[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4[/YOUTUBE]

:lol:

man, i can't stand that woman.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

can't see the video at work -- is this the Bosnia thing?

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

yes. "I remember lading under sniper fire and running from the plane with our heads down..."

oh whoops! the press was there and filmed the entire event. lots of hugs and smiles and press photos. no sniper fire. :lol:

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

On the one hand, this could just be one of what I'm sure are countless examples of embellishment of a story told by a politician to make it more interesting -- par for the course, right? It feels like so much more, though, because it highlights something that we all remember and know will come out in the general election but that Obama hasn't really hit Hillary hard on yet -- the Clintons have a well-documented problem with the truth. Obama may have shown restraint in attacking her on truthfulness, but the GOP will be relentless.

For me, though, it's more than a fishtale. There is a 180 degree difference between bullets whizzing by your head and having a photo-op with children on the tarmac. One is not a "slightly more interesting version" of the other.

More importantly, though, why lie about it in the first place? Who cares if you landed in a hail of sniper fire? The risk-reward analysis she went through in deciding to make this statement is puzzling to me -- so little to gain, yet so much to lose when she's inevitably caught because, you know, THERE WERE CAMERAS THERE.

The conclusion? There was no risk-reward analysis, because the woman has no problem whatsoever amending reality on an as-needed basis to suit her goals. I'm not even sure what those goals are, by the way, because they can't be the good of the country or the democratic party. The only thing she cares about is her own rise to power.

Disgusting.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

I love how her explanation is that she "misspoke." Reminds me of a joke:

A man walks into a train station and says, "Hi, I'd like 2 pickets to Tittsburgh." He then says, "Oh, I'm sorry, I [I]meant [/I]to say "2 tickets to Pittsburgh."

The cashier says, "No problem, I do things like that all the time. Just the other night, I meant to say to my wife, "Honey, could you please pass the potatoes," but I accidentally said, "You fucking whore, you've ruined my life!"

ba-dum-ching

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

HAHAHA just saw this on the news.. What a fucken joke.. Hope she does not win.. Fucken Douchbag :D

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

this is so fucking irrelevant

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

i think it's 100% relevant. i'm glad she reminded everyone who might have forgotten that she and her husband are lairs.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[QUOTE=Miguel;581969]this is so fucking irrelevant[/QUOTE]

The only way this is irrelevant is if you already think Hillary is a liar who will say anything to get elected, because then it's just another drop in the bucket. It should be relevant to anyone that hasn't already reached that conclusion, though, because it is symptomatic of a serious problem she's going to have confront in a general election.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[QUOTE=toasty;581986]The only way this is irrelevant is if you already think Hillary is a liar who will say anything to get elected, because then it's just another drop in the bucket. [/QUOTE]

^this is where i am, except i still think it's relevant because i enjoy watching her fuck up.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

they throw so much shit on each other , youll end up voting for the lesser of two evils

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

you clearly are not following this election.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

mccain is letting the dems pave his path to presidency and i'm laughing the whole way down the road.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc[/YOUTUBE]

hillary's memory was correct, you jerks....:lol:

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

I guess this isn't the only instance where Hillary has completely and needlessly fabricated an anecdote.

[QUOTE]She said that Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 and happened to duck into a coffee shop when the airplanes hit. She said that this move saved Chelsea’s life. But Chelsea told Talk magazine that she was in a friend’s apartment four miles from ground zero when the first plane hit. Her friend called her, waking her up, and told her to turn on the TV. On television, she saw the second plane hit, disproving Hillary’s claim that “she heard the plane hit. She heard it. She did.”[/QUOTE]

[url]http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/03/26/hillarys-other-fabrication/[/url]

Seriously, what on earth is the point in lying about something so inconsequential as your daughter's physical proximity to the WTC on 9/11?

:|

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

i am not a big political person or anything but i want the black dude to win.. and if he does not and she does i guess anything will be better then monkey face George Bush.. in fact a monkey can prob do better then dickhead :D

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[QUOTE=Garrick;582030]mccain is letting the dems pave his path to presidency and i'm laughing the whole way down the road.[/QUOTE]

Me too. Hillary is delusional and a liar and is being exposed. Those are not good qualities in a president. Obama attends a racist church to prove he's black enough. All the while, McCain is sitting back watching the Democrats bring themselves down.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[quote=Jenks;581981]i think it's 100% relevant. i'm glad she reminded everyone who might have forgotten that she and her husband are lairs.[/quote]

I would be frightened if they weren't [I]liars[/I] because that would make them special amongst all politicians who by nature are, ALL liars. Keep it real. You just don't like the Clintons.

I am one who is not heavily favoring either Obama or Hillary. I want to see this play out the way it is supposed to. And you might be asking "How is it supposed to turn out?" It is supposed to turn out the way it does turn out, whichever way that is.

