Clinton campaign demonstrates repeated incompetence
 

In the last ten days they have looked really bad.

The campaign fired campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle.

Hired originally for her loyalty instead of competence; kept on for her loyalty -- echoing some of the biggest complaints people have about the Bush administration.

Then it turned out that the campaign had not worked out how Texas delegates are apportioned, and were taken by surprise by it, after a rule change that took place last year.

Now today it turns out that they have screwed up Pennsylvania:
Even with special help from Fast Eddie, they wind up 10% short on delegates in PA. It turns out to be mostly a cosmetic problem, but not so unimportant that they didn't refuse help from Rendell.

Yesterday, the idea floated that the Clinton campaign would be "lobbying pledged delegates" -- not "superdelegates", but the delegates won by other candidates, reflecting the will of the voters -- and today they retracted the idea with force after total public outrage.

If she ran the country the same way she's running the campaign, it would be... bad.

Yeah, but you got to admit, people just aren't used to Pennsylvania primaries actually mattering.

The Jim McMahon approach to campaigning that Clinton is evidently deploying after February 5th is not working.

Quoted from 'The SuperBowl Shuffle:
I'm the funky QB known as McMahon
When I hit the turf I got no plan
Ijust throw my body all over the field'

I really think Hillary thought she was going to have a cakewalk. And she might have...if Barack Obama hadn't spoken at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

I, for one, am enjoying watching this.

Reported was a Clinton strategy to wrap it up on Super Tuesday. However, the old rule still applies. Those who are leading before the Super Bowl tend not to be the leaders come convention time. Clinton in 1991 was all but unknown until after the TV show that followed the Super Bowl - 60 Minutes. And again, both parties have demonstrated the rule. A message to both parties that they spend too much time and money on these campaigns. And they spend too much money calling us at home with recorded messages.

At least most of the money they spend is going back in the US economy. Unless those calls are coming from India.

Knowing Clinton, they might. I know McCain's are. Just kidding.

Whomever came up with that 'Change you can Xerox' line in the Austin debate should be fired on the spot.

As long as Obama wins, I don't care what slogans they use.

Last poll I saw had Obama up on McCain by something like 9 points, but Clinton behind McCain by 12. Something like that...doesn't really mean shit at this point. Well, not exactly...it shows an interesting contrast.

I wonder if she will throw in the towel if she loses both Texas and Ohio or either one.

hell no. i would expect her to push, pull, threaten, and bribe the delegates before she'll admit that america, er i mean - her party didn't want her.

Nothing would please me more than to see her go down in flames.

Flames are good for heating :corn: -- and eating it too.

Everyone knows whether or not I'd vote for a Democratic candidate -- nothing of recent note has caused me to change that.

ok, serious question here merc - when you think about hillary do you get horny?

wait, no that isn't what i wanted to ask.

when you think about hillary what makes your skin crawl more, her name or her politics?

Yeah, why can't we get a hot bitch, like Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir?

Her politics and her history the last time she was that close to the center of power.

:lol2:

The Times notices.

Okay, but you all know Barak is the Anti-Christ, right? I mean, everyone knows it; you can't keep a prophecy from happening. What did the Mayans say? 12-21-2012 and that's all, Folks!

Because that's when we'll hit peak oil and the world's economies will collapse?

who knows what the prevailing factor will be? I might even be the collapse of Starbucks (I hope, I hope). :)

Sorry - Aside from being a good public speaker what has Obama done to make you think he can accomplish all of these great changes?

What has he done... period?

nobody i've talked to can come up with an answer for that question J. a lot of vague talk about change, but change what exactly? change it how? from my point of view i love what i hear obama saying but when i look at where he has come from all i see is a guy meticulously groomed for this run.

That's whut I'm talkin' 'bout.

Mesmerizing the crowds with a lot of...what? Flashy, rock-starish, smoooooooooooooth, good-looking, "change, gwaaak, change, gwaaak!" WTF is he talking about?????

