Posted on 03/08/2008 7:39:20 PM PST by IllumiNaughtyByNature
FRESH from her victories in three out of four states last week and surging back in the national polls, Hillary Clinton has crafted a new strategy for winning the Democratic nomination which she believes will legitimise her claim to be president.
Clinton thinks she can win a majority of the popular vote in primaries and caucuses, even if she cannot overtake Barack Obama, her rival, in the number of pledged delegates who will vote to choose the candidate at the Democratic national convention in August.
snip...
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Democrats boosted Obama in Wyoming last night in state caucuses that gave the Illinois senator a comfortable victory. With almost all votes tallied he beat Clinton by 59% to 40%.
snip...
After Pennsylvania, she, the nominatrix, from her position of trailing in every aspect of this election, will make Baraq an offer he can’t refuse...
She actually has a half way decent argument if she wins the overall popular vote. Its not the same as the E. College because neither will have enough delegates to win. The rules don’t say “Whoever has the MOST delegates wins”. If she wins the popular vote and the biggest states, she has a pretty good argument.
I’ve said this a MILLION times so here it goes again....the Clintons will NEVER....NEVER let a BLACK GUY BEAT THEM.....NEVER!!!!! They will DESTROY him where his own mother won’t recognize him and then the blacks will all bow down to them AGAIN.
There’s a fourth way. Remember what happened to Bobby Kennedy in ‘68?
|
Exactly, it would be easier to drive a female lion off of a gazelle carcass with your bare hands then it will be to make Clinton Inc say “You have won Obama”.
No kidding.....Hillary is the MEANEST JUNK YARD DOG EVER!
Weird, isn’t, how she “won” Texas with one of THREE BIG WINS - except that (according to RealClearPolitics) Obama and Clinton each got 92.5 delegates - a tie.
And even if it were 93-92 or 94-91 for Hillary - that doesn’t constitute a “big win” in my dictionary...
Of course the Texas results won’t be official until the final June party meetings as I understand it...
I think you may be right Ann.
Make that two of four. When the caucus selected delegates were included. The Harridan did NOT win Texas. Woo Hoo. OTOH, B. Hussien did. Boo Hoo.
Yes.
She is meanest. That’s why Rush L.’s advice was foolish.
Note that in Michigan, where Obama was not on the ballot Hillary won (according to Wikipedia) 328,309. So this article, like Hillary, is cutting that 600,000 figure in half by including a primary where the other major candidate was not on the ballot.
According to Wikipedia:
Michigan Democrats moved their primary date to January 15 in an effort to increase the state's influence in the presidential candidate nominating process. They argued that the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary unfairly dominated the selection process.[4] Democratic Party rules prohibit any state, except for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, from holding its primary before February 5. On December 1, 2007, the Democratic National Committee decided to strip Michigan of all of its delegates to the national convention. Michigan would normally send 156 delegates. A similar occurrence happened in Florida.[5] On October 9, 2007, following Michigan's breach of DNC rules, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and John Edwards withdrew from the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot.
One can argue it was stupid for Obama to pull his name (or some kind of strategy to negate any win by Hillary by claiming now that he was not on the ballot so any inclusion of popular votes for Hillary are moot), not to mention Edwards but the bottomline is Hillary only bemoaned the delegate issue of Michigan and Florida after the fact.
In the final analysis the only possible, unprecedented primary do-over should be in Michigan. Florida should stand as it is.
I find it odd, that we aren’t already seeing dropping bodies. Sort of as a warning to others.
She was to be the one without any opposition whatsoever.
I'm thinking Obama should really keep to the high ground, remain, calm and cool which would aggravate her beyond measure when she is constantly on the attack. He will make her look like an old desperate shrew. Moreover, no attack ever fed a hungry child....heard that before?
Clinton because she is so lacking in character wants Obama to get down in the cesspool with her. That is the only way she can win, demonize, destroy and divert all attention from her own pathetic and disgraceful scandals and inexperience.
Also, Obama must keep his team professional. Loose lips will sink his campaign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.