To me, close races are exciting. Obama and Hillary are getting lots of FREE press coverage the longer this goes on. It may favor them, or it may favor McCain. I will wait until November to decide who it favors.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[QUOTE=CactusBeats;582376] To me, close races are exciting. [/QUOTE]

OK, but how do you feel about races that aren't really close at all but that are marketed as such because the media thinks it makes for a better story? Clinton cannot catch Obama in pledged delegates, and even her own people give her a 5-10% chance of overtaking Obama in the popular vote. She has no path to the nomination that would have any legitimacy or that would not result in a serious fracture of the democratic party. Were it not for Clinton continuing to move the goalposts every couple of days for what constitutes success and failure and the media lapping it up, this race would have been over weeks ago.

The race isn't close, and really hasn't been since shortly after Super Tuesday. It's a fiction.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[quote=CactusBeats;582376]I want to see this play out the way it is supposed to. And you might be asking "How is it supposed to turn out?" It is supposed to turn out the way it does turn out, whichever way that is.[/quote]

:shock: um...well then. I'm glad that you took the bold position of supporting the realization of reality playing out the way that it will really play out! :p:lol:

[quote=CactusBeats;582376]To me, close races are exciting. Obama and Hillary are getting lots of FREE press coverage the longer this goes on. It may favor them, or it may favor McCain. I will wait until November to decide who it favors.[/quote]

It probably favors McCain, because it lets him keep his mouth mostly shut while the two Democratic candidates fiercly compete for the opportunity to make the biggest jackass of themselves for our humorous benefit (right now we're tied 1-1)... :lol:

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[quote=toasty;582379]OK, but how do you feel about races that aren't really close at all but that are marketed as such because the media thinks it makes for a better story? Clinton cannot catch Obama in pledged delegates, and even her own people give her a 5-10% chance of overtaking Obama in the popular vote. She has no path to the nomination that would have any legitimacy or that would not result in a serious fracture of the democratic party. Were it not for Clinton continuing to move the goalposts every couple of days for what constitutes success and failure and the media lapping it up, this race would have been over weeks ago.

The race isn't close, and really hasn't been since shortly after Super Tuesday. It's a fiction.[/quote]

Perhaps you are unaware that although Hillary cannot get the required votes for the nomination in the remaining contests, neither can Obama. The unpledged superdelegates MAY be the ones who make the winner clear, although it is also unlikely after even these uncommited delegates have voted that either Obama or Hillary will have the 2024 votes necessary - even if Obama took ALL 338 unpledged delegates, he would still be 62 delegates short of 2024. If Hillary took all 338 she would be 187 and one half votes short of 2024. Could this be the opportunity Al Gore has been waiting for?

I think it's in the dems best interest to clear this up and have a nominee long before the convention. But come on, lets face it. Hillary will NEVER bow out voluntarily. Toasty, do you reallly think she ever wilI ever concede voluntarily?? I could be wrong, but I honestly cannot see that happening this year or in a million years. She will fight on and may very well destroy the dems chances in November no matter who the nominee is. Even if it's Gore.

A year from now we will be talking about the McCain administration and the next millenium in Iraq. Heck why don't we make Iraq the fiftieth state. It has received more aid this year than ANY ONE of the existing fifty states. McCain can move his White House to Baghdad and bark orders from there. It will certainly save the taxpayers on wartime presidential visits to the green zone - LOL.:roll:

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[QUOTE=CactusBeats;582415][I][B]Perhaps you are unaware[/B][/I] that although Hillary cannot get the required votes for the nomination in the remaining contests, neither can Obama. The unpledged superdelegates MAY be the ones who make the winner clear, although it is also unlikely after even these uncommited delegates have voted that either Obama or Hillary will have the 2024 votes necessary - even if Obama took ALL 338 unpledged delegates, he would still be 62 delegates short of 2024. If Hillary took all 338 she would be 187 and one half votes short of 2024. [/QUOTE]

Really? :shock: Jeepers mister, thanks!!! I had no idea!!

After you're done patting yourself on the back for gracing us with your uncommon wisdom, care to explain how this is actually a winnable race for Clinton? And before you jump into another condescending response, I am aware, as I'm sure everyone who watches the news even every couple weeks is, that convincing the superdelegates to go with her would put her over the top. As someone aware of the shortfall in pledged delegates, though, I'm assuming you also have your thumb on the pulse of the political world enough to be aware that many in the democratic party view such a result as likely to turn off a large number of voters and, in the absence of Obama having a meltdown between now and the convention, is the equivalent of a nuclear option if, as will likely happen, Obama finishes with a lead in pledged delegates and in the popular vote.

Back to the original point, you said you enjoy a close race, I say you're not watching one, that the notion of closeness is something that is pure fabrication. Feel free to respond, and I promise to keep a dictionary handy in case you use any big words.

And do I think Hillary will ever bow out voluntarily? Depends upon what you mean by "voluntarily." The increase in the amount of pressure from the higher ups in the democratic party just over the last week has been significant. The dems are starting to realize that she has very little chance of winning, and that shadow of a chance does not justify the haymakers she's throwing at Obama. No way does the party let this continue to the convention. It's a great news story, but it's not reality.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[quote=toasty;582447]As someone aware of the shortfall in pledged delegates, though, I'm assuming you also have your thumb on the pulse of the political world enough to be aware that many in the democratic party view such a result as likely to turn off a large number of voters and, in the absence of Obama having a meltdown between now and the convention, is the equivalent of a nuclear option if, as will likely happen, Obama finishes with a lead in pledged delegates and in the popular vote. [/quote]

Yes, I am aware of that concern and will address it below. Nevertheless, I will play devil's advocate. Hopefully, no dictionary should be required...

To begin with, maybe you can help me out because I most certainly do not know all. Seriously, I don't. :( No sarcasm here. What I understood the rules for nomination to be are 2024 delegates. Nomination is not assured by having the most delegates (of the two candidates) below 2024. Is this correct? My point previously is that although getting more delegates is nice, it doesn't qualify that candidate for nomination unless he/she gets the magic number (2024). If I understood your point, more delgates, although not enough by party rules, is enough. Correct?

But I digress. Why hasn't 2024 delegates been reduced to half of the total delegates, minus Florida & Michigan, as a result of those states being removed from consideration at the time they were banned? i.e. (4047-(128+185))/2 = 1867 delegates. Seems this would be a more appropriate metric considering the loss of those delegates. Perhaps the party should have foreseen a scenario where NEITHER candidate receives enough delegates to be the nominee.

What I haven't heard a lot of discussion on is the elephant in the room - the nuclear option you mentioned above. That being the reason for which superdelegates were created for in the first place. My understanding is that it was a reaction to what the party establishment perceived to be recent (1980 - Carter, 1972 - McGovern) "unelectable" or less electable, less experienced, and a little too far left (not by me, by the establishment) chosen by the most active dems in the primaries. Primary voters of course have the tendency to be futher left (dems) or further right (republicans). The establishment saw superdelegates as insurance effect against getting more of these candidates in the future. If this option is so nuclear, then why did the dems create it?

By the way, I didn't explain my understanding of superdelegates to "talk down" to you. I just wanted to confirm we had the same understanding so I could ask you the following and understand the basis for your answer. Do you think this race between Hillary and Obama comes anywhere close to being one of the aforementioned situations?

I myself think it may be one of those situations. In fact, superdelegates, as the dems intended them, seem to be custom-made to decide this very situation, a close race with inexperienced candidate(s). The democratic party may be named for democracy, but the party itself is not a democracy, nor was it intended to be. If Hillary were to get it and Obama voters cannot coalesce behind her or vice versa, we all deserve McCain. I mean, come on, are dems all just a bunch of crybabies - "I'm not playing anymore. I'm going to take my toys and go home" "It's my way or the highway?" :oops: I thought that was the Republican black & white absolutist way of thinking. Or are we as voters mature enough to be both good winners AND good losers and come together in strength (when one of the two bows out) to beat McCain? This is the PRIMARY, not the general election.

[quote=toasty;582447]She has no path to the nomination that would have any legitimacy or that would not result in a serious fracture of the democratic party.[/quote]

Either the Democratic Party's rules are legitimate, or they aren't. Are we cherry-picking which rules we like and which we don't? If Democratic voters decide to be turned off, it's because they don't understand the rules. Perhaps 2008 is their opportunity to be educated. They will have five-plus months to listen to it reiterated over & over in the news to allow it to sink into their thick skulls if it does go to the convention. Be jaded and cynical about it now, but listen & get educated, suck it up, cast your vote for the Democratic nominee come November, and get over it already. Or be a sore loser and get McCain - simple choice really.

If Hillary needs to be reminded that Florida and Michigan should not and do not count in the primary (dem party decision) [B]and she does[/B], then perhaps Obama need be reminded about the role of superdelegates (also a dem party decision). Last time I checked, they were both voluntary members to this party and were both supposed to have agreed to abide by its rules, even if they don't much like them.

[quote=toasty;582447]I am aware, as I'm sure everyone who watches the news even every couple weeks is, that convincing the superdelegates to go with her would put her over the top.[/quote]

If that is still indeed the case, Hillary would have to be nuts to bow out now with so many months to go before the general election. It's only been 85 days since Iowa and there are more than five full months for mistakes to be made before the superdelegates need to make up their minds (convention) and then another two months. Sure, her bowing out may be good for the party now. But with Obama not yet being fully vetted, what if that meltdown you mentioned does happen sometime over the next five-plus months, i.e. Tony Rezco, etc. Then McCain wins.

