the Whitehouse?

I'm still waiting to hear if you have any plausible scenario?

[chimpymustgo]

15. She has the same path Obama has: neither will have enough pledged delegates to win!!

Why are Obama supporters BLIND to this fact??

[Usrename]

43. Why are you BLIND to the fact that she is losing this race?

Do you really think it is possible for Obama to lose both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote to Clinton, and yet still be selected as the nominee by the superdelegates anyhow?

Why are Clinton supporters BLIND to the fact that these two candidates do NOT have the same path to victory?

[notundecided]

59. The race is defined by pledged delegates + super delegates

Both need super delegates to win. We're at the 3/4 pole now, with the stretch run ahead of us.

[Usrename]

64. Do you think running this last leg is more important than winning?

How do you think Obama's chances in the general election are affected by continuing this farce?

You cannot even articulate an imaginary path for Hillary to achieve victory. What is the point of continuing?

[John Q. Citizen]

61. The supers have said that they will support whoever wins the most pledged delegates nationwide.

At least many of them have, and many influencial ones have.

Also, the supers have been going to Obama at an incredible ratio. In the last month Hill got less than 5 and Obama got 62.

The biggest problem the Clinton campaign has is that they have implicitly endorsed McCain over Obama, repeatedly, and that's just plain wrong for many reasons. How can anyone support that?

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Start with my post number 12

I don't want to repeat myself.

Clinton needs some big wins, not just squeekers. So far she has that chance in both PA and WV, which both are states that polls show she can keep or bring respectively into the Democratic column but which Obama would lose to Republicans.

She also needs to show strength is States where it is not automatically assumed that she has the demographic advantage already; Indianna, North Carolina, and Oregaon come to mind. Depending on other variables she probably needs to win two out of those three, or come extremely close to doing so at the very least.

Not since immediately after the NH Primary have we experienced this election campaign as one in which all the momentum is running in Hillary Clinton's direction. People are living in the bubble we find ourselves in now, one that fosters thinking that Obama is the presumptive nominee. That is one reason why Super Delegates began to break his way before TX and OH.

Clinton slowed down that momentum and gave reasons for some people to hold off thinking that this thing is all over, but that is not the same shifting to a political climate in which Obama seems clearly to be sinking while Clinton is rising. In the scenario that I outlined above however, that is exactly the impression that start to take hold. Obama built on momentum, fueled in part by his massive money advantage advantage fundraising in January, to put together his streak in Febvruary. That gave him the aura of a winner, and that is a key intangible which drove up his support.

I remember a number of people here on DU coming out and saying they were choosing Obama because he seemed to be the only Democrat who would defeat McCain. That worm in reality however is starting to turn. There is increasing state by state projections that appear to indicate that Clinton is the Democrat who will defeat McCain.

If it comes down to Obama losing most of the important contests from here on out and falling behind in national opinion polls both among Democrats and in relative matchups with McCain, and if his claim to overall popular support in votes cast is premised on not having to take Michigan and Florida into account, and if it seems Clinton could carry those states in the fall and Obama wouldn't, Clinton will be our nominee.

[anamandujano]

33. Allow me to add buyer's remorse for a good deal of Obama voters.

While I laud the fact that you went out of your way to avoid not harming the Obama campaign, this cannot really be overlooked.

There appears to be a steady stream of these bombshells. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone is cringing and waiting for the next one.

I think they've already hit critical mass.

[Usrename]

45. I don't see how, even if that's true, it would help her win.

How does she get enough support to win the Whitehouse, without beating Obama fair and square?

[Usrename]

44. Does this kind of thinking make any sense?

I guess I just don't understand the argument all that well. How does her beating him up NOW help her? It might have worked for her to do all of this stuff BEFORE he actually won this contest, but how does it help her now?

I guess you don't want to face any of the true realities of this election season. It seems like magical thinking to me.

If everything that you say might help her were to take place, she still would not win the Whitehouse.

Why can't any of you see this? Her negatives would go above 55% or 60% nationally. I'm talking about a lot of people who would most likely vote for her, if she won fair and square, but will not play along if she gets the nomination by trickery, or some PR stunt to try and make the real winner look unelectable, which is what you are advocating. She cannot win that way. It won't happen, even if she does convince the party leadership to give her the nod in the nomination, she cannot win the general.

So why continue? Seriously.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. Our views seem to be so widely seperated on this

that it seems virtually impossible that we will see eye to eye on it any time soon. Let me just say this. I don't know if having Super Delegates is the best of all possible systems, but I know that these are for the most part very politically astute people, that is how almost all of them got to be Super Delegates in the first place, by design. The biggest potential for abuse of the Super Delegate aspect of the nominating process would be a situation where virtually all of the insider forces in the Democratic Party were solidly lined up behind a machine candidate while the voters in the primaries broke solidly for some insurgent whe fell perhaps two or three dozen delegates short of what was needed for victory, but lost anyway because the Super Delegates closed ranks against him or her and overwhelmingly voted for the machine candidate instead.

