Back in the dark ages we now refer to as the early 1990s, I was in high school. On Fridays my friends and I had a standing appointment to play basketball. It was nothing formal and certainly not at a high level of skill - my main contribution was being the big guy who stood in the paint and made funny voices so I sounded like Shaq. My friend Mark used to tote a bottle of Gatorade labeled “Michael’s (Jordan) Favorite!” That kind of thing. But we had this one guy who played with us occasionally who used to do the weirdest thing. We would be playing, joking around, flailing at each other and hurling the basketball in the air on the off-chance that it might go into the hoop sometime, and if this guy was on a team that was getting beaten he would… just walk off.
He wouldn’t say anything, he wouldn’t make a snide remark or chide his teammates, it was even worse. He just walked off, a sore ass loser.
I say this because President Clinton has once again dug into the feces and pulled out another pony for his wife to ride on.
While speaking by phone Thursday to his wife’s Texas supporters, former President Bill Clinton downplayed the importance of caucuses and argued that his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., would capture the Democratic presidential nomination by outperforming Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in primary states.
“Right now, among all the primary states, believe it or not, Hillary’s only 16 votes behind in pledged delegates,” said Bill Clinton, “and she’s gonna wind up with the lead in the popular vote in the primary states. She’s gonna wind up with the lead in the delegates [from primary states].”
“It’s the caucuses that have been killing us,” he added.
Got that? In addition to red states that go Obama not counting, southern states with large black populations worth nothing, blue states that have the nerve to go against the annointed one being excluded, now all the caucuses don’t count. None of them, so the criteria we must use from here on is primary states where Sen. Clinton won. Mister President, just put a crown on her and quit beating around the bush, because clearly Queen Elizabeth isn’t the only monarch as head of state of a major western power left!
Christ, what is wrong with these people?
You know who once didn’t have such a problem with caucuses? Hillary Clinton.
“So I ask you to caucus for me tomorrow. Put on your coats and call up a friend and help me change America,” she says. “If you stand with me for one night, I will stand up for you every day as your President.”
But that was back on the second of January before she began losing from coast to coast. Contrary to President Clinton’s twisted logic, all the delegates count - be they in primaries or caucuses, red states or blue states, black voters or none. That’s the contest the Democratic party set up, and while I know this is a shocker to the two of them: They don’t own the party.
Stay tuned for another edition of Cherry Pickin’! With The Clintons: If they can’t win steal the nomination, nobody can.
ALSO: Exclusive footage of the Clinton campaign as interpreted by a troupe of mid-20th century British comedians.
“Bill Clinton then went on to point out how there was unanimity in the Clinton household for Hillary’s candidacy but conceded a short while later that the same could not be said for the former Clinton White House…”
Could somebody explain that math to me, please?
Awesome.
The Clinton camp are going to need collective hernia surgery for how many times they’ve moved the goalposts
Judas! Bob Casey does not count!
jr:
LOL.
“The Clinton camp are going to need collective hernia surgery for how many times they’ve moved the goalposts”
My dissallusionment with the Clinton family grows by the day.
I really wish, when he makes statements like this, that SOMEbody in the press would just ask him flat out “Why don’t all the delegates count?”
Yeah, yeah, I know. MSM won’t do it and if anyone was likely to the Clintons wouldn’t let them anywhere near Bill or Hillary to interview them.
But, geez, “reporters”. Can’t ANY of you at least TRY to have a no-hold-barred interview with these folks?
Patrick Leahy, Obama supporter, offered this:
“There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama. Now, obviously that’s a decision that only she can make frankly I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate.”
Emphasis mine. I had all but forgotten that even if she gets left in the dust on the way to the presidential nomination that she’ll likely remain a Senator for several terms to come.
And I wonder what kind of Senate career she will have under an Obama presidency, or expects to have. After such a series of vicious and flailing attempts to declare Obama “unelectable,” if he is in fact “elected,” will she remain a bitter thorn in the side of his presidency?
I wish I didn’t have to ask this sort of question. It seemed obvious to me a few months ago that she would be a powerful Senate ally for a Democratic president, that she would rise above spite if not nominated. But the thing I’ve learned for certain about Hillary over the course of her campaign is that she’s not really as mature as I once thought; whatever gravitas she accumulated is easily sacrificed to the altar of her ego.
I hope I’m wrong about that.
My wife and I have been noticed that the Clinton campaign has been looking like sore losers for some time now. But as former President Bill Clinton used to say, we will just have to wait and see how it plays out, (but right now, its looking sorta sad).
I’m reminded of the scene in Cassablanca in which Victor tells Rick, “You sound like a man trying to convince himself of something he doesn’t really believe.”
There is no question that the Democratic Party’s Primary process has been exposed for the incredibly stupid mess it is.
Clinton’s point is a fair one. Not all delegates should count the same, even thought the rules say they do.
I used to think the Dems had a great idea using fairness and consideration for all which led them to create this totally fucked-up system where Elections are open to all in some states, even including non-resident transient students, where in other states there is a convoluted, formula-based allocation that led Sen. Clinton, who on the popular vote by tens of thousands of votes in Texas to LOSE the delegate count, where no one knows exactly what rules the SuperDelegates must follow, where no one knows even why superdelegates exist.
I hope after this is over, no matter who wins, SOMEBODY breaks some heads and makes it better for next time.
I’ll agree with Wellstone on this count. The nomination system we have in place is pretty damn stupid.
I about fell out of my chair yesterday when Hillary said of all delegates, including the pledge delegates, that “they are free to vote for whomever they want to vote for.” She’s clearly making a pitch for all delegates to just “do the right thing” when the time comes.
Of course, I would expect her to apply the same logic to the electoral college when the time comes. Why have the commoners vote at all?
….that led Sen. Clinton, who on the popular vote by tens of thousands of votes in Texas…
Technically, you’re right. But it was only a matter of 4%. The majority of the states she has won have been really close. the majority of states Obama has won have been blow-outs.
Hmm, TECHNICALLY, the majority of states she’s won have been close, but she’s had a good share of blow-outs, too.
MA - She won by 15% and about 200k
NY- She won by 17% and about 300k
FL - She won by 17% and about 300k
CA - She won by 9% and about 400k
AK - She won by 44% and about 120k
and there’s a couple more.
The story has really been Obama’s command of GOP and independent voters, and small caucus and red states, where he’s won a lot of delegates. The BIGGEST win for Oama was Illinois.
As I’ve posted before, with over 3100 delegates pledged, and some 900 left, the difference is somewhere between 100 and 150. That’s it.
Wait a minute, Obama didn’t compete in Florida, and since MA and AK are small states they don’t count according to Mark Penn. So you really only have 2 states, and since 9% is hardly a blowout you have a resounding victory in one state, which is also her home state. So color me unimpressed.
You know what, I’m not gonna go through all the states and demonstrate what I mean by blowout.
Suffice it to say… Kansas by 50%!
Results from all states shown at:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html
A very quickie count shows:
when Obama won (30 wins)
- Biggest spread: 82% (Virgin Islands)
- Smallest spread: 1% (Missouri)
- Average: 29.5% more than Clinton
when Clinton won (15 wins)
- Biggest spread: 43% (Arkansas)
- Smallest spread: 1% (New Mexico)
- Average: 13.1 % more than Obama
Adding in Michigan and Florida Clinton’s numbers change to
- 55 (Michigan, Obama not on ballot)
- 1
- 15.8
So even including MI and FL, Obama tends to win by twice as much on average than Clinton.
Thank you, Sean. That’s what I’m talking about.
And yet, somehow, Obama supporters are the ones who are “delusional.”