Obama Girl to Hillary: It's Hopeless

[stevento]

now here's what i cannot understand about obama supporters telling hillary she cant do it...
isn't that 100% contrary to obama's message of hope?

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4515895

[Aea]

Why, please ask me why we have to hear as much about some political nobody who had stock footage of her featured in a thirty second ad? Bread & Circus.

[zioxide]

She's right.

Hillary has almost no chance to win the nomination.

Oh, and Obama Girl is hot.

[it5five]

now here's what i cannot understand about obama supporters telling hillary she cant do it...


Maybe it's because she can't? I don't know how many times you've been told this, but here it goes again:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

It is a statistical improbability that she will get enough delegates in the remaining states to win. She will have to get at least 60% of the vote in every remaining state. Otherwise, she will have to depend on super delegates, but if she does that it will split the democratic party in half and hand the election to the Republicans. Obama is leading in elected delegates and the popular vote. Even if she wins in PA (and she probably will), her net gain will likely be too small to gain a lead over Obama. Obama will then go on to dominate in NC and OR, more than effectively erasing any "gains" Clinton would have made in PA.

[juanm]

She's right.

Hillary has almost no chance to win the nomination.

Oh, and Obama Girl is hot.

I don't know about the rest, but she's very hot. She should promise a striptease if Obama wins. THAT's something that would help fighting abstention!

[biturbomunkie]

the chick's right.

btw, she reminds of that "that's terrible, i'm sorry" girl.

[Cleverboy]

now here's what i cannot understand about obama supporters telling hillary she cant do it...
isn't that 100% contrary to obama's message of hope?
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4515895
I'll go ahead and strike the discordant note... stevento, SHE'S NOT AN OBAMA SUPPORTER. :eek: Her video is completely unhelpful, and stupid. I like the clever video editting, but all she is... is a political/media opportunist.

Obama Girl didn't vote, surprised?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=429450

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/obama-girl-didnt-vote/

SUPPORTERS actually think its important to VOTE. They don't go to parties the night before and feel disappointed they couldn't make it back to their district. They VOLUNTEER. They speak out of the issues. While she might generate some media publicity for Obama, it's not necessarily "good" publicity. Unlike Will.I.Am, who's purpose for creating his video WAS to promote people voting (and not necessarily exclusively for Obama).

I do not like this woman. She is the epitome of vacuousness. The Democratic party doesn't need more CRAP hitting the blogosphere about Obama, even if its semi-positive crap. They need party unity... not insult-driven cheerleading.

~ CB

[juanm]

Is it me or she's got bigger boobs than in the original video?

[obeygiant]

Is it me or she's got bigger boobs than in the original video?

Could be, I'll have to watch it again to be sure... too difficult to tell.

[Roger1]

Could be, I'll have to watch it again to be sure... too difficult to tell.

Don't forget to use the "zoom" feature in Universal Access. It might make it easier on your eyes.
:D

[Prof.]

WOW! That video was really good. Nice editing.

[stevento]

when i first saw the obama girl video i though it was straight from his campaign.
a good viral ad

[MrSmith]

What did I just see? A political video or a "look at my knockers for my 15 minutes of fame" video? Truly awful all round.

[solvs]

She should promise a striptease if Obama wins.
You forget how puritanical we are here. Even if we do spend more on porn than almost anything else. We do it in secret. In public we'd be outraged. Especially those who didn't like Obama, who would watch it over and over and over again just to prove how bad it was and how bad he is. Guilt by association and all.

when i first saw the obama girl video i though it was straight from his campaign.
Please, they aren't that stupid as to do such a thing.

[Cleverboy]

when i first saw the obama girl video i though it was straight from his campaign. a good viral adYikes. That's because you don't think much of his campaign. If you pay attention however, anything from his campaign has an animation at the end of it with the sun coming over the rolling red, white, and blue fields. This is pretty much on every video they release on YouTube (when they produce the content). Also, here is their YouTube account (http://www.youtube.com/user/BarackObamadotcom).

Cheers,
~ CB

[stevento]

not everything from their campaign is going to say its from their campaign
i thought they had secretly made it as a viral ad and put it on the web

[IJ Reilly]

not everything from their campaign is going to say its from their campaign
i thought they had secretly made it as a viral ad and put it on the web

Cue spooky music. Rod? Rod, is that you?