Hello. That is a Hollywood movie script or maybe a 1968 flashback. It's not happening now and it's not going to happen. If anything we have Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi arguing for shutting down the race right now so that Obama can be the nominee. This time Super Delegates are acting more or less the way they were asked to act when the system was put in place. They honestly seem to be trying to figure out what will help the Democratic Party win in November. Obama has plenty of Super Delegate support and lots of uncommitted Super Delegates believe that Obama has a strong case for the nomination based on his lead in pledged delegates, if nothing else. It's not like there is a conspiracy of Party elders determined to throw this nomination to Hillary Clinton. If your world view is validated by how the general public (not GD-P) reacts to the remainder of the campaign, don't sweat it, the Super Delegates will not give her the nomination.

I am not advocating "trickery to try to make the real winner look unelectable" but if that is what you honestly think I am doing, we seem to have a real "failure to communicate" which is why I will end my reply to your comments here.

[Usrename]

52. You are not making any sense.

You say that the superdelegates will not steal this thing from Obama.

So that means there is no possibility of her getting the nomination.

What is to be gained by her continuing to sqander resources against another Dem?

Instead, why not use all that support to fight down-ticket battles. How is she helping the party?

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. You have a fixed delusion, which is that Clinton winning with Super Delegate support

automatically equals "stealing the election". If you are set in concrete on that, despite everything I have written, you will continue to say that I make no sense and I will continue to say that there is no point in our continuing this discussion now.

[Usrename]

66. Why even have voter participation in the primaries?

You think that it's all the same, no matter who wins the elections and caucuses. You think the superdelegates can just ignore who the real winner is, and select their own winner based on some kind of political speculation.

It is not delusional to think that most people will disagree with you about this.

You are deluding yourself into thinking that the public won't care about HOW our nominee is chosen.

It isn't a delusion to see that most people's sense of fair play will be offended. Get it? It isn't delusional, it's reality.

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. Under some circumstances most people would certainly agree with the SD's decision

We are just in disagreement over what those circumstances are and, I repeat, unlikely to achieve agreement in that regard, you and I.

The Super Delegates are currently split pretty even who have decided. It's not like Clinton is the machine choice. The ones who are left undecided owe Clinton no favors or they would long ago have come out in her favor, back when she was the favorite. And if any others could have been reeled in somehow by cashing in a political I.O.U. or whatever, trust me, that full effort has already have been made.

So we are left with Super Delegates who owe Clinton nothing making the final call. It will take persuasive reasons for them to back Clinton if Obama limps to the finish line holding on to more pledged delegates than her. If he sprints to the finish line he wins, no questions asked.

[Usrename]

70. He has been sprinting past her to the finish line since this race began.

He is crushing the Clinton machine, and has been for the entire race.

I honestly cannot tell if you are just pretending not to see this, or if you are just blind to the facts.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

51. Speaking of momentum, she's lost two in a row.

:shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. Yep.

Now in the home stretch the assumption is that each candidate will win where they are perceived to have home court advantage, which was the case for Obama in the last two and which now is the case for Clinton in PA. Clinton can't just win her home games here on out to close out this campaign and win the nomination, she's got to win one or two away games also, or do very well on some perceived nuetral courts.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

62. Name an away game she has won?

I can name a couple of Obama "away" wins.

[Tom Rinaldo]

75. Yup, but at one point all States were considered Obama away games

so it kind of warps the read. Obama certainly won some during February but some of that was partially due to Clinton being cash starved throughout much of January into early Feb. Now we sort of use the States that Clinton has already won as markers for the types of States she should be able to win. Anyway KY, PA, or WV would be considered Obama road games now and Oregon and NC would count as Clinton road games.

[rodeodance]

5. I think this makes Obama look weak--

[rodeodance]

6. REC

[susankh4]

7. Thanks for being a sane voice

in the D.U. wilderness.

[UALRBSofL]

9. OP We have known this for some time.

The MSM has already been talking about the surg of Obama supporters using these talking point to disrupt the internet sites with there overly aggressive behavior. I wouldn't be surprised, and it's most likely the truth, the points you made were talking points created by the Obama camp and emailed to his donors.

[wileedog]

10. So these guys are just Obama operatives?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

Why is every unpleasant fact that Hillary comes cross either a lie, persecution or some sort of spin out of her opponents camp?

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I have long since lost any naive belief in the objectivity of all jounalists

It started with the Republican right developing media figures and outlets willing to spin reality to their chosen talking points and now it happens on the left also.

It's not always coordinated, though sometimes it is, but jounalists nowadays often use their position as a personal soap box to influence events in the direction of their choice. We live in a constant free spin zone.

The spin in that story took hold immediately; the subtle shift from an acknowledgement that Clinton faces an uphill battle now morphed into she has virtually no chance to win and then the talking points played out.

Obama had an uphill battle in front of him once also, remember? It wasn't that long ago, 9 months at most, and his camp wasn't exactly all doom and gloom at the time.

So which talking points do you go along with?

A) Only point number one

B) Both points one and two

C) All three points

[maximusveritas]

11. I'm missed the part where you showed it was a lie

Face it, she has no realistic chance.
No chance of winning the popular vote or the pledged delegates.
Hence, no chance of superdelegates going for her.
Hence, no chance of winning the nomination.
It's over.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. We have a clear favorite at the moment. That is far from the race being over

If Obama loses 8 of the last 10 contests, if the voters of Michigan and Florida do not get the delegates they selected seated or a valid revote instead and polls there continue to show her more popular in those states than Obama, if Obama screws up royally around some new controversy and/or is running ten points behind Hillary Clinton in the national polls for the Democratic nomination, and 8 points worse than Hillary Clinton in polls of match ups against McCain...