The candidates don't like the rules and neither do some of the voters apparently. Maybe we should just throw them all out and start over. Better idea - lets just throw out some of the rules for us and make the other guy/lady follow them. :shock: I am just not convinced Obama is going to walk away with it that easily or necessarily should. I am wary of making predictions based on recent electoral history. I have heard many good arguments for & against Obama and for & against Hillary in regard to who matches up better against McCain. Right now, I cannot say I favor either candidate over the other. If Obama is the nominee, he has my full support in November and vice versa. Of course, in the meantime Obama & Hillary need to not tear each other up too hard. I sure hope Howard Dean & others have addressed this. That is the biggest danger. I concede there are HUGE potential negatives to not having this decided before the convention, but these negatives are also not guaranteed.

Hey toasty, this is all in good fun. I just like to get into it and stir up the pot some to have a good discussion with someone else on the dems side. If I sound preachy and I do sometimes, it wasn't meant to be condescending. I just wanted to get your reaction.

Peace brother! :D

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

you people pay way too much attention to politics. :D

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[QUOTE=CactusBeats;582488] Why hasn't 2024 delegates been reduced to half of the total delegates, minus Florida & Michigan, as a result of those states being removed from consideration at the time they were banned? i.e. (4047-(128+185))/2 = 1867 delegates. Seems this would be a more appropriate metric considering the loss of those delegates. Perhaps the party should have foreseen a scenario where NEITHER candidate receives enough delegates to be the nominee. [/QUOTE]

Actually, FL and MI have already been removed from the equation. If some plan were to come into being that would seat the FL and MI delegates, the number needed to take the nomination would go up to either 2155 or 2208, depending upon how the MI and FL superdelegates are worked into the equation.

[url]http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/florida-and-michigan-by-numbers.html[/url]

[QUOTE=CactusBeats;582488] Nomination is not assured by having the most delegates (of the two candidates) below 2024. Is this correct? My point previously is that although getting more delegates is nice, it doesn't qualify that candidate for nomination unless he/she gets the magic number (2024). If I understood your point, more delgates, although not enough by party rules, is enough. Correct? [/QUOTE]

It is technically correct to say that until 2024 delegates of whatever stripe vote for a candidate at the convention, they are not the nominee. Indeed, John McCain is not now the republican nominee, which is why he is frequently referred to as the “[I]putative[/I] nominee.” If something really, really damning were to come out between now and the convention for McCain, you better believe the GOP would figure out a way to jettison him as the nominee. The difference is, you don’t see Huckabee and Romney staying in the race in the hopes that might happen, or even worse, trying to throw McCain under the bus so that one of them can step in and be the savior of the Republican party.

The Republican race, with its winner-take-all contests in a number of states make it much easier to quickly amass the delegates to call yourself the putative nominee. The proportional allocation on the Dem side makes it tougher to quickly reach that milestone, but it also makes it difficult to rapidly make up ground once you fall behind by a sufficiently large margin. As Hillary is quick to point out, her husband didn’t clinch the nomination until June -- which is technically correct -- but he wasn’t actually running in contested races through June, and he was understood to be the nominee back in April (and the race started much later anyway, so it’s not a fair comparison).

At some point, though, Hillary’s got to see the writing on the wall – that she cannot win through conventional means – and quit doing things that make it more difficult for her party to win. This is not Hillary’s quest to amass 2024 delegates through whatever means necessary, it is the Democratic party’s quest to recapture the White House. She’s lost sight of that, and is at a point now where she’s just playing spoiler.

[QUOTE=CactusBeats;582488] What I haven't heard a lot of discussion on is the elephant in the room - the nuclear option you mentioned above. That being the reason for which superdelegates were created for in the first place. My understanding is that it was a reaction to what the party establishment perceived to be recent (1980 - Carter, 1972 - McGovern) "unelectable" or less electable, less experienced, and a little too far left (not by me, by the establishment) chosen by the most active dems in the primaries. Primary voters of course have the tendency to be futher left (dems) or further right (republicans). The establishment saw superdelegates as insurance effect against getting more of these candidates in the future. If this option is so nuclear, then why did the dems create it?

By the way, I didn't explain my understanding of superdelegates to "talk down" to you. I just wanted to confirm we had the same understanding so I could ask you the following and understand the basis for your answer. Do you think this race between Hillary and Obama comes anywhere close to being one of the aforementioned situations?
[/QUOTE]

I think we’re talking about two different things. I describe Hillary taking the nomination purely by virtue of superdelegates as a “nuclear option” because it would take out both of them. The nuclear scenario you’re describing is when the rank and file democrats elect someone like McGovern that doesn’t have a prayer of winning a general election. We’re not there, though – we have two options with a lot of support, both of whom have demonstrated that they are viable contenders.

