Hillary Preparing to Use "Nuclear Option"

[fuzzis]

Obama’s Lead in Delegates Shifts Focus of Campaign (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14delegates.html?hp)

...Should the cracks in her support among those groups show up in Ohio and Texas as well, it could undermine her hopes that those states will halt Mr. Obama’s momentum and allow her to claim dominance in many of the biggest primary battlegrounds.

With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules....

...Mrs. Clinton’s aides said the delegates should make their decision based on who they thought would be the stronger candidate and president. Mr. Obama argues that they should follow the will of the Democratic Party as expressed in the primary and caucuses — meaning the candidate with the most delegates from the voting....

...Mrs. Clinton’s aides said they would also argue to superdelegates that they should give less deference to a lead from Mr. Obama because much of that had been built up in states where there were caucuses, which tend to attract far fewer voters than primaries, where Mrs. Clinton has tended to do better than she has done in caucuses.

“I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s senior campaign adviser....



I sincerely hope she loses in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Spoiled, whining, baby. :smt105

[Conveyor Belt]

Spoiled whining baby is right.

I think that it's kinda funny, but just sad. They're pulling out all the stops now. I'm glad Obama's got such great support and is above all the pettiness in this race. The more she kicks and screams, the better he looks.

Seating the delegates from Florida and MI should never even be thought of. I know they're suing in court, or so I've heard, to have them seated. I thought they agreed beforehand that they weren't going to campaign in those states, yet Hillary had a speech there on election day.

[dollfus46]

Obama’s Lead in Delegates Shifts Focus of Campaign (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14delegates.html?hp)



I sincerely hope she loses in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Spoiled, whining, baby. :smt105

Rush Limbaugh hit the nail on the head. I posted a week ago that he said Hillary would do exactly this. Hardly fair since Obama was following the rules and his name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary is a harridan.
Dick Whatshisface who was Billy Boy's campaign advisor said last night that Hillary pissed in her Post Toasties when she started with the "35 years experience" deal, that we all gufawed at. People DO want change and she labeled herself Same Old Washington Insider when she did that. I am one of millions who think she is toast. Obama is going after McCain and ignoring Hillary like she doesn't even exist.

[N40th]

I think Republican focus on Hillary has blinded them to the greater threat. Granted, Obama's cult of personality growth potential was not entirely clear early on, but at this point Republicans should do everything they can to support Clinton. Nader, too.

And yes, I recognize how utterly other-worldly that last clause is.

Obama's vapid but well-delivered prose masks a remarkably leftist operative.

While statements to the effect that he's further left than Hillary have been floating around for awhile, nowhere is this more clear than in the Obama-penned Global Poverty Act, which demands that the US government expend money (expressed as a percentage of GDP . . . as if the government had direct access to that money anyway) to go toward poverty worldwide. That's all well and good, but nations which receive funds would have to deal with the baggage it comes with, such as cozying up to gun bans, the Kyoto stuff, and all manner of other leftist global-village silliness.

Funny, I thought it was only evil conservatives who wanted something out of you for aid we give (e.g. "workfare").

(The above having been said, I do think his healthcare nonsense is less Soviet than Hillary's nonsense, since hers is more compulsory, but that's minor by comparison.)

[dollfus46]

I think Republican focus on Hillary has blinded them to the greater threat. Granted, Obama's cult of personality growth potential was not entirely clear early on, but at this point Republicans should do everything they can to support Clinton. Nader, too.

And yes, I recognize how utterly other-worldly that last clause is.

Obama's vapid but well-delivered prose masks a remarkably leftist operative.

While statements to the effect that he's further left than Hillary have been floating around for awhile, nowhere is this more clear than in the Obama-penned Global Poverty Act, which demands that the US government expend money (expressed as a percentage of GDP . . . as if the government had direct access to that money anyway) to go toward poverty worldwide. That's all well and good, but nations which receive funds would have to deal with the baggage it comes with, such as cozying up to gun bans, the Kyoto stuff, and all manner of other leftist global-village silliness.

Funny, I thought it was only evil conservatives who wanted something out of you for aid we give (e.g. "workfare").

(The above having been said, I do think his healthcare nonsense is less Soviet than Hillary's nonsense, since hers is more compulsory, but that's minor by comparison.)
Yep. This global poverty bill is a U.N. deal. Will cost us something like $867 billion and it goes to impoverished countries. The U.S. is NOT considered impoverished. So not one poor family in the U.S. will see a dime of it. Obama and the Dems are all for it.
This is why Ann Coulter is voting for Hillary. She's more conservative and pragmatic than Obama or McCain.

[Comments 2]

This is a little "off thread" but who the heck decided that we are the world's money tree?? We put our share and other's put up promises. I think all of this should be reined in but who will have the humpth to do it, and from the previous post, not Obama.:smt086

[mac]

I never thought I'd say this, but I think Hillary is the better choice of the two. I don't think Obama would look like he knows his ass from a hole in the ground if he got the job.

[hendrixfreak70]

We have so many left-leaning laws, organizations, and Congressmen that we do not need Hillary, McCain, or Obama to further ride us down the path of socialism/fascism. We belong to almost 100 NGOs who erode our very sovereignty. We have 12,000 federal, state, and local gun laws. The government can spy at will for the sake of 'safety'. We pay taxes to fund the Israelis, they then fight the Palestinians, that we pay 3 times as much than the Israelis. The paradigm has shifted now. Repubs want to spend money overseas. It used not to be that way. The Dems, well they have always sought to spend our money uselessly. We have three candidates seeking to expand the war and stay there for years. Better go and buy that bomb shelter you have been looking at. Sh#t is getting deep.