Obnama would no longer seem so inevitable, especially if the pledged delegate count falls under a hundred delegate margin by June. Under those circumstances the Democratic Party would be foolish to feel bound to nominate Obama if he could not win a majority of the delegates just because he piled up a slim pledged delegate lead early in the contest.

The odds don't favor all or most of that happening. Obama is the clear favorite now, but this race is far from being locked in stone, and there is no reason why it should be.

Have you noticed the latest update of a national state by state electoral map comparison of how Clionton and OBama fare against McCaini. It projects McCain with well over the electoral votes needed to defeat Obama, and Clinton leading McCain soundly. There's a DU thread up about it now. If trends like that continue you can bet your bottom dollor Obama does not have a lock on this nomination. That is why his side is trying so hard now to shut down the contest and call victory while they still can.

[wileedog]

16. Fantasy land

Your entire premise is that the SDs will overturn the PDs if Obama is "less than 100 ahead" because he will be 'down 10 in the polls' because maybe, hopefully oh if we are oh so lucky he will have "another scandal".

Do you realize any other politician not named Clinton would have been kicked to the curb weeks ago by their party if this nonsensical, highly unlikely string of maybes was the only way they can win? Especially when the candidate in question is running a complete scorched earth campaign that goes out of its way to praise the Republican candidate over the probably Dem nominee?

And even worse,at the end of this rainbow you have a group of party insiders turning over the Pledged Delegate votes, which is sure to cause huge disenfranchisement at best and possibly a cataclysmic schism at worst?

There is no chance Hillary wins the GE if the SDs 'anoint' her over the vote. None. The SDs know this. Pelosi knows this. Only Hillary and her fans are still holding on to this ridiculous notion that the party can toss the vote aside, toss the first elected African American nominee aside, and everyone will just coming running back to vote for her in the fall after she literally destroyed the rightful candidate in the media.

Calling this reality a 'talking point' doesn't make it any less true.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Stop the snark

I am not hoping for scandals, certainly not anymore than Obama supporters look forward to the release of Clinton's tax records.

The supposedly highly unlikely string of maybes is a perfectly plausible one even if it is in your self interests to deny that. Had Obama, with all the advantages of momentum and money going for him and plenty of time to campaign in person, defeated Clinton in either Texas or Ohio, then she would have kicked to the curb by Party leaders. But Obama wasn't capable of that, even before the controversy over Reverend Wright errupted.

Or are you claiming that Obama won Texas? Many Obama supporters do. After all he did get the support of more delegates there than Hillary Clinton did even though most Texas voters chose Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. A win is a win, right? Screw the popular will.

There are so many irregularities to this election contest, starting with the fact that the choice of Democrats in Michigan and Florida, both two of the largest ten states in America, are not being taken into account, and the relatively undemocratic results that emerge from Caucuses in general, that there is plenty of grounds for Super Delegates to look at who has the momentum, and who has the loyalty of most Democratic voters come Convention time, and who can actually win for Democrats in Novemeber.

I may not like caucuses, and you may not like Super Delegates, but both are part of the rules that this election is being played under. And you are so quick to speak about "tossing" aside the first African American candidate we may have. First I do not believe super delegates will toss anyone aside without good reason. Second Hillary Clinton is also the first female canmdidate we may have and women are an important Democratic constituency also.

As are hispanics. They are the classic swing vote now, Democrats always lose the white vote. And both Clintons are very highly thought of by most hispanics. I think Hillary Clinton is actually our only real chance to hold down Latino Democratic defections to John McCain.

[wileedog]

25. OK, all snark aside

"I am not hoping for scandals, certainly not anymore than Obama supporters look forward to the release of Clinton's tax records. "

Actually I highly doubt I ever see them.

"The supposedly highly unlikely string of maybes is a perfectly plausible one even if it is in your self interests to deny that. Had Obama, with all the advantages of momentum and money going for him and plenty of time to campaign in person, defeated Clinton in either Texas or Ohio, then she would have kicked to the curb by Party leaders. But Obama wasn't capable of that, even before the controversy over Reverend Wright errupted."

Ohio and Texas were two states that Hillary led by over 20 points several weeks out from the primary. The fact that even the popular vote was within a few points shows he indeed made amazing inroads into Texas during a very short time. Ohio is a state completely built for Hillary demographically, I don't understand how saying he 'didn't win it' somehow makes him a worse candidate.

In fact, Hillary was leading everything going into these primaries. Last fall she was polling 30+ points better than Obama nationally. She had more money, support, name recognition and the press had all but crowned her. The fact that she has for all intents and purposes lost this election to someone who some wondered why even came out to run against her is amazing and tells me I want Hillary and her team of numbnuts no where's near running the general election.

"There are so many irregularities to this election contest, starting with the fact that the choice of Democrats in Michigan and Florida, both two of the largest ten states in America, are not being taken into account, and the relatively undemocratic results that emerge from Caucuses in general, that there is plenty of grounds for Super Delegates to look at who has the momentum, and who has the loyalty of most Democratic voters come Convention time, and who can actually win for Democrats in Novemeber."
What's done is done, and no one has ever complained about caucuses before Hillary ignored them and lost them. Superdelegates are certainly NOT going to look at caucuses as some sort of 'inferior' pledged delegate, if that is where you are going with it.

"I may not like caucuses, and you may not like Super Delegates, but both are part of the rules that this election is being played under. And you are so quick to speak about "tossing" aside the first African American candidate we may have. First I do not believe super delegates will toss anyone aside without good reason. Second Hillary Clinton is also the first female canmdidate we may have and women are an important Democratic constituency also."

In the same sentence you actually bemoan the "undemocratic results" of not taking MI and FL into account, and yet you want to use that as a basis to throw EVERYONE's VOTE OUT. Because caucauses are bad. Or something.

Its quite a bit of gall to complain the the Democratic process of this election has been irregular, so you want to throw it away completely and have a bunch of party insiders make everyone's decision for them, don't you think?


"First I do not believe super delegates will toss anyone aside without good reason."

A good reason is not happening to lose the last few primaries are a dip in the polls, many of which are unreliable anyway. There needs to be a stark, "Holy crap I thought Obama was God but look at this!" reason or many many people will not buy it as anything more than the Clintons strong-arming party insiders. I really can't understate the damage IMO that this will cause if the party makes a judgment call on 'electability' that is not so overwhelmingly conclusive that Michelle Obama looks at it and says "Well, maybe they have a point."

"As are hispanics. They are the classic swing vote now, Democrats always lose the white vote. And both Clintons are very highly thought of by most hispanics. I think Hillary Clinton is actually our only real chance to hold down Latino Democratic defections to John McCain."

Again, I think this offset by awakening a clearly unenthusiastic Republican party by waving a Clinton in their face. McCain's contributions will triple overnight. Furthermore you may even wind up with Richardson on the ticket to offset that even more.

The highest Latino populations are in Cal (which Obama is not going to lose), NY (which Obama is not going to lose), TX (which Obama is not going to win) and some of the SW states where McCain hold a decent advantage anyway. I don't think they are election breakers this time around.

And again, I apologize for any snark, real or perceived. This place does get the blood pressure up, no?

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. I appreciate your well thought through and presented reply

Yes, this place does get the blood pressure up sometimes, we all fall victim to that.

My point about Texas and Ohio was at root a bottom line one. Had Obama won the popular vote in either of those states I agree that the Democratic Party would have pressured Clinton to leave the race, with some justification even though the electorate remains closely split between both candidates with neither having any liklihood to win on pledged delegates alone. I don't think the Party is by any means in Clinton's pocket, if anything Obma has become the establishment candidate at this point with folks like Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi openly backing him. If the case was conclusive that Clinton had no real chance of winning, there would not simply be talk about the race needing to be called, the action would take place to see that it ended now through a Super Delegate intervention toward that end.

We can debate the intangibles of Obasma's money and momentum and whether it was remarkable that Clinton held on to win Ohio and Texas after once being far ahead in both states or not. Cases can be made for both conclusions, but virtually all observers agree that Obama had been closing the gap in both states, if not actually moving ahead, by a week or so before the votes, and then final momentum shifted away from Obama toward Clinton in both of them in the closing days. I and millions of other Democrats think Clinton earned her right to remain in the race after the results of March 4th.

I agree that what's done is done, but I equate complaining about the role of caucuses in this election with complaining about the role of Super Delegates in this eletion. Both are defined and accepted as part of the rules this nomination contest would be fought under. We may simply disagree there.

I have no doubt that Super Delegates will look at all pledged delegates equally when considering the significance of the final pledged delegates count. And I for one agree that whoever wins the final pledged delegate count is an important matter of consideration. It shifts the burden of proof onto those who believe Clinton should be our nominee to make a very strong case for it should she not be leading in the pledged delegate count. But leading in the pledged delegate count does not equate with winning the nomination. It never has and never will as long as there are other delegates in the mix and no candidate has a majority of all of them.

It seems we differ about what the criteria should be for defining what a very strong case for nominating Hillary would be should Obama enter the Convention with more pledged delegates than Hillary, no matter how narrow that lead should be. Where we seemingly do agree is that there is some point at which a case could and should be made to nominate the candidate who only slightly trails in pledged delegates if neither has won the overall majority needed to win the nomination outright, even if we are far apart in how we define those circumstances.

I suspect we will have trouble reaching agreement on that now, you and I, at least while all of this is abstract. Whatever case is most compelling might be clearer in the light of a future day after we know a lot more that we can't possibly know now about how the final months of this campaign play out. Right now I can't see my criteria changing, and likely you can't see yours changing either, but I am realistic enough to know that what I feel now can and likely will be changed by subsequent events as they unfold, even if I don't know what those changes in my personal perception might be, now in advance.

And of course I understand that the situation in Florida and Michigan is muddled but the fact that it is muddled doesn't make it immaterial. The truth still remains that there are millions of Democratic voters in both of those states who have opinions as to who they want to represent our Party as our nominee in November, and their desires are just as worthy of consderation as those of Democrats in Wyoming and Alabama. It's just that it is not as easy to mechanically give weight to their opinions through pledged delegates with the results of the primaries in Michigan and Florida currently thrown out the window. It still is a factor though and a factor worthy of Super Delegate consideration.