Hillary, however, is doing whatever she can to ensure that they are not both viable contenders, taking a “me or nobody” approach. C’mon dude, she said that McCain had the qualifications to be commander in chief, but Obama did not. Her husband said that she and McCain love their country, but implied that Obama did not. She is putting her own rise to power above the good of the party. And this is who we want to be president?

[QUOTE=CactusBeats;582488] Either the Democratic Party's rules are legitimate, or they aren't. Are we cherry-picking which rules we like and which we don't? If Democratic voters decide to be turned off, it's because they don't understand the rules.
[/QUOTE]

We all understand the “rules” – we are reminded of them on a daily basis. As discussed more above, though, this has less to do with technical thresholds and more to do with doing what’s best for the party. She cannot win without Obama having a meltdown, and her quest to push him towards that point is just selfish. There is a difference between hanging around and being ready to step up in the event something should go awry and what she’s doing. She might as well be campaigning for McCain, with the path she’s taking.

[QUOTE=CactusBeats;582488] If that is still indeed the case, Hillary would have to be nuts to bow out now with so many months to go before the general election. It's only been 85 days since Iowa and there are more than five full months for mistakes to be made before the superdelegates need to make up their minds (convention) and then another two months. Sure, her bowing out may be good for the party now. But with Obama not yet being fully vetted, what if that meltdown you mentioned does happen sometime over the next five-plus months, i.e. Tony Rezco, etc. Then McCain wins. [/QUOTE]

Well, that’s part of the reason that [B]all[/B] delegates can technically change their minds – so that if it becomes plain that the presumptive nominee is not going to carry the day, there is an “out.” Nothing is set in stone until the actual votes are cast at the convention – but that doesn’t mean that losing candidates ought to continue to lob bombs at the presumptive nominee in the hopes they might falter or actively court pledged delegates. That’s not “vetting” or “being a fighter,” that’s sour grapes.

As an aside, notwithstanding your claims of impartiality, you seem to be towing the Clinton party line pretty well. If you’re a Clinton supporter, that’s fine, no one is going to beat you down over it, but you can’t claim to be unbiased on the one hand while regurgitating lines like, “Obama isn’t fully vetted yet,” “this is a close race,” and “what about Tony Rezco” on the other. If she’s your gal, stand up for her. Just sayin’.

In closing, I feel a bit as if the party, perhaps out of respect for her husband, has been pretty lenient about allowing her to perpetuate this myth that this is a “close race” and allowing this to drag out for longer than it should. As her attacks have gotten increasingly negative over the last few days, however, the drumbeat that “enough is enough” is starting to ring loud and clear from the higher ups in the party. This won’t be over before PA, NC or IN, I don’t think, but there’s no way this goes to convention – the remaining superdelegates will coalesce behind Obama after the primaries have been held, and this will be over by early June, at the latest. My prediction, FWIW.

Gotta go try to be productive for a bit. Later

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[quote=toasty;582578]Actually, FL and MI have already been removed from the equation. If some plan were to come into being that would seat the FL and MI delegates, the number needed to take the nomination would go up to either 2155 or 2208, depending upon how the MI and FL superdelegates are worked into the equation.

[URL]http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/florida-and-michigan-by-numbers.html[/URL] [/quote]

Thanks for that. Been looking for an explanation of this.

[quote=toasty;582578]It is technically correct to say that until 2024 delegates of whatever stripe vote for a candidate at the convention, they are not the nominee. Indeed, John McCain is not now the republican nominee, which is why he is frequently referred to as the “[I]putative[/I] nominee.” If something really, really damning were to come out between now and the convention for McCain, you better believe the GOP would figure out a way to jettison him as the nominee. The difference is, you don’t see Huckabee and Romney staying in the race in the hopes that might happen, or even worse, trying to throw McCain under the bus so that one of them can step in and be the savior of the Republican party.

The Republican race, with its winner-take-all contests in a number of states make it much easier to quickly amass the delegates to call yourself the putative nominee. The proportional allocation on the Dem side makes it tougher to quickly reach that milestone, but it also makes it difficult to rapidly make up ground once you fall behind by a sufficiently large margin. As Hillary is quick to point out, her husband didn’t clinch the nomination until June -- which is technically correct -- but he wasn’t actually running in contested races through June, and he was understood to be the nominee back in April (and the race started much later anyway, so it’s not a fair comparison).

At some point, though, Hillary’s got to see the writing on the wall – that she cannot win through conventional means – and quit doing things that make it more difficult for her party to win. This is not Hillary’s quest to amass 2024 delegates through whatever means necessary, it is the Democratic party’s quest to recapture the White House. She’s lost sight of that, and is at a point now where she’s just playing spoiler.