[solvs]

Obama is actually saying she can keep going as long as she's like, but everyone knows it's over for her, except for her:

Democratic race over? Clinton doesn't think so (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080327/pl_nm/usa_politics_campaign_dc;_ylt=AuWG6fLNg1THtSJ98ekO0yWs0NUE)

Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama won.

Obama has captured more state contests, more votes and more of the pledged convention delegates who will help decide which Democrat faces Republican Sen. John McCain in November's presidential election.

But Clinton, a New York senator who has flirted with disaster before in the back-and-forth nominating battle with Obama, shrugs off growing predictions of doom and still sees at least a narrow path to victory.
Suddenly I can't help thinking of Bush, who never admits mistake or failure, even when it's obvious.

[BoyBach]

Why is it that some members / supporters of the Democratic Party are so fervent in their call's to deny the remaining electorate their democratic vote?

[stevento]

there are people saying hillary should quit for the good of the party and i see what they are saying.
but the people who are saying hillary can't get it without supers saving her are just plain wrong.
i'm going to rehash my what if argument again.
what if she does get 65% in PA, IN and NC?
what if MI and FL are counted after all?
then she wins.

[ucfgrad93]

there are people saying hillary should quit for the good of the party and i see what they are saying.
but the people who are saying hillary can't get it without supers saving her are just plain wrong.
i'm going to rehash my what if argument again.
what if she does get 65% in PA, IN and NC?
what if MI and FL are counted after all?
then she wins.

That seems like a lot of what ifs to me. Is it possible for all of that to happen, yes it is. Is it probable that all that will happen, no it is not.

And I don't see Michigan being counted as is because Obama's name wasn't even on the fraking ballot!!!!!!!

[yg17]

there are people saying hillary should quit for the good of the party and i see what they are saying.
but the people who are saying hillary can't get it without supers saving her are just plain wrong.
i'm going to rehash my what if argument again.
what if she does get 65% in PA, IN and NC?
what if MI and FL are counted after all?
then she wins.

That's a lot of what ifs. Besides, Looking at current polls, if anyone's going to win IN and NC by 65% it'll be Obama.

Chuck Todd said on Keith Olbermann tonight (it was on NBC tonight for a special) that if Obama wins those states with enough of a margin, they can go ahead and count FL and MI as they stand (no revote, no 50% vote, just count them normally), and he'll still be ahead. They might do that (and he'll probably go along with it, if that's the case) just to shut her up. Which would really be kinda funny because she'll have fought so hard for this "Make FL and MI count" crap and it won't even matter.

[solvs]

Why is it that some members / supporters of the Democratic Party are so fervent in their call's to deny the remaining electorate their democratic vote?

Well, most of us just want it to be over, no matter who it is. Just, as has been posted several time, Hillary has practically no chance at this point. It would have to be a blow out across the board and she'd have to have a fairly large majority of the superdelegates, which isn't really possible. Even then though. Plus, how bad would it look if Obama wins the delegate and popular vote, as he is, but then the superdelegates vote her in? I thought she'd win. Figured I'd be holding my nose and voting for her come Nov against whatever Repub. But Obama is winning, and looks to be taking it, so I guess he's our guy. Used to like McCain, but if he's going to support Bush's failed policy, I'd even vote for Hillary over him at this point. But I won't be, because she can't really win this.

[stevento]

the thing is this the first time in a long time that states like NC have mattered because they're primaries are so late.
we're used to having a nod by this time of election season and i can see why people are like "lets just end this already".
there are a thousand and one possibilities that would give hillary a win WITHOUT supers pulling her out of the hole

[solvs]

there are a thousand and one possibilities that would give hillary a win WITHOUT supers pulling her out of the hole
Other than a blow out, which isn't going to happen, what would those be?

[mactastic]

Why is it that some members / supporters of the Democratic Party are so fervent in their call's to deny the remaining electorate their democratic vote?
Were the voters in Texas and Ohio "denied their democratic vote" by John Edwards dropping out of the race before their contests? :confused:

[cycocelica]

What did I just see? A political video or a "look at my knockers for my 15 minutes of fame" video? Truly awful all round.

I'll take both. Whatever it takes to get the young voters out there.