Let's just say that I feel your comment that I want to throw everyone's vote out on any basis whatsoever was rhetorical overkill. I think that I explained my position both above and now here to be far from that. The ultimate moving of the goal posts accusation can be made against those who think it is cheating to allow this nomination to be determined by the actual rules that have governed this contest, caucuses and primaries and delegate seating disputes criteria included. They will all play out according to the Democratic Party rules and we will choose a nominee using those rules.

Regarding Latino's, Florida is a crucial battle field state, as it has been for several elections cycles. Current polls show Clinton possibly winning Florida while Obama definately loses there. Jeb Bush isn't Governor there any more. Even if you assume that Clinton would not win Florida, which I certainly do NOT assueme...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Mar22.html

...it is essential that that state remain at least highly competitive so that Republicans can't redirect their campaign resourses into a state like NJ which the same link I refer you to has Clinton winning but a total toss up with Obama as our candidate. There is a hispanic population in states like New Jersey too by the way. Those maps at the web site I linked to provide interesting grist for discussion.

Any way, thanks again for your courteous and thoughtful post.

[guruoo]

20. Too bad. Obamagandists should have thought about that before...

they swiftboated fellow Democrats!

[guruoo]

18. K&R

[cooolandrew]

21. Erm,I wouldn't argue the McCain thing but her only route to winning is unsavoury. Cenceding with...

..grace maintains her reputation. Not just for her but for the rest of the Clinton family. The world is watching afterall. Better to hold dignity than proceed in dishonor.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Democrats of good faith can disagree on point one

It is the use of the point one argument to set up points two and three that I find to be disgraceful. Even if one thinks the Clinton campaign is not being realistic about its chances it is certainly possible to at least understand why they still believe they have a legitimate chance to win, thus taking the air out of conspiracy points two and three.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Are there more Obama supporters out there willing to agree

that even if you yourself believe that Clinton has no real chance of winning at this point, that from the perspective of her campaign they still have a sincere basis to beleive that she does?

Like I responded to another poster here, I don't mind disagreeing about Point Number One. It can be a spirited but legitimate bone of contention that does not inherently corrode post primaries Democratic unity to argue about now.

I am deeply troubled however when Points Two and Three get promtomed on the basis that Hillary Clinton must know that she can't win the nomination and therefor a more sinister theory must explain her staying in the race.

[wileedog]

27. I don't agree at all with points 2 and 3

I do believe she is trying to tear down Obama, but its because it is her only strategy left.

I also think she just likes McCain better, and on a purely personal note I don't think she would be as upset as some of us if he beat Obama. But that's just my opinion and I certainly wouldn't state it as fact.

Gearing up for a run in 2012 is kinda dumb if you ask me. What if the stars align and McCain actually does a few things right? Silly to campaign for something 4 or even 8 years out. And again I don't think she shares the same opinion of McCain as some of us here do, so I don't think she would plan on him 'screwing up' as Prez.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Both candidates will be careful to minimally honor McCain's service

and patriotism, and in fact both have. McCain appeals to Independents and both Obama and Clinton don't want to alienate them by tastelessly trashing McCain. I know many Obama supporters think Clinton overall praises McCain over Obama, and I have engaged in that debate frequently here already. I think she acknowledged an obvious electoral strength that McCain has that helps him appeal to many Independents and swing voters, while arguing she can best match up against him on that basis of the current Democratic candidates.

Many Obama supporters however think she crossed a red line with her comments, I understand all that, but that is a different charge than saying she would prefer to see McCain elected than Obama. Whether she hates McCain as much as many of us here do is another matter entirely. I doubt Obama hates McCain as much as many of us here do.

I appreciate your comments. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton will actively campaign for and support Barack Obama for President if he becomes our nominee. That is exactly what she has said all along that she will do and I fully believe her on that score.

[Levgreee]

26. I don't think you can call your third meme a "meme" because it is hardly widespread

Those smears ARE scorched Earth strategies, but the 3rd is only held by a very small minority, and the 2nd, by still a small minority.

On the other hand, Hillary's official campaign, including Hillary herself, are running a scorched campaign strategy.

Therefore, the Clinton campaign is much more at fault. The heads of a campaign speak for the Clinton campaign more than a small minority of Obama supporters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Thank you for a reasonable response

I happen to think that there is a conscious constant effort going on to shift the range of discussion about who Hillary Clinton is, how she acts, and what her intentions and motivations are constantly toward further and more negative extremes. It isn't a one step process, it works more through acclimation, like that famous frog in a pot that is slowly brought to a boil. More and more outrageous charges keep getting thrown out against Hillary Clinto and gradually the garden variety only somewhat outrageous attacks on her start appearing relatively moderate, and by comparison reasonable. It reaches a point where in either an a) unguarded or b) planned moment a key Obama advisor calmly calls Hillary Clinton a monster while another Obama advisor equates Bill Clinton with Joe McCarthy.