I think we’re talking about two different things. I describe Hillary taking the nomination purely by virtue of superdelegates as a “nuclear option” because it would take out both of them. The nuclear scenario you’re describing is when the rank and file democrats elect someone like McGovern that doesn’t have a prayer of winning a general election. We’re not there, though – we have two options with a lot of support, both of whom have demonstrated that they are viable contenders.

Hillary, however, is doing whatever she can to ensure that they are not both viable contenders, taking a “me or nobody” approach. C’mon dude, she said that McCain had the qualifications to be commander in chief, but Obama did not. Her husband said that she and McCain love their country, but implied that Obama did not. She is putting her own rise to power above the good of the party. And this is who we want to be president?

We all understand the “rules” – we are reminded of them on a daily basis. As discussed more above, though, this has less to do with technical thresholds and more to do with doing what’s best for the party. She cannot win without Obama having a meltdown, and her quest to push him towards that point is just selfish. There is a difference between hanging around and being ready to step up in the event something should go awry and what she’s doing. She might as well be campaigning for McCain, with the path she’s taking.

Well, that’s part of the reason that [B]all[/B] delegates can technically change their minds – so that if it becomes plain that the presumptive nominee is not going to carry the day, there is an “out.” Nothing is set in stone until the actual votes are cast at the convention – but that doesn’t mean that losing candidates ought to continue to lob bombs at the presumptive nominee in the hopes they might falter or actively court pledged delegates. That’s not “vetting” or “being a fighter,” that’s sour grapes. [/quote]

Agreed - all excellent points well-taken.8)

[quote=toasty;582578]As an aside, notwithstanding your claims of impartiality, you seem to be towing the Clinton party line pretty well. If you’re a Clinton supporter, that’s fine, no one is going to beat you down over it, but you can’t claim to be unbiased on the one hand while regurgitating lines like, “Obama isn’t fully vetted yet,” “this is a close race,” and “what about Tony Rezco” on the other. If she’s your gal, stand up for her. Just sayin’.[/quote]

Just parroting what I have heard some of her people say. The one that still does personally make me nervous is "what is there that we don't yet know about Obama that could come out." I don't agree one bit with the Rev. Wright smear - guilt by association BS (See my posts in [URL="http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52492"]Could Obama's church pastor hurt him politically?[/URL] ). I tend to lean pretty far left, but I happen to work somewhere where I am exposed daily to a talk show host of the right hateocracy who also took a page from the Goebbels playbook. See, we get to wear headphones and listen to what we want, or else I wouldn't work there. But anyway, I do notice from time to time what is being talked about and I listen for a bit sometimes just help fine-tune my arguments against the right ("know thy enemy"). The Rev Wright stuff was played to freaking death. I don't care what the facts are anymore, if enough people are exposed to what they see as negativity, voters who are ill-inclined to understand or seek to understand the nuances of radically different racial-generational perspectives, that stuff could infect the electorate like a cancer over the period of months. I am not one to cave to this BS, but I just don't see the voting populace at-large as having the savvy to weather this kind of assault as it works its way through the listeners to hate-radio and trickles down through their family, friends, and associate non-listeners. Maybe I am too cynical here.

In the primary, I voted Obama. At the time it was an incredibly difficult choice. One which I wasn't even sure of on primary day. Now, I question how much of my decision might have been influenced by the excitement surrounding his campaign and his charisma. Suffering a bit of buyer's remorse. Since then I found myself swayed a bit by the experience issue and the potential for universal healthcare that I perceive Hillary as having a better chance of getting through. I really want to see things get accomplished and fixed. Big question is, "Do Hillary's experience and the polarizing effect she has on those who cannot deal with her, cancel each other out?" I used to think, "Yes, her polarization is just too overwhelming." I am just not so sure anymore. Her experience could be a big plus. So yes, I am now leaning toward her, albeit too late.

Also, with Obama being such an outsider, how much trouble might he have getting things done (think Jimmy Carter). Also, what kind of trauma might an assasination have on our country (in Obama's case, something I would pray would never happen, but have heard many African-Americans bring up). Nevertheless, that could turn Obama into this generation's JFK. Carter/JFK are extremes, but [I]the real question is[/I], "Is there a good potential for something in-between these too?" I hope so, but history has time and time again taught me to be wary of the highly charismatic with not much record to show for it. Especially when so many followers are drunk on the charisma and the only word that represents it is "change." Yes, I want change as much as anyone after the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush. I don't even dislike Obama. I just don't quite know what I am getting, and the stakes for our country are so high right now that we cannot afford another mistake.

