Someone needs to remind Hillary that if she's going to claim she's winning the popular vote, she can't arbitrarily decide which ones to count and which to not.

She doesn't seem to have much respect for the intelligence of her constituency, does she?

That too.

Hello, Hello. She's long since stopped positioning herself for actually winning the nomination. She wants some influence is all. Bill is campaigning for her to be Obama's running mate, but she is merely looking to have some pull. She knows she's lost the nom, and she'll be dropping out soon after tomorrow's final primaries.


That said, her campaign is still gunning for the long-shot chance that her very valid argument will work ... namely that she wins far bigger than Obama in the states that matter for the electoral college win of the presidency. The superdelegates won't have the spine to do their job and pick the more strategic candidate. Instead they will rubber-stamp the choice of the voters. Nice ... but not their purpose.


Unbelievably, McCain is running very strongly against Obama. A very good argument can be made that Hillary is the stronger presidential candidate.


All a hill of beans. Soon after tomorrow, she will be out and Obama will be the Democratic Nominee. It should have been a cake walk from there to the presidency against the likes of John McCain. But that's not going to be the case.

John McCain was on The Daily Show a fewish weeks ago and seeing him speak is so odd. He looks re-animated. Since when did we start nominating presidential candidates that are made of spare parts from the dead?

Except that the only informal electoral poll that's been done so so far has Obama with 280 electoral votes and Clinton with 276 (both enough to beat McCain). So I don't really see what data supports that argument either. Not that I take a poll done in march with a sample size of 30,000 with a nomination race still going on as particularly meaningful, but it certainly makes Hillary's arguments that much less likely to hold water.

It's one thing for her to try to tell people they've made the wrong choice. It's another to utterly distort reality to do so. It takes a whole lot of caveating and squinting at fuzzy numbers to remotely support the claims she's made. I really don't see how playing the part of sore loser is helping her maintain influence. It's making her look like a bafoon.

That obviously goes back at least as far as Regan.

Then, there is the fact that she had agreed that Florida and Michigan delegates would not be seated way back when; but now that she's behind, she wants them counted. Hypocrisy, much?

But only counted in the way that's most advantageous to herself of course (not that the same isn't true for Obama).

I like her hypocricy. It's out in the open.




I'm going to revive this thread in three years when Obama's hidden hypocricy has been revealed in full. I'm not saying I don't like him. But if he's going to be president of the united states, he's going to be a hypocrite. I'd just rather it be out in the open before the election. I'd find that rather refreshing.