Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Clinton Says She Will Not Make A "Decision" Tonight...

The illiterate electorate replies, "Who said what now?". It's been a fun few months poking fun at your obvious ploy to destroy the Democratic party and to turn the nomination into some sort of bastard child of 2000(count every vote!). Now as I said a few months earlier: "Don't go away mad girl, just go away." Feel free to let the door hit you on the way out.


alzaido alzaido said...

You took the words right out of my mouth. Go away Hillary. Don't come back.

True, it would help bring the numerous Hillary supporters on board. But is her base going to vote for McCain. Probably some, but only because they hate people with tans nicer than their own.

Bradda said...

Al, her speech tonight was a total joke. What should have been a historic night for Obama being the first black nominee for president in the Western world, she has to keep her "hopes" alive and claim "victory". Notice how she rounds up the popular vote to 18 million. She's disgusting and I'm going to be pissed off if Obama is pressured into taking her as VP by party insiders.

Reason said...

But she's not even winning the popular vote. 25% of the states use caucuses, which means, among other things, that individual votes are not tallied.

Of those 12 1/2 states (Texas has both a primary and a caucus), Obama won 11 1/2, most by significant margins.

Clinton wants every vote to count, but only if it works in her favor. If it doesn't work in her favor, then it's not fair. Michigan and Florida being stripped of delegates is unfair. Michigan and Florida getting half delegates is unfair. Caucus states have been inherently unfair ever since she started losing them (Before that, they just didn't matter). Proportional delegates are not fair, even though that system was instituted to better reflect the will of individual voters. The media's not fair, giving Obama the free ride (Except for Reverend Wright, flag lapel pins, and such). And the list goes on and on.

My brother is right, I think, in saying that her personal identity is so wrapped up in this conviction that the nomination and presidency should be hers that she is just incapable on some fundamental level of conceding the race.

On the brighter side of things, I made up a new game tonight that turned out to be a lot of fun. You can try it with your friends. It's called "Obama's America / McCain's America". You play it like this:

"I hear that in Barack Obama's America..." (fill in the blank)

For example-

"I hear that in Barack Obama's America, tornadoes, instead of destroying houses and killing people, will build roads and cure cancer."

"I hear that in John McCain's America, senile dementia will cause him to think we're still at war with Vietnam and nuke them."

Have fun!

Reason said...

About Clinton as vp, it may not be up to Obama. Technically, the party chooses the vp candidate.

wiki says:

The vice presidential candidates of the major national political parties are formally selected by each party's quadrennial nominating convention, following the selection of their presidential candidates. The official process is identical to the one by which the presidential candidates are chosen, with delegates placing the names of candidates into nomination, followed by a ballot in which candidates must receive a majority to secure the party's nomination. In practice, the presidential nominee has considerable influence on the decision, and in 20th century it became customary for that person to select a preferred running mate, who is then nominated and accepted by the convention. In recent years, with the presidential nomination usually being a foregone conclusion as the result of the primary process, the selection of a vice presidential candidate is often announced prior to the actual balloting for the presidential candidate, and sometimes before the beginning of the convention itself. Often, the presidential nominee will name a vice presidential candidate who will bring geographic or ideological balance to the ticket or appeal to a particular constituency. The vice presidential candidate might also be chosen on the basis of traits the presidential candidate is perceived to lack, or on the basis of name recognition. Popular runners-up in the presidential nomination process are commonly considered, to foster party unity.

The ultimate goal of vice presidential candidate selection is to help and not hurt the party's chances of getting elected. An overly dynamic selection can backfire by outshining the presidential candidate. A classic example of this came in 1988, when Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis chose experienced Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate. The public perception of Dukakis was so bland that one West Virginia elector cast a presidential ballot for Bentsen rather than Dukakis.[3]

The last presidential candidate to not name a vice presidential choice, leaving the matter up to the convention, was Democrat Adlai Stevenson in 1956. The convention chose Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver over Massachusetts Senator (and later president) John F. Kennedy. At the tumultuous 1972 Democratic convention, presidential nominee George McGovern selected Senator Thomas Eagleton as his running mate, but numerous other candidates were either nominated from the floor or received votes during the balloting. Eagleton nevertheless received a majority of the votes and the nomination.

In cases where the presidential nomination is still in doubt as the convention approaches, the campaigns for the two positions may become intertwined. In 1976, Ronald Reagan, who was trailing President Gerald R. Ford in the presidential delegate count, announced prior to the Republican National Convention that, if nominated, he would select Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate. This move backfired to a degree, as Schweiker's relatively liberal voting record alienated many of the more conservative delegates who were considering a challenge to party delegate selection rules to improve Reagan's chances.[citation needed] In the end, Ford narrowly won the presidential nomination and Reagan's selection of Schweiker became moot.

Bradda said...

reason: Well put in the first post and I couldn't agree more. She's playing a game that no one other than her horde can figure out.

As to the wiki, I know what the "rules" are, I just think that they are outdated and he shouldn't have to buckle to party pressure. She ran a nasty campaign against him and so what if she won the most votes EVER! You can't try to slam your ooponent over and over then lose and claim well I came in second I deserve something. She's insane.

Dean Wormer said...


Her speech was horrible.

It was all about Clinton.

Any supporters of hers that wonder why she lost only need to watch hers and Barack's speech back to back.

In a nutshell that's the campaign.