Virtually very single day on DU for weeks now at least, several threads get started and quickly hoisted onto the Greatest List by Obama supporters pushing either and/or both memes Two and Three here. There is a thread I just looked at that is winning rave reviews showing a photo of Hillary Clinton morphing into Joe Lieberman, who as we all know HAS endorsed John McCain for President. And that is among the more subtle ones.

[SeaLyons]

29. REC

[goodgd_yall]

34. Thank you

for another rational and fair-minded post. You're one of the few people I'm bothering to read on GD:P anymore. You're right. The real divisiveness is coming from those smearing a good Democrat in their desperation to have their candidate annointed the Democratic nominee for POTUS. I'll vote for Obama if he's our nominee, but I don't feel one iota of the "unity" he is supposed to bring to America. Some, not all, of his supporters have been as diligent as Republicans in smearing Hillary and distorting Bill Clinton's legacy.

[anamandujano]

35. I almost forgot to rec, now rectified.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. Thanks. I used one of my other three threads today to make nice

so I figure that earned me a free pass to kick this one, heh.

[txaslftist]

37. Obviously her opponents are sniping at her. Good thing she knows how to duck.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. And that is the other anti-Hillary talking point of the day of course

I don't so much mind that one though. I think it is a minor but "legitimate" controversy of sorts. Enjoy it until the next news cycle. The election will NOT hinge on this.

[txaslftist]

39. The election may not hinge on it.

But doesn't it make you wonder about her credibility?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. Honestly? No

I was more bothered by it until I learned that she also took a helicopter trip into a potential combat zone where there was a real element of elevated risk, even if not substantial, involved. There easily could have been snipers that might have fired on her at any second thre with absolutely no warning.

Look, those are my real feelings about this. If all Hillary had done on that trip was land in the middle of a totally secured landing strip and kissed babies at an official reception, yeah that would have set me back a little. As it is, there are about 10,848 potential issues that rank higher for me than how a recollection about a trip that included an element of risk was reconstructed. I've heard that Obama has received some criticism for how he constructed his first memoir also, specifically that he created some composite characters to people it out of memories of a number of people of that sort that were not distinct. Big F'ing deal, if he wasn't claiming to have saved Chicago from a terrorist attack while he was at it.

[AX10]

40. ...

"It is the same passive aggressive campaign being waged against Hillary Clinton on discussion boards across the nation. People honestly prefer Obama over Clinton for any number of reasons, and then they go in for the kill. The passive aggressive part is the constant accusation that Clinton is doing terrible things that in fact THEY are doing with their accusations. Accusing Hillary Clinton of wanting to divide the Democratic Party so that she can throw the election to McCain IS dividing the Democratic Party, and that MAY throw the election to McCain."

True.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Gotta kick this again in honor of Tweety...

He's a player that boy is, all suited up and on the team.

[rodeodance]

46. i think he is skitzo

[guruoo]

47. K&R

[hfojvt]

49. sorry but that does not add up

First, would we or would we not be in a better position if we had a nominee now instead of continuing a scorched earth campaign?

Second, did she or did she not initiate the scorched earth campaign?
a) STOP THE LIES, OBAMA, AND LET'S HAVE A REAL DEBATE IN OHIO!!
b) The skies will open up, the sun will shine down and we'll all sing Kumbaya (paraphrase)
c) I have a lifetime of experience, McCain has a lifetime of experience, Obama has a speech he made in 2002
d) a deafening silence during pastorgate
e) plagiarism charges
f) NAFTAgate
did she cause the last two, or just take advantage of them? I don't remember for sure.

Third, was aided in Ohio and Texas by over 100,000 Republicans, perhaps voting for her at the urging of Rush Limbaugh, who wants to see this campaign continue.

Fourth, what is the point of personally attacking Richardson, except as some sort of Bush-like political hardball supposed to intimidate other SDs?

None of the above shows that she is thinking of the Democratic Party. Bill Scher and Keith Olbermann say that she is not in a campaign. She's in a 'suicide pact'.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/2008/03/suicide_pact_doing_its_damage.php

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. First off you are not countering my OP

You are simply venting your perspective on why you think Clinton is running a nasty campaign. There are tens of thousands of threads in the archives of GD-P that argue over each and every point you raise about this campaign, and most of those tens of thousands of threads have dozens of posts on them. Both campaigns themselves spent days arguing over NAFTA, and we here spent much longer.

I view all of these kitchen sink challenge posts, from either side, to be rants, some done better than others. You might as well ask someone to provide a consise written summary of all of the debate points raised by all of DU's posters daily for the last six months, because there have been countless entire threads devoted to arguing about every item that you want to throw at Clinton. You want debates on 8 topics that I am not talking about in my OP? Use the search function.

By your logic we would have been better off if the first "inevitable" nominee was "crowned" last summer rather than trying to "crown" the current "inevitable" nominee now. Then we could have avoided ALL of this competitive messiness.

For this entire primary season Obama has gone out of his way to attempt to register Rpublicans to be "Democrats for a Day" in Democratic primaries. Earlier in this season many Republican did just that because they have been taught to hate Clinton so badly that they wanted to bury her for good. And that does not hold true across our country everywhere EXCEPT for TX and OH. Obama got plenty of anti-Clinton votes from Republicans in those states also.

Richardson's endorsement of Obama is a controversial one. In saying that I am not saying that automatically makes it wrong, but there is legitimate controversy about it because it is not merely controversy kicked up by someone in Clinton's campaign. New Mexico voted for Clinton, and over two thirds of hispanic voters voted for Clinton, and there are many hispanic voters writing in to newspapers and blogs saying that Richardson did stab the Clinton's in the back. Those feelings are real and they are out there. Just like RFK Jr got attacked by some saying he only endorsed Hillary in order to be first in line for her Senate seat.

More to the point there are incredible orchestrated efforts being made by people involved with the Obama campaign to pressure Black elected officials who have already endorsed Clinton to switch to Obama instead. You are aware of that, aren't you? Jessie Jackson Jr. for example was involved in making some pretty direct threats of retaliation against Black elected Super Delegates who refuse to switch their support to Obama, but I'm sure you are perfectly fine with all of that.

[RBInMaine]

50. What about Slick Hilly's MANY LIES LIES LIES ?? !!

[VinnieF]

55. Thanks for posting this thread.

I managed to find a few more Hillarhoids to ignore.

Including you.

:hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. I'm sorry you won't get a chance to see me welcome you to DU then

or my thanks to you for kicking my thread with your insightful commentary.

[VinnieF]

58. No Welcome necessary.

I only joined so I could use Ignore to get rid of my problem with Hillarhoids.

Oh, and you're welcome for the kick. And for this one.

P.S. SHE LOST. GET OVER IT.

[Sparkly]

56. I saw Tweety trying to push that case last night.

With little charts and everything. It was pathetic.

[anonymous171]

63. She's trying to make him unelectable so the SDs have no choice but to go to her.

It's not about 2012, it's about NOW.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. We agree it is about now

Bottom line there is nothing Clinton has on Obama to make him unelectable that McCain and the Rove team don't already have full access to. The question really is do the Democratic voters know as much as they need to know about both of these candidates now to make an informed choice?

I know that Obama supporters by and large think that the answer is yes, lol. And I think at this point I agree, looked at from either perspective. That is why the final primaries really will be decisive. If Clinton can't convince Democrats now that she is the best candidate to go up against McCain, and clearly prove it in the contests remaining, Obama is our nominee.

[underpants]

65. How about-her campaign is a fustercluck of self promotion and a Rove re-tread?

Or is that just me?

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. Obviously it's not just you silly. But not everyone agrees with you either

and we are not going to settle that debate on this thread.

[Skwmom]

71. Your post is Clinton camp talking points.

I especially enjoy the "lets make our own supporters so upset that they won't voter for Obama in the general election" meme. As a women, I find it extremely offensive that Clinton falsely plays the gender, victim card.

Clinton is not being taking down with every trick in the book, she is being taking down by her own lies and reprehensible conduct.

I'm so tired of the "blame my opponent for what I am doing" tactic. Only blind Clinton supporters who refuse to face reality would buy into that spin.

Clinton wanting to throw the election to McCain is something I've thought long before it was posted on this or any other message board. As I said to my neighbor - there is no way she can win in the general election b/c no Democrat can win without significant black voter support (though disgust at the Clintons is hardly limited to the black community), so why is she trashing Obama so badly? The only LOGICAl conclusion is that she is looking towards 2012. Of course the one comforting thought was I do not think Clinton can EVER become President. What she did this election cycle will not be forgotten in 2012. The Clintons have cooked their own goose. The Clintons are the victims of their own appalling behavior and actions.

Americans do not want to elect another Liar-In-Chief.

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. Oh, were you looking for Obama camp talking points here?

Wrong thread. Try the one immediately above or below this one, I'm fairly confident that at least one of them will be able to help you with what you are looking for. But I see you already found one of them from reading the first sentence in your post.

To stick to the content of this OP, and your last paragraph. Here's something I wrote for another thread, and no one has given me a good argument to refute it even though I asked:

The entire rational behind a line of attack on Hillary saying that she wants Obama to lose so she can run in 2012 is fatally flawed. If she in fact thinks Obama would lose this election to McCain, and that she did not have a plausible chance of winning the nomination herself, she would be dropping out right now. If she dropped out now, the impact of her doing so would win her a great deal of sympathy and it would inoculate her against accusations that it was her fault that Obama could not defeat McCain.

Sure, there would be some who would continue to blame Hillary if Obama lost, but that would be a much smaller number of Democrats blaming her for his loss than would do so if she kept her campaign going through June.

To explore the conspiracy theory further, if Hillary already knew that she can't win the nomination then her only real chance to have a shot of running again later would be to drop our right now. Democrats don't as a rule throw their support 4 years later to a candidate who was deeply involved in a presidential loss four years earlier. Gore was urged not to run in 2004. Lieberman did run in 2004 after being linked to the failed 2000 election and he got nowhere. Kerry could not get enough support to run again in 2008 . Edwards did run again in 2008 but could not win a single primary. Ted Kennedy never ran again after he challenged Jimmy Carter in 1980. Bill Bradley never got talked up big as a candidate in 2004 after he failed to knock off Al Gore in 2000. There was no "Draft Bradly" movement in 2004.

Hillary Clinton's best chance to win the Presidency is now in 2008, and her only other remote chance to win it say in 2012, would be to drop out now and throw her support to Obama now. The entire conspiracy theory being pushed that she is trying to make Obama lose is a smear against Clinton to help Obama now.

[grantcart]

73. Point number one is true

Point number two is unknown. Who knows what motivates people to have their campaign to go the extremes they are going to have Carvelle repeatedly go on TV to try and politically assisinate Richardson.


Now before you go on another discourse about how it is unlikely please be intellectually honest enough to agree that 'not going to win' and 'highly unlikely' are in fact the same thing.

When you talk about her winning big in PA - what do you mean. You talk and you never ever include real numbers.


How many delegates do you think she is going to pick up in each state Tom - exactly how many are you predicting?

In exactly what districts do you think she is going to get 5-1 splits?

You can use this very useful thread as a reference point. Where is he wrong Tom? We all want to know.

People who are talking about Obama having established an insurmountable lead actually have done some very careful work. Where is your careful analysis Tom? How many delegates will she win in NC where today's poll has just shown a 21 point jump for Obama?

You have words - where is your scenario? Where are your numbers? When Obama gets another 220 pledged delegates he will pass the 50% mark and that seems to be enough for a large number of superdelegates including Speaker Pelosi.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4924604
This is the next state that Hillary supporters like to talk about and look at, but frankly, even if Hillary's favored, it's not going to give her a huge boost. In fact, Obama could very well cancel out Pennsylvania's margin with Wyoming!

Let's look at each district. Pennsylvania has 103 delegates allocated by district and 55 at large.:

PA-1: 7 delegates. Pretty damn close to majority black but Hillary should do well among whites. Obama is still certain to win, but whether he gets 4 or 5 delegates is a turnout battle. I'll be kind to Hillary and assume it's 4-3 Obama.
PA-2: 9 delegates. 61% black, and the whites here are much more unfriendly to Hillary. This district is simply brutal for her. 7-2 Obama.
PA-3: 5 delegates. This is a good district for Hillary. 3-2 Hillary.
PA-4: 5 delegates. Another good district for Hillary. 3-2 Hillary.
PA-5: 4 delegates. Hillary should win most of the district, but she has a severe problem with it containing Penn State. No one will win enough to win more than 2 delegates apeice.
PA-6: 6 delegates. The parts of this district that demographically favor Obama vote Democratic. The parts that demographically favor Hillary vote Republican. Obama stands a damn good shot of doing well enough to win 4 delegates to her 2, but I'll be generous and call it a tie.
PA-7: 7 delegates. Very good district for Obama. 4-3 Obama.
PA-8: 7 delegates. Same deal. 4-3 Obama.
PA-9: 3 delegates. This is a good district for Hillary, but with 3 delegates margin doesn't matter. 2-1 Hillary.
PA-10: 4 delegates. Can Hillary break 62.5% here? It's worth noting that she only barely got around that in the parts of New York bordering the district where she got a bounce no doubt. But in this I'm always giving her the benefit of the doubt. 3-1 Hillary.
PA-11: 5 delegates. Good territory for Hillary. 3-2 Hillary.
PA-12: 5 delegates. Also good territory for Hillary. 3-2 Hillary.
PA-13: 7 delegates. This district isn't overwhelmingly favorable to Obama, but it's tough to see how he loses. 4-3 Obama.
PA-14: 7 delegates. This is a tossup. Almost 24% black, but Hillary should do very well among whites. Frankly you might as well flip a coin to see how it votes, but I'm being kind to Hillary. 4-3 Hillary.
PA-15: 5 delegates. This district is changing, but still good for Hillary at this moment. 3-2 Hillary.
PA-16: 4 delegates. Hillary favored probably, but it's only 4 delegates. It'll split.
PA-17: 4 delegates. This is probably the blackest rural district outside of the south. It's 12.4% black, and the whites are mostly Republican, so the percentage of the black voters in the primary is larger. Flip a coin to see who wins, but it really doesn't matter due to the even number of delegates.
PA-18: 5 delegates. I could see a case for Obama here, but Hillary still favored. 3-2 Hillary.
PA-19: 4 delegates. Another 4 delegate district with 2 apeice.

Total? 52 delegates for Hillary and 51 for Obama. Now the 55 at large. I'm going to continue being generous to Hillary and assume she has a 10 point victory. 55% gives her 30 delegates to Obama's 25. That's a total victory over Obama of 6 delegates.

Put simply, don't count on PA to put a massive dent in Obama's lead

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. I know you believe otherwise but it isn't just about the pledged delegates

Just like I can't throw out the results from caucuses because I think that system is flawed.

And the overall delegate decision of the convention will bend to Obama coming out ahead in pledged delegates UNLESS he shows a lot of relative weakness between now and the end of the primaries. If Obama is in a tail spin and McCain is opening up a big lead over Obama in polls while he isn't over Clinton, and Obama can't win in the Midwest States like Ohio and Indianna and can't win in PA and if he loses where he was expected to win in places like Oregon or NC, it isn't going to be about who picked up which delegate from which district, because Obama won't have nearly enough delegates to win based on pledged delegates. It will be about overall perceptions about who is the strongest candidate at that point, they will be pretty close in actual delegates won.