QuoteMy winning strategy Forget delegates, rules, votes: I deserve it. I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approved this message. April 24, 2008 Thank you, Pennsylvania! What an incredible margin of victory you gave me! Ten percentage points over Barack Obama. Count 'em! Ten! All right, 9.2 points if you insist on actually counting. But they said I had to win by double digits to keep my campaign alive, and I think 9.2 points counts as double digits. And I am alive! And kicking! And punching and biting and kneeing my opponent in the groin! Oh, we know what the pundits are saying now. They're saying that most polls showed me ahead by 25 points in Pennsylvania a few months ago. But is it my fault if people just don't like me as much as they used to? Thanks to me, they don't like Obama as much as they used to either. And you know what? I think I deserve a little bit of credit for that! Who said elections were supposed to be popularity contests, anyway? Go ahead, like Obama better if you want to. I read the polls too. Americans think Obama is more "trustworthy" than I am, more "sincere" and "down to earth," less "cold" and "mean." According to the polls, a majority of Democrats actually think he ought to be the presidential nominee. Well, who needs them! Presidents don't need to be popular. Look at George W. Bush. He has the highest disapproval ratings in the history of public polling, but he still gets to live in the White House, and Congress still funds his wars. If he can do it, I can too! But you know, what I really want to do here is talk about a fundamental misperception many have about this race. People seem to think my opponent has some kind of "lead" because he's won more "delegates" and more "votes" and more "states" than I have. But are we going to decide this important race on the basis of such arbitrary metrics? Start with the delegates. How is it fair for the Democratic nominee to be selected mostly by elected delegates? Sure, it's in the Democratic Party rules. But let me ask you: Is this a country of rules? Once again, take a look at our current president. Does he let rules bother him? Laws? He does not! He believes in power, and he's made it clear that not even Congress' laws bind him when he's exercising his executive prerogatives. The same principle should be applied to me when I'm exercising my prerogatives as would-be executive. On that theme, let me remind our party's pledged delegates of another thing: Just because you made a pledge doesn't mean you have to keep it. For instance, I pledged in August 2007 not to campaign or participate in states that broke Democratic Party rules by holding early primaries -- as in Florida and Michigan. But you don't see me sticking to that pledge, do you? I kept my name on the Michigan ballot when Obama honored the pledge and withdrew -- which just goes to show you, he's too naive to be president -- and I swore that the Michigan vote "is not going to count for anything." But guess what? I had my fingers crossed! You "pledged" Obama delegates, do you catch my meaning? Let's turn to "votes." My opponent seems to think it matters that he's ahead in the popular vote. But Mr. Popularity isn't ahead in the popular vote if you count the votes I got in those nullified Florida and Michigan primaries. And pledge or no pledge, I'm counting those votes, even if no one else is. Of course, my opponent also claims to have won victories in more than twice as many states as I have. But what makes those states so special? I won by 42 votes in American Samoa. Also, let's not forget, a lot of Obama's victories came in states that held caucuses, and everyone knows that caucuses bring out Democratic Party activists, who don't support me, so how can this be fair? Still, the naysayers ask, do I have a strategy for winning the nomination? Yes, I do! Will I win? Yes, I will! My message boils down to this: Superdelegates, pay no attention to polls or votes or elected delegates or states. There are better and more appropriate ways for you to decide how to pick a winner. Take anagrams: My name, rearranged, spells out "Only I can thrill." My opponent's full name, rearranged, forms "I am a hack, abuser, snob." Given his history of elitism, I think this surely must be taken extremely seriously. Superdelegates, it's up to you now. Are you going to let arbitrary factors like elected delegates and votes influence your decisions? Or are you going to focus on the most important issue, which is that I believe I ought to be president? Remember, no matter what, I am so going to be president of Pennsylvania

(ok, its actually written by Rosa Brooks of the LA Times)

RPGPundit

Yawn.

Double yawn.

*snort*

I am going to be completely uncontainable when Obama goes down in flames - SO many smug liberal (but I repeat myself) bastards have so much invested in that empty suit that the cries will be as music to my ears, and their tears will float a thousand ships. Especially those folks at you-know-where with all their little Obamatars. The fact that it will come at the hands of a woman they have demonized, who they once idolized, is even better. As I said to someone the other day, a lifelong liberal and former Clinto-lover from way back, who told me that Hillary was awful, "Thanks for joining us, you're 15 years too late."

Muhahaha! Yes, YES! More blood, more chest-beating and hair-ripping! I love it!

Carry on.

It is, at least, entertaining.

I predict McCain in the end, and doubt highly Clinton will be the one he trounces.

For the record although I am smug, but I am not a Liberal, Democrat or Republican.

Quote from: WerekoalaI am going to be completely uncontainable when Obama goes down in flames - SO many smug liberal (but I repeat myself) bastards have so much invested in that empty suit that the cries will be as music to my ears, and their tears will float a thousand ships. Especially those folks at you-know-where with all their little Obamatars. The fact that it will come at the hands of a woman they have demonized, who they once idolized, is even better. As I said to someone the other day, a lifelong liberal and former Clinto-lover from way back, who told me that Hillary was awful, "Thanks for joining us, you're 15 years too late."

Muhahaha! Yes, YES! More blood, more chest-beating and hair-ripping! I love it!

Carry on.

I never much cared for Hillary Clinton, though I disliked the intense demonizing she (and Bill) suffered at the hands of the Right-wingers in the 1990s. She did always strike me as very arrogant, with a sense of entitlement, and this smug sense of superiority; the classic nanny-stater.

The thing is, I think that a lot of people on the left, for years, chose to ignore these unlikeable qualities of hers because she was on "their side", even as the right-wingers grossly exaggerated these same qualities to make her into a demon-born murderess out to impose a black-helicopter UN-fascist state on us all, because she was on the "other side".

So yes, it is amusing that now, Hillary has managed to alienate much of the left as much as she had always had the hate of the right.

I'm not sure what will happen at this point, but I can guarantee that if Hillary wins the nomination, she will go down to McCain in November. Because the only way she can win the nomination at this point is with such a scorched-earth policy that will turn off a HUGE portion of the democratic voters and utterly turn off independents.

Even if she loses to Obama, if she carries on until the Democratic Convention (and its very likely that she will, given that she KNOWS there's no other way, short of Obama resigning, that she could possibly win the nomination; so when she says she's in it for the long haul she does very much mean that she's in it until the Convention), the Democratic party will be left so weakened, tarnished, and broke that Obama will have to make a hell of a lot of speeches (and probably need a few more aces up his sleeve aside from his brilliant public speaking skills) to stand a chance against McCain.  That, or McCain would have to make some kind of catastrophic blunder, or get sick/die or something like that...

RPGPundit

Or maybe they will come through tougher, battle-scarred.  But I doubt it.

It really is grating to hear Hilary harp on Obama's spending, as if she is some hard-scrabble upstart candidate, driving forward on will and people power alone.

Quote from: walkerpOr maybe they will come through tougher, battle-scarred.  But I doubt it.

It really is grating to hear Hilary harp on Obama's spending, as if she is some hard-scrabble upstart candidate, driving forward on will and people power alone.

These days, if you have less than $50mil in the kitty, that's practically what you ARE doing, it seems.

The speech is just another reason why I'm watching the Democrat primaries with popcorn and beer. You couldn't ask for better horrorshow comedy.

Besides, McCain for Republicans has already pegged out of sight high my Irony Meter.

If the undemocratic Democrat Super Delegates were to choose John McCain as their third candidate nominee, would the Republicans have time to nominate another candidate at their convention?

John McCain almost left the Republican party back in 2001, so I figure anything might be possible.

I'm a Libertarian for the most part and I don't care for the track record of any of the remaining three candidates.

The really fucking funny thing, Pundit, is I think your exactly wrong.

Personally I don't want her to be president, but I think she is shoring up to be the centrist in this, currently, three way battle. I think that would leave her much more likely to compete with McCain. Her dumping the moveon George Soros lackeys is just the first step.

I'm sure, though, that the Democrats are hunting, with laser guided efficiency, defeat out of the jaws of success, again.

Rush could very well be very sorry he helped keep her in the fight.

Very fucking entertaining.

Quote from: walkerpOr maybe they will come through tougher, battle-scarred.  But I doubt it.

It really is grating to hear Hilary harp on Obama's spending, as if she is some hard-scrabble upstart candidate, driving forward on will and people power alone.

She and Bill were certainly made for each other.  Watching her constant flip-flopping, blatant lies, entitled attitude, and slimy political connections combined with some terrible policy ideas ("let's force everyone to buy health insurance") reminds me all too well of all the things I hated about the Clinton presidency.  Even if the economy was better then, I still don't want a repeat of those years.

It's the main reason I want Obama to win, at least things will have a chance to be different.  If he won and accomplished absolutely nothing it could still at least cause the country to be looked at in a different light.  

I don't want a re-run of the Clinton Presidency or the Bush Presidency (which McCain certainly seems eager to do).  I think they were both terrible presidents who managed to screw up in completely opposite, but still terrible ways - just as they are both shameful presidents on a personal level (one's a sleazy degenerate and weak-willed, the other is practically retarded and completely obstinate beyond all reasoning).

Quote from: WerekoalaMuhahaha! Yes, YES! More blood, more chest-beating and hair-ripping! I love it!

My only concern is that this is going to be yet another thing make race relations even worse than they already are.  The way the racial divide is showing up in the polls is not good for anyone, though various states have done a very good job of pointing out, to anyone who actually looks at what's going on, that neither the Republican Party nor the South corner the market in white people who won't vote for black candidates.