Perhaps she’s hedging her bets and hoping for a McCain/Clinton ticket if she can’t get the Clinton/Obama ticket? That’s scary.

Gee, I don’t recall ever using that terminology, much less even hearing it before now.

And just because I think they’ve been landing body blows doesn’t mean that I think he can’t withstand them.

For the record, I don’t think that any Democratic politicians should ever speak negatively of a fellow Democrat, and focus on the much worse (by orders of magnitude) Republican’t malfeasance. And I don’t like either of the remaining campaigns’ forays into that type of persuasion. And a frelling ficus plant could beat McClueless and the Anything-But-Straight Talk Express in November.

Agreed. Which is why I wish she hadn’t made her recent forays into “McCain is more ready to be President than Obama,” which will only hurt the Democrats if she doesn’t win the nomination. She could have continued to wield her “experience” hammer (which again, Obama supporters will counter, “vs. judgment”) without having to endorse McCain in the process.

No.

I wasn’t distorting their (i.e., Save Farris’) words. I was pointing out that s/he wasn’t making their own case.

To review:
I said far too many in the Clinton camp seem willing to destroy the party if they don’t get their way.
SaveFarris quoted me and added “To be fair, Obama supporters are saying pretty much the same thing.”

I think what he meant to say is apparent. Obama supoprters would act the same way.
But as he actually wrote it what he actually says is Obama supporters also believe Clinton is willing to destroy the party. And then he provide a link that didn’t support his point.

And I pointed out “Sheesh, even with the distortion you can’t make the point you’re aiming for.”

That’s because no one is asking them directly.

Or similar sentiments being expressed by blogs who support Clinton being the nominee.

Ask Taylor Marsh. My feeling is probably not.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.png

That’s because no one is asking them directly.

Or similar sentiments being expressed by blogs who support Clinton being the nominee.

Ask Taylor Marsh. My feeling is probably not.

That’s because no one is asking them directly.

Or similar sentiments being expressed by blogs who support Clinton being the nominee.

Ask Taylor Marsh. My feeling is probably not.

But equally as honest…

And it compares to the “Clinton is Bush Lite” and/or “Clinton is owned by corporate interests” quotes coming from a bunch of Obama supporters (not sure if they’re, by and large, official Obama campaign staffers).

And it’s not just Michelle Obama who’s saying that. I see it all over quite a few liberal blogs, too. Things along the lines of, “If Clinton gets the Dem nomination, I’m voting for McCain”.

I also have failed to see any quotes from the Clinton campaign saying they’d have to think about voting for Obama if he wins the nomination. Or similar sentiments being expressed by blogs who support Clinton being the nominee.

If you think the eeeevul Clagina has been tagging Obama with body blows, I’d be interested to know how you think the Republican’t slime and deflect machinery will be treating him, comparatively speaking.

For the record, I don’t think that any Democratic politicians should ever speak negatively of a fellow Democrat, and focus on the much worse (by orders of magnitude) Republican’t malfeasance. And I don’t like either of the remaining campaigns’ forays into that type of persuasion. And a frelling ficus plant could beat McClueless and the Anything-But-Straight Talk Express in November. I also think that I have seen an awful lot more apocalyptic rhetoric (of the “if my candidate doesn’t win, I’m taking my votes and going home!” type) coming from the Obama camp than I have from the Clinton camp this cycle.

You know what that statement is? It’s honesty. After the body blows that Clinton’s campaign has landed on her husband, many of them unfair, if she does up winning the nomination you’d better believe it will take some thinking before Michelle would be willing to come out and support Clinton outright.

My guess is that she ultimately would. But it would take a bit of time and distance.

If she’d said “Oh, sure, if Barack doesn’t get it I’m totally and immediately in the Hillary camp” it would have read as disingenuous.

It’s still much less incendiary than “He’s not a Muslim, as far as I know.”

you’re saying Obama supporters are also saying the Clinton crowd is a bunch of little children (“if I can’t win, nobody gets to!”)

No.

Some of us are not entirely happy with a large number of members of the Obama camp saying “If Clinton is the nominee, I will not vote for a Democrat for president.”

Michelle Obama: I Would Have To Think About Supporting Clinton If She Is The Nominee

I believe you were ragging on someone earlier for distorting OW’s words? Perhaps you should look in a mirror when making such claims the next time…

* 19 Distinguished Party Leaders
* 31 Democratic Governors (incl. the Mayor of DC and Governors of Territories)
* 48 members of the Senate (46 Senators and the 2 Shadow Senators from DC)
* 220 members of the House of Representatives (includes the 4 Congressional Delegates from DC and from the Territories)
* 400 Democratic National Committee Members
* 76 Add-On Delegates (many of them have not been nominated yet)

IHMO the Governors and Senators should vote for whoever won their state, the Representatives should vote for whoever won in their district. The remaining 495 (62%) may be more problematic. But depending on just who they are, if they have any connection to a particular area they should vote as that area went.

Of course, this would mean superdelegates are really just additional delegates that go as the voting has already gone (e.g.., Clinton now New Mexico, so she’d have picked up one more delegate (the governor) from that state). Each candidate getting more delegates, but more or less proportionally. And the question could be asked “So just what purpose do they serve?”

I suppose one could argue that the superdelegates would actually have to vote differently than the People to justify their role.

Good job, CS. My point exactly!

To top it all off, the superdelegate proportions are all weird. They’re not proportional to the size of the state. Colorado, for example, has more superdelegates than Texas.

After all those superdelegates vote “according to the will of the people” there’s no telling what the result will be.

Who’s arguing they should pay attention to what happened next door? California’s representative should be doing what California wants. Not Colorado’s.”

Depending on the Super Delegate in question, they could vote how their congressional district voted, how the state voted, how the country voted, etc. and still say, I voted with the will of the people. It gets crazier when the popular vote doesn’t match the delegate count for a state.

Who’s arguing they should pay attention to what happened next door? California’s representative should be doing what California wants. Not Colorado’s.

OK, but which people?

My state, Colorado, went solidly for Obama. But you’re saying that if Clinton has the lead in elected delegates, my representative should ignore my vote because the candidate who won California rolled up a bigger total?

This is further evidence that SaveFarris is a lying asshole who should be ignored.