[quote=toasty;582578]this will be over by early June, at the latest. My prediction, FWIW.[/quote]

I strongly agree that it is in the party's best interest to.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

It's pretty common for politicians to deal with setbacks by trying to laugh at themselves, and Clinton is doing her best with this issue as well:

[QUOTE]Hillary Rodham Clinton made fun of herself Thursday, telling "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno she almost didn't make it to his studio.

"It is so great to be here, I was so worried I wasn't going to make it. I was pinned down by sniper fire," Clinton said after joining him onstage, referring to her claims—since disputed—that she dodged sniper bullets while arriving in Bosnia as first lady. Clinton later said she had "misspoke." [/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VQQMVO0&show_article=1[/url]

I don't know why (although it could well have something to do with my thoughts on Hillary Clinton), but this totally rubs me the wrong way. I guess I don't put this in the same realm as Bush making fun of himself for mangling the English language, Gore making fun of himself for claiming to have "invented the internet," Obama joking about his god-awful bowling, etc.

It wasn't a gaffe or a misstatement. She got caught in a lie while trying to bolster her street cred, which BTW is fucking absurd. Al Gore phrased a response to a question in such a way that it appeared he was taking more than his fair share of credit for his role in the internet revolution, but if you look at it, and the context, it's pretty clear that he wasn't [B]really [/B]trying to say that he "invented the internet" -- indeed, he never used those words at all. And might I finally add, Gore [B]did [/B]have a significant role in bringing the internet into the mainstream. Clinton, in contrast, transformed an 8-year old girl reading a poem into a harrowing and dangerous experience. One is not an exaggerated version of the other, they are polar opposites.

To lie to the public, get caught, and then say, "Ha ha, caught me there, didn't ya? (wink, wink)" ought to be insulting to any reasonable person.

I dunno. I've probably so turned off by her at this point, I'm incapable of finding anything she does amusing or well-intentioned.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

It's just a calculated move on her part to continue to downplay the whole thing and look "normal" :lol: I bet she spent hours with her staff scripting and practicing that line.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

i hate hillary clinton. compulsive liar. how in the hell did she make it this far?

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

On point and kinda funny:

[QUOTE]How is a lie like a fart? The only person laughing about it is the one who did it. (you can find that in the encyclopedia under, "whoever smelt it dealt it.")

If Hillary is like Rocky, as she keeps saying, then in must be because they both suffered brain damage after going too many rounds. That could be the only explanation as to why she could joke on Jay Leno about her Bosnia lie. Not incidentally, she added that in lying about taking sniper fire she merely "had a lapse." I can only assume she means a lapse in mental activity. Otherwise it would have to be one of the other big lapses: judgement, truth, and/or integrity?

"I had a lapse" is almost as laughable as last week's "I misspoke." I'm sorry, but misspeaking is what happens when you mean to say one thing but you say another by accident - like when Bill said he "didn't have sexual relations with that woman" but really meant that he put a cigar in her vagina. Lying is when you say something you know to be false. Shameful is when you tell that lie repeatedly over many years. Shameless is what happens when you joke about it as if it's something that just kinda happens. Like the aforementioned farting.

For you Clintonistas who still can't understand because you're too busy longing for the old days, as I once did, I'll use a helpful analogy from that era. Claiming you dodged sniper fire in order to give yourself street cred is kinda like when MC Hammer released a gangsta-rap album. Nobody bought it.

As for the Rocky analogy? Well, he did lose after 15 rounds to a charismatic black man. So there's that. [/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/umrocky-lost-and-lying-is_b_95119.html[/url]

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

clinotonistas! sounds like neil boortz. :roflmao:

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

well...apparently lying really pays off (guess we already knew that)! :lol: The two of them made over $100m in the last few years... [URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_taxes[/URL]

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

How is it possible we can have three candidates like this running for the Office of the President? It shouldn't be possible. This is a circus, a show. I read what a lot of people say and shake my head. It all seems so detached, unreal, as if we are out here and they are somewhere in there and all we have to do is sit back, watch and enjoy the show.

Its a reflection on us, the people who these candidates are asking to represent.

I'm ashamed of myself and my fellow citizens. We all need to grow up, face reality and stop letting these greedy, lying bastards get into positions of power. It will never happen though because essentially we are all trying to do the same thing.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[quote=Lorn;585680]How is it possible we can have three candidates like this running for the Office of the President? It shouldn't be possible. This is a circus, a show. I read what a lot of people say and shake my head. It all seems so detached, unreal, as if we are out here and they are somewhere in there and all we have to do is sit back, watch and enjoy the show.

Its a reflection on us, the people who these candidates are asking to represent.

I'm ashamed of myself and my fellow citizens. We all need to grow up, face reality and stop letting these greedy, lying bastards get into positions of power. It will never happen though because essentially we are all trying to do the same thing.[/quote]

The answer to this is simple, and best illustrated by the South Park election episode where Turd Sandwich ran against Giant Douche. The moral of that episode was that all elections end up being between a Turd and a Douche, because they are the only ones who will lick enough hairy buttholes to get there in the first place. :lol:

Seriously though.... Being the President is probably the worst job imaginable. Ever taken a look at Bill Clinton or George Bush when they first entered office, and then again after just a few years? The job takes its toll on you. It ages you faster. You can never live without 24 hour security. You will be a target for assassination forever. Your family will be targets, too. People all over the world will want to destroy you. Your life will be combed through by media looking for any dirt they can find. And this is only getting worse with time. There are about a million ways you can create a wonderful life for yourself and your family without subjecting them to all this public attention and scrutiny.

Why would anyone actually want to be President?

I honestly believe that anyone who actually [U]wants[/U] that job is insane, or obsessed with power.... probably both at the same time. :roll:

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[quote=subterFUSE;586603]... takes its toll on you. It ages you faster. You can never live without 24 hour security. You will be a target for assassination forever. Your family will be targets, too. People all over the world will want to destroy you. Your life will be combed through by media looking for any dirt they can find. And this is only getting worse with time. There are about a million ways you can create a wonderful life for yourself and your family without subjecting them to all this public attention and scrutiny.[/quote]

:idea: Damn, sounds like my last meth binge. Didn't know tweekers and the President had so much in common. :twisted:

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[quote=subterFUSE;586603] Why would anyone actually want to be President?

I honestly believe that anyone who actually [U]wants[/U] that job is insane, or obsessed with power.... probably both at the same time. :roll:[/quote]

Over $100 Million in seven years. Thats why. :shock:

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

[quote=Lorn;587001]Over $100 Million in seven years. Thats why. :shock:[/quote]

There are a lot of ways to make a shitload of money without having to go through all the shit of being president, though.

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

what the fuck is wrong with these people???? lie lie lie lie.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080411/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_bosnia_fact_check[/url]

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

Clinton misstates wife's Bosnia tale

[QUOTE] Former President Clinton has added to the falsehoods surrounding his wife's tale of her trip to Bosnia 12 years ago. In Indiana on Thursday, Bill Clinton defended his wife's mistake in claiming that she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia, accusing the media of treating her like "she'd robbed a bank" for confusing the facts. The New York senator had repeatedly described a harrowing scene in Tuzla, Bosnia, in which she and her daughter, Chelsea, had to run for cover as soon as they landed for a visit in 1996. Video footage of the day instead showed a peaceful reception in which an 8-year-old girl greeted the first lady. Hillary Clinton has acknowledged that she got the facts wrong in retelling the tale. Bill Clinton's inaccuracies don't involve long-ago memories, but misstatements about how his wife has handled the story. THE SPIN: "A lot of the way this whole campaign has been covered has amused me," Bill Clinton said in Boonville, Ind. "But there was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. "Did y'all see all that? Oh, they blew it up," the former president continued. "Let me just tell you. The president of Bosnia and Gen. Wesley Clark — who was there making peace where we'd lost three peacekeepers who had to ride on a dangerous mountain road because it was too dangerous to go the regular, safe way — both defended her because they pointed out that when her plane landed in Bosnia, she had to go up to the bulletproof part of the plane, in the front. Everybody else had to put their flak jackets underneath the seat in case they got shot at. And everywhere they went they were covered by Apache helicopters. So they just abbreviated the arrival ceremony. "Now I say that because what really has mattered is that even then she was interested in our troops," he said. "And I think she was the first first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone. And you would of thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they all carried on about this. And some of them when they're 60 they'll forget something when they're tired at 11 o'clock at night, too." THE FACTS: Bill Clinton has many of the facts wrong. His wife didn't make the sniper fire claim "one time late at night when she was exhausted." She actually told the story several times, including during prepared remarks on foreign policy delivered the morning of March 17. It's also not true that she "immediately apologized for it." Clinton has never apologized for the comments and only acknowledged that she "misspoke" a week after the March 17 speech when video of her peaceful tarmac reception emerged. It's also not true that she was the "first first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone" — a claim that Hillary Clinton has also made when talking about the trip. Pat Nixon traveled to Saigon during the Vietnam war and Barbara Bush went to Saudi Arabia two months before the launching of Desert Storm. The trip also was not in 1995, but 1996. Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer responded to the former president's remarks Friday by saying, "Senator Clinton appreciates her husband standing up for her, but this was her mistake and she takes responsibility for it." She's also told her husband to quit talking about it. "Hillary called me and said 'You don't remember this. You weren't there, let me handle it.' I said, 'Yes ma'am,'" Bill Clinton, who was in Indiana campaigning for his wife Friday, told reporters.

___ By Nedra Pickler - Associated Press

[/QUOTE]

Re: Hillary misremembers lol

^didn't see that article before!! :shock: :lol: