Hillary! When You Lose the NY Times, You Have Lost the Party

competition
Personally, I hope she keeps going until she runs out of any possibility whatsoever. This is a good example of democracy in action through the American political system. So many aspects of it aren't good, but the fact that she can still compete for the candidacy is good. Hope she and Obama choose to be less negative 'cause that part is not pretty.

0 Replies

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/gallery.pa.obama/index.html

0 Replies

Re: competition

Ragman wrote:

Personally, I hope she keeps going until she runs out of any possibility whatsoever. This is a good example of democracy in action through the American political system. So many aspects of it aren't good, but the fact that she can still compete for the candidacy is good. Hope she and Obama choose to be less negative 'cause that part is not pretty.

You are missing the point. Hillary's Tonya Harding going after the kneecap strateegy is hring both canidates. Her surrogates (Dickheads like Paul Begala and Lannie Davis) can continue to try to convince the super delegates that Obama is unelectable but all tha does is hurt the party's chances in November. This has got to end.

Like I said when you lose the NYT, you are done.

0 Replies

I was definitely happy to see this, wonder what the effect will be.

I've been parsing this paragraph, I'm not sure that I get it:

Quote:

It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.

What does the bolded part mean? That superdelegates should settle this, now, in Obama's favor?

This seems to be contradicted by the italicized part, which is saying that if Hillary "calls off the dogs," she then... what? Should win?

It's definitely saying that Hillary should chill already and that she's doing a lot of damage. But I'm not sure if they're saying that superdelegates should override the damage she's doing -- by shifting en masse to Obama -- or that she's in danger of causing this outcome, so she should shape up.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/gallery.pa.obama/index.html

Interesting quotes from the talking heads there. I think they somewhat missed the point like they did in New Hampshire. Both PA and NH were very strong Clinton states where Obama made very significant in-roads. The media started to set some unrealistic expectation and slammed Obama for not meeting them. In both cases, Clinton could have won by 20%+. Still, it's a decent day for Clinton and she should make the most of it.

0 Replies

Is this the same NY Times that you (Roxxxanne) have complained is on Bush's side and biased against the dems?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Is this the same NY Times that you (Roxxxanne) have complained is on Bush's side and biased against the dems?

I never said that the "NY Times" was on "Bush's Side" or biased against the Dems."

0 Replies

Re: competition

Roxxxanne wrote:

Ragman wrote:
Like I said when you lose the NYT, you are done.

I'm not so sure the New York Times has that much authority.

0 Replies

Re: competition

Gala wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
Ragman wrote:
Like I said when you lose the NYT, you are done.

I'm not so sure the New York Times has that much authority.

Cronkite didn't have the authority to end the Vietnam War either, did he?

0 Replies

Re: competition

Roxxxanne wrote:

Gala wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
Ragman wrote:
Like I said when you lose the NYT, you are done.

I'm not so sure the New York Times has that much authority.

Cronkite didn't have the authority to end the Vietnam War either, did he?

Right, back when Walter Cronkite occupied the central and pretty much only source for news. The concept of the 3 networks and the major papers doesn't fly anymore. The Internet and cable have taken care of that.

The NYT has lost a lot of its credibility over the years. Most recently, their publishing John McCains consort with an aid, or whatever she was. Judith Miller. Jason Blair.

0 Replies

Gala, I work for the New York Times, and while I will agree with your premise that they have slid over the years, the slud factor has not yet happened, and until it does, I would ask you to keep your opinion to yourself.

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

Gala, I work for the New York Times, and while I will agree with your premise that they have slid over the years, the slud factor has not yet happened, and until it does, I would ask you to keep your opinion to yourself.

Kiss my rotund posterior.

0 Replies

I love it when you talk dirty.

0 Replies

democracy
So..it seems to me, that if Hillary stays in the race, but ultimately can't win over enough delegates, then her collective band of Super Delegates decides that race as she can't win enough to claim the prize.

The issue over her being negative is yet another problem. She MUST stop being negative, period! However, (the small d) democratic process is served if she stays in the race, if that is the desire of those delegates she and the voters she has won over so far.

Unless, it's your desire to subvert that democratic political process no matter what...just to defeat McCain?

0 Replies

Would you repeat that, Ragman? Just slow down a little -- you're overly excited.

0 Replies

Re: democracy

Ragman wrote:

So..it seems to me, that if Hillary stays in the race, but ultimately can't win over enough delegates, then her collective band of Super Delegates decides that race as she can't win enough to claim the prize.

The issue over her being negative is yet another problem. She MUST stop being negative, period! However, (the small d) democratic process is served if she stays in the race, if that is the desire of those delegates she and the voters she has won over so far.

Unless, it's your desire to subvert that democratic political process no matter what...just to defeat McCain?

She doesn't have enough SDs to change the lutcome unless hse wins roughly 70% of the reamining pledged delegates and SDs have been steadily trickling over to Obama. But the Clintons will continue their negative attacks and lies until the last dog dies and it is hurting the party.

When Indiana and NC are won by Obama enough SDs will commit to Obama to put him over the top. That is not subverting the democratic process nor would Hillary conceding "hurt the democratic process."

0 Replies

Roxxxy,
Are you actually saying that the NY Times speaks for or represents the dem party?

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

I work for the New York Times

WHAT?!

Holy crap. All this stuff about living in the swamp, being a simple salt-of-the-earth old inbred yokel, yadda yadda yadda, and all the while you're really some kind of damned elitist!!

....Unless--does the NY Times have a staff capybara farmer...?

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

Would you repeat that, Ragman? Just slow down a little -- you're overly excited.

Gus, I'm neither excited nor am I in a hurry. But that's OK. I still enjoy your posts.

Roxxanne seems to have understood what I said. Perhaps you might re-read..or better yet...scroll on by it.

0 Replies

Hillary! When You Lose the NY Times, You Have Lost the Party

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know