Clinton Suggests She'll Stay in the Race

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/03/c...-s_n_89624.html

Clinton's husband, former President Clinton, has asserted that his wife must win both Texas and Ohio to keep her campaign alive. On Friday, Hillary Clinton's advisers recast the stakes, saying if Obama lost any of the four presidential primaries Tuesday _ Rhode Island and Vermont also vote _ it would show Democrats are having second thoughts about him.

"This is a wartime election, which Democrats haven't talked enough about in my opinion," said Clinton.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/opinion/...ca11707&ei=5087

On “Nightline” last week, Hillary once more wallowed in gender inequities, asserting that it’s harder for her to run than her opponent — a black man with an exotic name that most Americans hadn’t even heard a year ago.

“Every so often I just wish that it were a little more of an even playing field,” she said, “but, you know, I play on whatever field is out there.”

Is that how she would deal with dictators, by playing the refs and going before the U.N. to demand: “How come you’re not asking Ahmadinejad these questions first?”



OK, I’m loath to quote Dowd, but she happens to hit the nail on the head this time.

So now Obama has to win ALL four of the upcoming primaries; Clinton sees herself in this until the convention, no matter what; and she invokes the Bush/Cheney canard of a “wartime” election.

Now I’m getting even more critical because Clinton is sounding very, very desperate. Is this an obvious lack of grasp of reality; trying to prove she will fight all the way; or utter, total lack of concern about the will of the people vs. what may be an unnecessary floor fight at the convention?

This from a woman who will not release tax records until nominated (Red flag) and equivocates on pushing Bill to release presidential records.

(There seems to be some disagreement as to whether he put them out of reach until 2012 or just suggested they needed to be vetted before released- kind of the same effect)

There are some opinions that this battle could drive a wedge in the party and maybe result in the loss of the 2008 election to McCain. Others seem to think that for down ticket candidates, the best candidate would be Obama.

Obama polls as the best candidate to beat McCain.

So what’s up with HRC? I can see waiting until the primaries tomorrow- but to keep changing the goal posts to stay in the race, what gives? Knowing the rules before the state primaries and then when it looks like you might lose, threatening them with legal action? What about that does she think will make her popular with the voters? Desperation is not a really appealing quality in a candidate.

Would HRC push so far as to drive that wedge into the party and why?

Is the goal here to lose in 2008?

(OK, I’ll take some bashing for that hypothesis but HRC’s throwing out lines all over the place to stay in the race that she appears to be losing- well, if she’s as intelligent as people say- why? If she truly cares about the country, why?)

I am not suggesting that she pull out, at least not until the primaries tomorrow. (Which I hope won't be Diebolded)

But I'd like to know why a candidate gets into a race then tries to change the rules when something doesn't go her way.

That's getting my radar up. :coolwink:

There doesn't appear to be a lot of difference between the two except that Iraq war vote, HRC's support of cluster bombs....uh...well, maybe there is.

But if Obama can move people at the grass roots level- isn't that significant? Isn't that what the country needs, the involvement of people again?

What gives? :?:

And you need to read the lastest...Hillary says McCain is a better choice than Obama...how's that radar looking?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/01/po...ry3896372.shtml

I don't like this, Hillary. :bad:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_w...Clinton_ad.html


McCain hears support in Clinton ad
By Libby Quaid

Associated Press

PHOENIX - Republican Sen. John McCain said yesterday that he was the best prepared to deal with a dead-of-night national emergency, not his Democratic rivals.

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have argued in recent days over who would exercise superior judgment in such a crisis. "It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing," Clinton's ad begins.

McCain, a four-term senator, said he was the most experienced and qualified to respond in that situation.

"I would believe that my knowledge and experience and background clearly indicates that if the phone rang at 3 a.m. in the White House, and I was the one to answer it, I would be the one most qualified to exercise the kind of judgment necessary to address a national security crisis," McCain said in Phoenix.

He opened a news conference in an airplane hangar by reeling off international events that concern him, including the election in Russia of Vladimir V. Putin's handpicked successor, several days of bombing in the Gaza Strip, and increased tensions among Venezuela, Ecuador and Colombia.

"I've been involved in every major national security challenge for the last 20 years that has faced this country," McCain said. "I look forward to having that debate as to who's most qualified in the event of a national crisis and the phone ringing at 3 a.m. in the White House."

Asked what "3 a.m. moments" he has experienced, McCain mentioned sitting in the cockpit of a Navy aircraft on a carrier during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and being "ready to be on the point of the spear." He also cited his support for the troop surge in the Iraq war, a strategy President Bush later adopted.

Hillary doesn't sound like much of a Democrat if she would support McCain over her fellow Dem candidate. :bad:

Totally agree, but Hillary is still a better choice than McCain. Don't want to see another republican. That would be a disaster, another four or eight years of republican rule. Don't think so. That would total hell.

Oh, I totally agree. It'd be a cold day in h%#* before I vote for McCain. I was just saying that it wasn't good of her to imply that McCain would be better than Obama. :bad:

Sounds like another Joe Lieberman

Hillary must quit the race

OR

Al Gore should give her a swift kick in her arse out of the race

As there are super delegates, now is the time for them to quickly act
and stop this or the entire party is going to go down to defeat

And I am one who believes the Clinton's did what they could to help the theft along in2000 and Kerry in 2004

According to what I've read, Hillary has to win by at least 60% in all the upcoming primaries to beat Obama. No one seems to project that happening.

Most see it impossible for her to overcome Obama's delegate count.

If HRC thinks she can- and should- win this via super delegates, it will cause a big rift in the party. I hope the SD's think of that.

Not only does Obama tend to poll better over McCain, he's also pulling in more independents and cross-overs from the republican party. Most of those cross overs and a lot of the indy's won't vote for HRC. (I'm just relaying what I've read about the last couple primaries)

Even if she squeaks out wins in Ohio and Texas, she is not projected to gain enough in delegates.

I do hope the super delegates take into account the will of the populace in this primary. If they don't, things well get dicey.

Would HRC carry this on to the convention, with the potential destruction it could do to the party? Would the SD's vote for HRC, who does not seem to have the appeal to the largest part of the voting public?

What would this do to down ticket candidates? They are going to depend on some carryover from the presidential vote. Downticket candidates might also benefit from at least the indy vote. After all, there has to be quite a change in Congress to get much done.

Why would HRC carry on and potentially destroy any chances of a meaningful majority in both houses, if she were to gain the nod?

Some are postulating that she wouldn't mind seeing McCain win as she expects she would then be elected in 2012. (Without, probably, thinking about how many people might blame her for a Dem loss in 2008)

I just don't see a Hillary ticket gaining as much advantage as an Obama ticket.

And I DON'T want to see her as a VP. Not even as Senate leader. I can't see her helping Obama if he beats her. I think she would just push her own agenda. Sorry, that's the way she increasingly appears to me.

Now I'll put on my flak jacket. :!: