The West Virginia Primary GDT - Kconn's up

Schwahalala · #1 05-07-2008, 08:04 AM

So this should be Hillary's.

Iowa_Card · #2 05-07-2008, 08:05 AM

The Beast roars on!

Schwahalala · #3 05-07-2008, 08:05 AM

http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/pr...can-polls.html

Schwahalala · #4 05-07-2008, 08:07 AM

I did the math -

If Hillary wins all the delegates in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico.

And Obama wins just half in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota.

Hillary would still be behind in Delegates.

But damn that - she's got an election to win.

hansolo · #5 05-07-2008, 08:08 AM

WVA and Kentucky gonna be all Hillary.

tallahassee blues fan · #6 05-07-2008, 08:20 AM

Combat and Composure

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: May 6, 2008

Life is short, but campaigns are long. And during the course of them, each candidate will have impressive and pathetic moments. But underlying the highs and lows, there are the fundamentals. The fundamentals of the Obama-Clinton race were on display Sunday morning.

Hillary Clinton went on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” incarnating her role as the first Democratic Rambo. The Clinton campaign seems to want to reduce the entire race to one element: the supposed masculinity gap. And so everything she does is all about assertion, combat and Alpha dog dominance.

A few questions in, Clinton rose from her chair and loomed over Stephanopoulos. The country hasn’t seen such a brazen display of attempted middle-aged physical intimidation since Al Gore took a walkabout on the debate stage with George Bush. It was like watching someone get elbowed in a dark alley by their homeroom teacher.

But her attempt to take over the show was nothing compared with her attempt to dominate the truth. For the first 30 minutes, she did not utter a single candid word, including, as Mary McCarthy would say, “and” and “the.”

She peddled her sham gas-tax holiday and repeated her attempt to blame Indiana’s job losses on outsourcing and Nafta. Stephanopoulos asked her to name a single economist who thinks a tax-holiday plan would work, and the daughter of Wellesley and Yale took the chance to shove the geeks into their lockers: “I’m not going to put my lot in with economists.”

When Stephanopoulos pointed out that Paul Krugman, a Times columnist, has raised doubts about the plan, Clinton lumped Krugman in with the Bush administration and said she wasn’t going to listen to the people responsible for the last seven years.

This wasn’t just shameless spin, it was shamelessness with a purpose. Clinton signaled that she wasn’t going to concede even an inch to the vast elitist conspiracy. She wasn’t going to feel guilty about ignoring the evidence. She was going to stomp on it, flay it and leave it a twisted mass of jelly quivering on the ground. She was going to perform the primordial duty of an alpha dog leader — helping one’s own.

Barack Obama gave off an entirely different vibe on “Meet the Press.” His campaign has been in the doldrums for the past few months. He’s never come up with an explanation about how he would actually transform politics, and his conventional substance is beginning to overshadow his unconventional style.

But, as Sunday’s contrast made clear, Obama still seems like a human being. He still seems to return each night to some zone of normalcy where personal reflection lives. He wasn’t fully candid when answering questions about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but there are some inner guardrails that prevent the spin from drifting too far from the truth. Thoughtful and conversational, he doesn’t seem to possess the trait that Clinton has: automatically assuming that critics are always wrong.

Obama still possesses his talent for homeostasis, the ability to return to emotional balance and calm, even amid hysteria. His astounding composure has come across as weakness in the midst of combat with Clinton, but it’s also at the core of his promise to change politics. He vows to calm hatred and heal division.

This contrast between combat and composure defines the Democratic race. The implicit Clinton argument is that politics is an inherently nasty business. Human nature, as she said Sunday, means that progress comes only through conquest. You’d better elect a leader who can intimidate. You’d better elect someone who has given herself permission to be brutal.

Obama’s campaign grows out of the longstanding reform tradition. His implicit argument is that politics doesn’t have to be this way. Dishonesty and brutality aren’t inevitable; they’re what gets in the way. Obama’s friend and supporter Cass Sunstein described the Obama ideal in The New Republic: “Obama believes that real change usually requires consensus, learning and accommodation.”

That’s regarded as naïve drivel in parts of Camp Clinton.

Campaign issues come and go, but this is a thread running through the race. One believes in the raw assertion of power, the other the power of communication.

They are imperfect messengers for their creeds. Clinton rails against “Wall Street money-grubbers,” but her policies are often drawn from the Wall Street wing of the party. Obama talks about postpartisan compromise in the abstract, but rarely in the particular.

Still, amid the storms of the presidency, their basic worldviews would shape their presidencies. Obama is instinctively a conversationalist and community-mobilizer. Clinton, as she says, will fight and fight. If elected, she’ll have the power to take the Hobbesian struggle she perceives, and turn it into remorseless reality.

ppg shg · #7 05-07-2008, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Card

The Beast roars on!

QFT.

A free win, and some time to raise money to pay off debt.

No way in Hell the one who bears the Mark does not soldier forward.

sketch · #8 05-07-2008, 09:31 AM

Quote:

This wasn’t just shameless spin, it was shamelessness with a purpose. Clinton signaled that she wasn’t going to concede even an inch to the vast elitist conspiracy. She wasn’t going to feel guilty about ignoring the evidence. She was going to stomp on it, flay it and leave it a twisted mass of jelly quivering on the ground. She was going to perform the primordial duty of an alpha dog leader — helping one’s own.

That sounds familiar....4 MORE YEARS!!!!11!!!

Schwahalala · #9 05-08-2008, 08:05 AM

How Hillary lost the nomination

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...0.html?cnn=yes

Razzy · #10 05-08-2008, 08:28 AM

The Clintons playing the race card prior to the SC primary should probably also be in there as well.

ppg shg · #11 05-08-2008, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwahalala

How Hillary lost the nomination

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...0.html?cnn=yes

Don't think it comes down to anything more than #3. She simply didn't run in all the States. If she had, she would be the nominee right now.

Schwahalala · #12 05-08-2008, 09:37 AM

Well that lists proves Mark Penn is a big idiot - but we knew that already.

Reggie Cleveland · #13 05-08-2008, 09:46 AM

As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?"

Wow.

Razzy · #14 05-08-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggie Cleveland

As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?"

Wow.

That Penn guy sounds about as clueless as most of Bush's loyal advisors are, and have been.

Iowa_Card · #15 05-08-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggie Cleveland

As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?"

Wow.

If I were a Hillary supporter I might have to boo Penn for that.

ppg shg · #16 05-08-2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Card

If I were a Hillary supporter I might have to boo Penn for that.

He tried really hard though.

kennyboyerfan · #17 05-08-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Card

If I were a Hillary supporter I might have to boo Penn for that.

I knew you couldn't really give it up.

Iowa_Card · #18 05-08-2008, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyboyerfan

I knew you couldn't really give it up.

Want a tissue?

kennyboyerfan · #19 05-08-2008, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Card

Want a tissue?

Want a Prozac?

Iowa_Card · #20 05-08-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyboyerfan

Want a Prozac?

Not Today.