U.S. Presidential Election 2008

[Sean]

The latest argument from the Hillary camp now is that she "has won the states with the most Electoral College votes", so she should be the Democratic nominee. Of course, this argument operates on the assumption that Obama would be unable to win these states in the general election because he lost them in the primary, which is a ridiculous assumption. And beyond that, if you follow her logic through, then Hillary would have to concede the assumption that she would lose Iowa, South Carolina, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah, Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Vermont, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Democrats Abroad, Wyoming and Mississippi in the general election since Obama won them all in the primary.

The goal posts just keep on movin'. Holy crap....that should be her new campaign song! "Keep On Movin'" by Soul II Soul.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by Sean

"Keep On Movin'" by Soul II Soul.

Choon!!!

Yeah. Or rather "She Blinded Me With Science" by Thomas Dolby. Except that there is a total absence of any scientific reasoning in anything this woman says. But that, sadly, will not stop The Great Unwashed from believing it anyway. Meh.

[Deckard]

With her lead in Pennsylvania slowly being chipped away, I'm left wondering just what she might have up her sleeve for her next trick.

(If it was a song, I'm guessing 'Unfinished Sympathy' )

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Sean

The goal posts just keep on movin'. Holy crap....that should be her new campaign song! "Keep On Movin'" by Soul II Soul.

"Fairplay" would be more appropriate. MMMM, HMMM.

[Sean]

Well one thing's for sure. The Clinton supporters out there can stop claiming that Hillary is supposedly getting grilled by the media while Obama gets a free pass. How many days straight was the top story in virtually every news outlet about Reverend Wright, Obama's pastor, a person outside of his political world who made statements Obama doesn't even agree with? Like 12 days or two full weeks at least? Meanwhile, Clinton's own chief strategist goes to Columbia to actively push trade deals that Hillary opposes, it gets coverage for a couple days, and then it's off the front page.

Maybe I'm crazy, but a campaign's chief strategist actively pushing policies their candidate claims to oppose is a bigger deal to me than the independent comments made by an ex-pastor of a candidate are.

Let's hope enough people in Pennsylvania are aware enough of what's going on for it to make a difference....

[Deckard]

Michael Tomasky writing in the Guardian yesterday reminded people of what was happening just a month ago when the Clinton camp was pushing hard on the Austan Goolsbee-trade story (and simultaneously playing the press-is-unfair-to-me card).

Hillz to reporters...

"I would ask you to look at this story and substitute my name for Sen Obama's name and see what you would do with this story ... Just ask yourself [what you would do] if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments."

Oops!

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Sean

Well one thing's for sure. The Clinton supporters out there can stop claiming that Hillary is supposedly getting grilled by the media while Obama gets a free pass. How many days straight was the top story in virtually every news outlet about Reverend Wright, Obama's pastor, a person outside of his political world who made statements Obama doesn't even agree with? Like 12 days or two full weeks at least? Meanwhile, Clinton's own chief strategist goes to Columbia to actively push trade deals that Hillary opposes, it gets coverage for a couple days, and then it's off the front page.

Maybe I'm crazy, but a campaign's chief strategist actively pushing policies their candidate claims to oppose is a bigger deal to me than the independent comments made by an ex-pastor of a candidate are.

Let's hope enough people in Pennsylvania are aware enough of what's going on for it to make a difference....

When you add the two up, sounds like an assault on Democratic choices all the way around, no?

Not that I'm saying to start a tag team shit talk on McCain either. Even though, sometimes it wouldn't be too much harder a thing to do. I'd be the first to defend him if anyone did.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Michael Tomasky writing in the Guardian yesterday reminded people of what was happening just a month ago when the Clinton camp was pushing hard on the Austan Goolsbee-trade story (and simultaneously playing the press-is-unfair-to-me card).

Hillz to reporters...


Oops!

And she's STILL pushing that story, even though all involved parties have clarified that it was a misrepresentation of what actually happened. Here's what she said about it just this morning (incidentally, check the last comment under the linked article....I got it in just before they closed the comments):

"I find it kind of curious, we took action, and I think it was appropriate," she continued. "Contrast that to Senator Obama's campaign where, as far as I know, nothing was ever done when one of his top economic advisers representing the campaign, unlike Mr. Penn who was not representing the campaign, but Mr. Obama's representative told the Canadian government basically not to pay any attention to what Senator Obama was saying about NAFTA."

Hillary has a LOT of gall.

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

When you add the two up, sounds like an assault on Democratic choices all the way around, no?

In fairness, I don't personally feel that there's significant partisan intent in the coverage of the candidates. What I do feel is that they go for whatever the most sensational story is, and I guess a Presidential candidate's ex-pastor shouting "god damn America" is more sensational than a chief strategist pushing deals that are counter to what the candidate they represent supports is. Doesn't much matter which is more pertinent to the actual Presidential race. And as for McCain, I think it's safe to say that he's getting ignored because there's no drama around him right now. I really doubt that political agendas are driving the lack of coverage.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Sean

. . .political agendas are driving the lack of coverage.

Here? In America? Oh no, never.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Sean

In fairness, I don't personally feel that there's significant partisan intent in the coverage of the candidates. What I do feel is that they go for whatever the most sensational story is, and I guess a Presidential candidate's ex-pastor shouting "god damn America" is more sensational than a chief strategist pushing deals that are counter to what the candidate they represent supports is. Doesn't much matter which is more pertinent to the actual Presidential race. And as for McCain, I think it's safe to say that he's getting ignored because there's no drama around him right now. I really doubt that political agendas are driving the lack of coverage.

exactly, if clinton didn't already have a reputation for mercurial behind the back dealings it would be bigger news. sad really, the degree to which we learn to adapt.