Forums | MacLife

Oh for Chrissakes.

This is getting sad. A once-great leader (or potential leader) basically setting out to destroy herself. It's like the female equivalent of a black celebrity being caught in a drug bust or something; high hopes, especially among women, that she'd be the first female president, only to see those hopes betrayed in an orgy of self-destruction.

An old-skool feminist I talked to the other day is reluctantly deciding she doesn't like Hillary anymore, and she's horribly upset about it. "There won't be a viable female candidate for another 20 years," she said.

Thank you, Hillary. You've done marvelous damage to the cause.

smurfing smurf.

Wow. She beat "uncommitted" by a smaller percentage than Obama has beaten her in some contests.  As the bitch says, we can see a trend.

We're seeing more female Senators and state Governors - we may yet see a viable female candidate (perhaps even one that isn't caucasian!) sooner rather than later. But twenty years is "only" five election cycles.

The DNC is in a bind. They need to sanction MI and FL in some way, but can't completely shut them out. The only way Hillary will be happy is if the matter is decided in a way where she gets the nomination. Period. She will not be happy and will bitterly complain about any solution that doesn't make her the nominee.

I think her problem with bringing up the big states is that she may have indeed won them, but mostly by slim margins. If she won by large margins, she'd have more delegates and we wouldn't be in this mess. There's also the fact that for the most part, the primaries are only Democrats, they're not an accurate measure of who will draw important swing voters in November. She floated the question of why Barack can't close the deal - a question she should have asked herself. Why didn't Hillary - with every advantage going in - seal the deal by Super Tuesday? Perhaps because she banked on sealing up the traditional Democratic coalition and not on bringing new people into the process. But Howard Dean was right - the Dems need to reach out to new constituencies and Obama is doing just that.

What boggles my mind is that she thinks she can pull this off - getting the superdelegates to hand her the nomination - and still win in November. I seriously doubt that.

Non gender insults directed at the woman are encouraged though.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

"There won't be a viable female candidate for another 20 years," she said.

Pelosi?  Rice?

Either of them are, at least, conceivable in four or eight years.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080510/ap_ … ndorsement

Obama now has more superdelegates in his camp than Clinton.

bratboy wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

She's sunk.  Why can't she just see that and try to make the best of the situation?  As it stands right now, she's doing herself great damage by continuing the charade.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at a Clinton family dinner.  I'm sure that Bill (and Chelsea, for that matter) have some interesting things to say.

Apparently she'll stay in up until June 15th (IIRC).

She's close enough that she could legitimately claim the nomination were Obama's campaign have some sort of unlikely meltdown prior to the end of the primary season.

Meltdown... I heard it said somewhere (Slate?) that he's have to be caught in a hotel room with a troop of boy scouts, burning the Stars and Stripes.

Hank Rearden wrote:

robco wrote:

The only way Hillary will be happy is if the matter is decided in a way where she gets the nomination. Period.

Well, there's no way of doing that.

First, by any REASONABLE method of handing out delegates, the numbers just aren't there.

Second, to do anything other than something REASONABLE would destroy that party.  And the grand poobahs of the Dems won't stand for that.

She's sunk.  Why can't she just see that and try to make the best of the situation?  As it stands right now, she's doing herself great damage by continuing the charade.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at a Clinton family dinner.  I'm sure that Bill (and Chelsea, for that matter) have some interesting things to say.

Actually I'd be willing to wager that both Bill and Chelsea are urging her to keep at it.

As for the unlikeliness of an Obama meltdown, I can't think of a single primary race that's unfolded in that way, ever. Not at this stage of the game. He's not Bill Clinton, he's not a slave to insane self-destructive urges. At least not that I know of (there haven't been any indications of such).

Indeed maybe it's because Bill Clinton is the only guy who comes to mind capable of destroying himself in such a spectacular way that has Hillary continuing to hold out hope for such an eventuality. I mean what does it say about her that she even thinks it's even worth including that possibility in her campaigns strategy? I don't think anyone else does that.

bratboy wrote:

The numbers have to frustrate her.  Even now, many polls show her performing better in a match-up against McCain than Obama....especially on a state-by-state basis. 

I believe she'll be out by next month, barring any significant superdelegate move in her direction.

I simply don't believe those numbers have any validity.
If they had been in debates and this was after, ok, but not when they aren't side by side to compare.

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

I simply don't believe those numbers have any validity.
If they had been in debates and this was after, ok, but not when they aren't side by side to compare.

I don't understand what you're saying.

I'm talking about head-to-head match-ups in state and national polls.

I'm saying those polls are smurf because the two people they put against each other have never campaigned or debated yet against the other.
It's just "names" right now.

robco wrote:

But Howard Dean was right - the Dems need to reach out to new constituencies and Obama is doing just that.

So he's like the Nintendo Wii of political candidates?

after-life wrote:

Because we're at the end of a highly contested primary there's a big strategic bias in the numbers.

Hillary people who are upset she lost the nomination will say they'll vote for McCain over Obama, when in reality most of them will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee.

The same thing happened in 2000, with half of McCain supporters saying they'd vote for Gore.

Which they did, but they were black so their votes weren't counted.