Probably could use more knockers though :eek:

[Iscariot]

Were the voters in Texas and Ohio "denied their democratic vote" by John Edwards dropping out of the race before their contests? :confused:

Question about the system from an outsider: since the primaries are done in such a prolonged fashion, it seems to be the contest is often over before the last states on the list get to cast their ballot. Is the order of the primaries pre-determined? If so, are they always the same?

If the primaries are done alphabetically, then it seems to me Z would get screwed out of the vote.

[IJ Reilly]

Question about the system from an outsider: since the primaries are done in such a prolonged fashion, it seems to be the contest is often over before the last states on the list get to cast their ballot. Is the order of the primaries pre-determined? If so, are they always the same?

If the primaries are done alphabetically, then it seems to me Z would get screwed out of the vote.

The system is chaotic at best. The parties make the rules about the order, up to a point, but then the states set the date of the election. That is how Florida and Michigan screwed their voters -- they set primary dates which violated party rules for when they should be held. The bottom line is everybody wants their state to go first. Most of the time this gives states more influence and attention, but not this year, not in the Democratic primary.

[Iscariot]

The system is chaotic at best. The parties make the rules about the order, up to a point, but then the states set the date of the election. That is how Florida and Michigan screwed their voters -- they set primary dates which violated party rules for when they should be held. The bottom line is everybody wants their state to go first. Most of the time this gives states more influence and attention, but not this year, not in the Democratic primary.

I'm assuming the parties have differing primary processes. It's difficult to explain the Canadian process, as they are ever changing and differ greatly between the parties. But then, the parties themselves have all undergone upheavals ranging from minor to major in the past couple of decades.

[stevento]

Were the voters in Texas and Ohio "denied their democratic vote" by John Edwards dropping out of the race before their contests? :confused:



well no but if hillary quits now these states wont matter. these states are excited about having a decisive vote. they're calls for her to quit are senseless

[zioxide]

well no but if hillary quits now these states wont matter. these states are excited about having a decisive vote. they're calls for her to quit are senseless

not really. their votes don't mean **** because unless obama loses 80-20 there's no way hillary can win.

[stevento]

hillary is ~150 pledged delegates behind.
pennsylvania has 158 delegates.
lets say she gets 70% there. she gets 110, he gets 48. that's 62 net gain.

indiana has 72
north carolina has 115
and howard dean has stated that he believes MI and FL will be seated at the end of the day. an obama has already taken the position that it's ok to forget about them so i dont think he'd fare well there if there are redos.

[hulugu]

Why is it that some members / supporters of the Democratic Party are so fervent in their call's to deny the remaining electorate their democratic vote?

Mainly it's because those last voters are annoying. Why couldn't they have the gumption to fight tooth and nail to vote before everyone else?

[yg17]

hillary is ~150 pledged delegates behind.
pennsylvania has 158 delegates.
lets say she gets 70% there. she gets 110, he gets 48. that's 62 net gain.

indiana has 72
north carolina has 115
and howard dean has stated that he believes MI and FL will be seated at the end of the day. an obama has already taken the position that it's ok to forget about them so i dont think he'd fare well there if there are redos.

She's not going to win PA with 70% and she won't win IN and NC at all.

And where has Howard Dean said that, IIRC, he said they should not be seated

[it5five]

She's not going to win PA with 70% and she won't win IN and NC at all.

And where has Howard Dean said that, IIRC, he said they should not be seated

Right on both accounts. I think PA will be pretty close (Hillary in the low-mid 50 percent range). Obama is going to dominate in NC like he did in SC.

EDIT: Just read this great article.

Top 10 Myths Keeping Hillary in the Race (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-collis/top-10-myths-keeping-hill_b_94207.html)

[stevento]

She's not going to win PA with 70% and she won't win IN and NC at all.

And where has Howard Dean said that, IIRC, he said they should not be seated

didn't you also say hillary couldn't possibly go past Mar 4?
look: i know its a long shot, but anything can happen in two months

[it5five]

didn't you also say hillary couldn't possibly go past Mar 4?
look: i know its a long shot, but anything can happen in two months

Link to Dean saying MI and FL would be seated, please.

It's more than a long shot. It's practically impossible. Hillary will not win NC. I don't know what makes you think she will.

[stevento]

i found it on msnbc somewhere. let me find it.
he said at the end of the day we're not just going to leave them out.
i'll edit this when i find it

[atszyman]

Link to Dean saying MI and FL would be seated, please.

It's more than a long shot. It's practically impossible. Hillary will not win NC. I don't know what makes you think she will.

I think Dean has actually said "I believe they will be seated at the convention." however the condition was that the campaigns reached an agreement on how to seat them. Obama has been pushing for a 50/50 split to seat them, Clinton only wants a re-vote. I could almost get behind this (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/31/michigan.plan/) as well since it would probably end up in a nearly 50/50 split anyway.

[Unspeaked]

Why is Obama so afraid of a revote if Clinton has no shot, anyway?

[zioxide]

Why is Obama so afraid of a revote if Clinton has no shot, anyway?

When did Obama ever say he was afraid of a revote?

[atszyman]

Why is Obama so afraid of a revote if Clinton has no shot, anyway?

He's not, it's just that the re-vote option for both states has fallen completely flat and won't happen now. AFAIK he was perfectly fine with a revote in both states.

The current problem stems from the fact that there won't be a re-vote in either state and that's the only option (other than taking the results as they stand) that the Clinton campaign seems to support.

If I had to put money on it now, I'd say that FL and MI will be seated through some sort of compromise like MI is currently proposing, but it will be determined after the superdelegates have made up their minds so the seating would be irrelevant.

[Eric Piercey]

Can we get back on topic, the "Obama girl?"

I agree she's hot as hell, but the video is so god awful I couldn't even watch the whole thing. Was that really on the ABC website? WTF??

[Cleverboy]

Why is Obama so afraid of a revote if Clinton has no shot, anyway? A "revote" is not s "revote" however. Many potential voters (Independents & Republicans, or re-registered Democrats) who have already participated in the Republican contest, will NOT be able to participate in a re-done Democratic contest. Bleh. The moment I wrapped my head around that, I realized how screwed up the whole thing is.

~ CB

[stevento]

Dean has said Michigan and Florida have two options: Either submit a new plan for choosing their convention delegates or appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which resolves issues about the seating of delegates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23882892/


i cant find that exact story where he was quoted saying that but here's a similar one saying dean gave two options.
in the other one he said we will hear those voices one way or another

[stevento]

Why is Obama so afraid of a revote if Clinton has no shot, anyway?

the same reason obama wouldn't debate hillary in wisconsin. its a rule as old as politics. when you're ahead you don't want to fight, you just want to run out the clock.
to be fair hillary would do the same thing

[Unspeaked]

the same reason obama wouldn't debate hillary in wisconsin. its a rule as old as politics. when you're ahead you don't want to fight, you just want to run out the clock.
to be fair hillary would do the same thing

I see what you're saying, but to me it feels like he's fighting now and making a big deal about it.

If he's really so far ahead that the results in those two states don't matter, why not end the argument, have a revote, put the whole issue to rest and move on?

It would shut up Clinton supporters who think it's their magic bullet and end these allegedly pointless in-party arguments.

[atszyman]

I see what you're saying, but to me it feels like he's fighting now and making a big deal about it.

If he's really so far ahead that the results in those two states don't matter, why not end the argument, have a revote, put the whole issue to rest and move on?

It would shut up Clinton supporters who think it's their magic bullet and end these allegedly pointless in-party arguments.

Both states tried to have a re-vote and both efforts failed due to the state legislatures being unable to agree the terms and/or funds for a re-vote, effectively eliminating the re-vote as an option.

[stevento]

I see what you're saying, but to me it feels like he's fighting now and making a big deal about it.

If he's really so far ahead that the results in those two states don't matter, why not end the argument, have a revote, put the whole issue to rest and move on?

It would shut up Clinton supporters who think it's their magic bullet and end these allegedly pointless in-party arguments.

i don think obama has taken the position that he is so far ahead that she cant win.

[mactastic]

well no but if hillary quits now these states wont matter. these states are excited about having a decisive vote. they're calls for her to quit are senseless
Well, if she loses those states "won't matter" anyway -- at least according to her campaign, right? :p

Why is Obama so afraid of a revote if Clinton has no shot, anyway?
Why is Clinton so afraid of following the rules of the party?

[it5five]

the same reason obama wouldn't debate hillary in wisconsin. its a rule as old as politics. when you're ahead you don't want to fight, you just want to run out the clock.
to be fair hillary would do the same thing

Yes, she would do the same. Like refusing to release her tax returns.

[stevento]

Why is Clinton so afraid of following the rules of the party?

because she wants every vote to count, which is kinda the point of democracy.

for argument's sake lets say somehow they DO get seated, michigan has 128 pledged and florida has 185. that opens a whole can of possibilities that could give her the win

[yg17]

didn't you also say hillary couldn't possibly go past Mar 4?
look: i know its a long shot, but anything can happen in two months

She was mathematically out of this before March 4th. I didn't assume that she would attempt to go against the laws of mathematics and statistics and try to eek out a win.

She's in this just like Nader is in the general election. She's in it as someone who statistically has absolutely no chance of winning, but chooses to stay in to be a pain in everyone else's backside.

because she wants every vote to count, which is kinda the point of democracy.

Would she be fighting for MI and FL, going for the "every vote counts" BS if she lost those states?

for argument's sake lets say somehow they DO get seated, michigan has 128 pledged and florida has 185. that opens a whole can of possibilities that could give her the win
Uh, she doesn't get all of those delegates. What she would get wouldn't be enough to put her ahead.

[atszyman]

because she wants every vote to count, which is kinda the point of democracy.

She agreed not to have the delegates count back when she thought she was going to win, and kept referring to the states Obama won as "non-important." She only wants the votes that benefit her to count.

for argument's sake lets say somehow they DO get seated, michigan has 128 pledged and florida has 185. that opens a whole can of possibilities that could give her the win

So she would get 71 from MI, ad 93 from FL. Obama would get 62 from FL and the only way I can see it being fair would be to give the 40% uncommitted to Obama so he gets 52 there. That only gives Hillary 50 more delegates not quite enough to overcome Obama's current lead. Even if she does get the blowout in PA she's still probably going to lose IN and NC.

[stevento]

she's only 150 behind in pledged
lets say FL and MI give her that 50
lets say she gets 65% in PA and then she goes on
remember the rule as old as politics: underdogs are the ones that win
remember kerry's 2004 iowa win ? :eek:

[Iscariot]

remember the rule as old as politics: underdogs are the ones that win

Yes, no one who was the favourite has ever won, amirite?

[atszyman]

she's only 150 behind in pledged
lets say FL and MI give her that 50
lets say she gets 65% in PA and then she goes on
remember the rule as old as politics: underdogs are the ones that win
remember kerry's 2004 iowa win ? :eek:

And Obama was the underdog when the process began. Shortly after IA Kerry became the front runner as most of the other campaigns self destructed. Obama was the underdog until after Super Tuesday.

If she wins PA with 65% then she gets another 103 to Obama's 55, still only 98 Delegates towards her 150 to make up, if you count FL and MI.

Now lets say Obama only narrowly wins IN and NC increasing his total by 8 delegates so he's 60 ahead. That leaves only 221 delegates left which Clinton has to win 141 of to win by a single delegate. She has to win 63.8% or more in every remaining state, including Guam to win it.

With the current trend in the polls and the press Clinton seems to be getting I'd be surprised if she can pull of a 10% win in PA and only lose by 10% in IN and NC making it even more improbable and that was counting FL and MI. Eliminate them (like she originally agreed to do) and the margins have to be even bigger to pull off the win.

Unless Obama french kisses Jeremiah Wright on national TV I don't see the margins of victory being enough to pull off her win.

[stevento]

i'm not saying this is probably going to happen but i'm saying there's a chance

lets say MI and FL get seated and that gives her 50 then she gests 65% in PA she gets 102 and he gets 56

that's 100 delegates; keep in mind she's only 150 behind
NC and IN are on may 6
lets say she pulls herself out of there with 51% and neither gains any net delegates
after that there's still over 200 delegates left to be picked up.
this can happen.
the thing is that a primary hasn't gone on like this since kennedy tried to knock off carter. we are so used to having a nod by now that it seems like its impossible at that point

[atszyman]

i'm not saying this is probably going to happen but i'm saying there's a chance

lets say MI and FL get seated and that gives her 50 then she gests 65% in PA she gets 102 and he gets 56

that's 100 delegates; keep in mind she's only 150 behind
NC and IN are on may 6
lets say she pulls herself out of there with 51% and neither gains any net delegates
after that there's still over 200 delegates left to be picked up.
this can happen.
the thing is that a primary hasn't gone on like this since kennedy tried to knock off carter. we are so used to having a nod by now that it seems like its impossible at that point

To make up 50 delegates when only 200 are left requires an average win of 62.5% across the remaining delegates, 50 out of 200 doesn't sound bad but when she needs to win 125 or more to Obama's 75 it sounds much harder, and it's unlikely she'll even tie, much less win IN or NC.

And actually, the idea that we usually have a nominee by now is collective amnesia (http://www.slate.com/id/2185831/pagenum/2).

[Cleverboy]

i'm not saying this is probably going to happen but i'm saying there's a chance No one should be arguing that Hillary Clinton doesn't have a chance at the nomination at this point. As much as the math is against her, its still a possible outcome, especially if Limbaugh-Republicans "pile on" and Obama's support weakens.

~ CB

[atszyman]

No one should be arguing that Hillary Clinton doesn't have a chance at the nomination at this point. As much as the math is against her, its still a possible outcome, especially if Limbaugh-Republicans "pile on" and Obama's support weakens.

~ CB

She does have a slim chance. I think she could even do some good for the party and general election if she stays in, but both sides need to give up on the attacks (which at this point will be more of a benefit for Clinton with the stories that seem to be popping up left (http://www.slate.com/id/2187473/) and right (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/1/12146/80206/920/488267) now) and use this time and the headlines they are getting to turn this into an election based on the issues rather than who can come up with the best attack. If they spend the next 2-4 months debating the issues and not attacking, they might be able to keep McCain off the front pages (unless he does or says something that would most likely do harm) and possibly the lack of attacks might rub off in the general election and keep the focus on the issues.

Unfortunately as things get more and more desperate, I see the attacks getting worse and worse and we'll have politics as usual for the general, and possibly a divided Democratic party.

[it5five]

Thought I'd just put this in this thread instead of starting a new thread about Hillary.

Newest Rasmussen polling shows that Clinton only has a 5% lead over Obama in PA now. This is down from a 10% lead a week ago, a 13% lead in mid-March, and a 15% lead in early March.

Of course, polls don't always reflect the way people vote, as we saw in NH. I don't think anyone expects Obama to win PA, but any closing of the lead Hillary has there is great news.

Link (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary)

[solvs]

lets say she gets 70% there.
She won't.

i know its a long shot, but anything can happen in two months
Not really.

Why is Obama so afraid of a revote if Clinton has no shot, anyway?
Because it's expensive, no one wants to pay for it, and it won't really change anything.

because she wants every vote to count
Just a coincidence she won those.

underdogs are the ones that win
Not always, but as said, Obama was the underdog, not Hillary.

i'm not saying this is probably going to happen but i'm saying there's a chance
A very slim chance, if not impossible. But if it makes you and her feel better, luck to ya. The rest of us are ready to move on unless Obama really screws up and Hillary pulls off a miracle.

They should just get it over with and do it already (http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1809483).

[stevento]

i dont see why you guys cant admit that things dont always happen as expected?
there are 3 weeks until PA and then there are more big states to go after that!
everyone knows deep down inside that this race is NOT over

[solvs]

everyone knows deep down inside that this race is NOT over
But it is stevie, it is.

[atszyman]

i dont see why you guys cant admit that things dont always happen as expected?
there are 3 weeks until PA and then there are more big states to go after that!
everyone knows deep down inside that this race is NOT over

Things don't happen as expected. Everyone expected Hillary to win the nomination back in January.

With 3 weeks to PA I would expect Obama to improve his position quite a bit by then. In almost every contest since Super Tuesday, when given a week or more to campaign, Obama has moved up in the polls and managed to eliminate double digit leads held by Clinton. The current trend is showing this happening in PA where he used to be down by 15-20 points and is now within 10 points (http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php) and narrowing the margin every day (and note that most primaries have had Obama do as well or better than the linked polls).

The race isn't over but it would be like me racing an olympic sprinter in a 100 yard dash. There's always the chance they'll blow out a leg muscle allowing me to win, but in most cases they'll beat me by 5-10 seconds.

[mactastic]

i dont see why you guys cant admit that things dont always happen as expected?
there are 3 weeks until PA and then there are more big states to go after that!
everyone knows deep down inside that this race is NOT over
Why won't Clinton release her fundraising numbers until the last day required by law?

Is she trying to keep those numbers out of sight because she doesn't want to embarrass Obama with her fundraising prowess?

[yg17]

i dont see why you guys cant admit that things dont always happen as expected?
there are 3 weeks until PA and then there are more big states to go after that!
everyone knows deep down inside that this race is NOT over

And her lead in PA is quickly shrinking and Obama's lead in the other states is still huge and if it does anything, it will likely get bigger.


Anything can happen. Just like the stars, the sun, the planets and the moon can all align, aliens will invade the earth and make humans their slaves and then Chuck Norris can escape from slavery and roundhouse kick all of the aliens back to their home planet. Just because it can happen, doesn't mean it will happen.

[stevento]

And her lead in PA is quickly shrinking and Obama's lead in the other states is still huge and if it does anything, it will likely get bigger.


the only way obama got away with his $49% in texas is because he outspent her 5 to 1 there, because he got $55m in feb and she was still broke from her 11 straight losses. he was trying to knock her out of the race, little did he know hillary doesn't die.
anyways, in march he only raised twice as much as hillary............ and now her fundraising is back on track.

[it5five]

At least one poll is now showing Obama has a lead in PA. I know most other polls still show that Clinton has an extremely narrow lead (~5%), but at the best this shows that PA, which months ago was considered a guaranteed easy victory for Clinton is now becoming very competitive. I expect that Clinton will end up with an extremely small net delegate gain in Pennsylvania.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9335.html

[PlaceofDis]

in march he only raised twice as much as hillary............ and now her fundraising is back on track.

does anyone else see a problem with this line?

he raised twice as much as Hillary, but her fundraising is back on track?! um, okay.



and i agree it5five, Pennsylvania will be very competitive

[NC MacGuy]

Another election with no real choice. They both have issues as does McCain.

[stevento]

he raised twice as much as Hillary, but her fundraising is back on track?! um, okay.



and i agree it5five, Pennsylvania will be very competitive

obama has always raised more money than her and the only states he beat her in he outspent her at least 3:1
so a $1 donation to hillary is equivalent to $3-5 to obama but in march he only raised 2x as much -and he's not cheaping out in PA- again trying to knock her out of the race. so if anybody needs cash it obama.
i predict she will walk away with 65% + and then obama will say "i will sharpen my crticism of hillary" like he has 3 times now

[PlaceofDis]

obama has always raised more money than her

where did you get this information?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/dems.html

granted that only goes to Jan '08, but it does show that Obama was indeed the underdog at the beginning of this, and he didn't start to out-raise hillary until more recently.

[yg17]

obama has always raised more money than her and the only states he beat her in he outspent her at least 3:1
so a $1 donation to hillary is equivalent to $3-5 to obama but in march he only raised 2x as much -and he's not cheaping out in PA- again trying to knock her out of the race. so if anybody needs cash it obama.
i predict she will walk away with 65% + and then obama will say "i will sharpen my crticism of hillary" like he has 3 times now


So, Hillary is losing due to not having enough money, that says one of two things:

1. She doesn't have the amount of supporters Obama does and willl have a harder time winning in November than he will

2. She is mismanaging her money and spending it on the wrong things. And you want her running the country and getting us out of this economic mess when she can't even get her campaign out of it's economic mess?

[mactastic]

anyways, in march he only raised twice as much as hillary............ and now her fundraising is back on track.
LOL! You're not one of those people who believes that an increase in violence in Iraq is proof that the insurgents are getting desperate and that victory is around the corner, are you?

Because this is the same type of logic.

obama has always raised more money than her
Patently untrue. You seem to have forgotten the long long ago days when Hillary Clinton was considered the Democratic frontrunner with the war chest to beat.

But, as usual, I'm sure you won't let the facts get in the way of a good anti-Obama screed.

[solvs]

Obama Catches Clinton in Support From Superdelegate Lawmakers (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a1x33cpzAa4Y)

Obama narrows Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania poll (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/03/content_7907983.htm)

Poll: Clinton, Obama tied in Indiana (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/04/clinton-obama-tied-in-indiana/)


Edit: surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but -

Air America Host Randi Rhodes Suspended For Calling Hillary... (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/03/air-america-host-suspended-for-calling-clinton-ferraro-fg-whores/)(er, something bad).