Reminds me a little of this column I started to read on the front page of the Business section of the Washington Post.

I didn't paste the whole thing. It goes into detail about qualifications and campaign proposals listed on Barak Obama's web page.

He hasn't talked about specifics and accomplishments, because the first emotional sale was the right approach to get to where he is now. Now the campaign will change and talk about those things. I'm watching the rebroadcast of the Univision debate right now, and Obama's message is changing.

see, what pisses me off is the "Hillary the Wonkette" thing. I already don't like the guy.

I took that as a compliment. Maybe I'm out of touch, living inside the Beltway.

He's not the only candidate who attended an Ivy league school. Having a platform and being able to execute are different things.

Both are smart political animals.

I know I'll get slammed for this but here's my take on the situation:

1. The Hilary hate machine is left over from an aggressive republican effort when Mr. Clinton was in office (How long and how deep did Ken Star dig - how much tax-payer money was wasted on THAT effort?)

2. Many of Obama's supporter's feel an obligation to support him - how to you counter that kind of lemming mentality without looking biggoted?

what kind of racist wouldn't support the candidate of change? ;)

J--Brilliant! that's excatly what I mean but I can't put it into non-crazy woman language (as crazy-woman language is my mother tongue)

I'm agreeing with what Bri just said!

Sure, but can Hillary execute anything in the unlikely event she gets into the oval office? The hate machine isn't going to go away once she gets elected.

There is no Obama hate machine. There is a Clinton hate machine. Why would a Democrat choose the one who will have the uphill battle once in office?

The first black man to be leader of this nation who compares himself to Kennedy WON'T have an uphill battle?

Whatever happened to "who would you rather have a beer with" ...?

(As y'all can see, J and I have been at this a little bit on the home front.)

Hillary can't execute her platform and probably doesn't even intend to. Her platform is put out there as a political building block.

To attempt her medical plan would be to re-ignite the fierce left-right divide, to re-focus and re-energize the opposition exactly as her first shot at it in 1993 did.

Remember how, two years after the Clinton election, the Republicans announced a clear, philosophical promise to the public and re-took control of Congress?

That was largely the result of a vaguely-lefty medical plan; so now she wants to present a firmly lefty medical plan in her first year in office? I doubt it!

Part of the game is thinking a few chess moves ahead. The pro takes advantage of their base with Big Promises; for example, the righty will suggest, we'll end abortion. But once elected, they don't get their way, because the operational politics are more powerful: if we end abortion, the pro-choicers will become ultra-motivated and cause us to lose elections. The end result: ban partial-birth abortions, something that effects almost ZERO actual people, but keeps the pro-life foaming-at-the mouthers content enough to believe some actual change happened, and to believe their big donations were not in vain.

The only way to affect actual change is to motivate and convince 75% of the people, not 49% or even 51% of the people. That is how a President gets political will: if the people believe in him or her. Right now, P. Bush is in such dire political straits that he could not solve a problem that the majority of people believe in (social security insolvency), even after proposing a rather lefty solution (a highly progressive structure more painful for the rich). He can hardly stake a position at all, because once he does the rest of the pols make political hay by staking positions at the polar opposite.

Obama is farther to the left than Clinton - despite his WORDs about reaching across the aisle - I think he'll have as tough a battle (if not tougher)

It's not a monarchy - you have to have connections and be able to influence others not necessarily on your side to accomplish your goals

You have to reach across, and sometimes you even have to give a reach-around.

Remember that Eddie Murphy bit about the first black president's inaugural address (he gives the speech while darting around the stage presumably dodging snipers)?

Just a funny thing, I certainly don't wish anyone shot. I think both Clinton and Obama would have a battle, but I think Clinton would battle back better (awesome alliteration, eh?)

Obama is slightly more to the left than Clinton, sure. But he doesn't cause the conservatives to foam at the mouth the way she does. He represents a chance for politicians to do some politics. Negotiate a bit here and there and maybe get something done.

I think Clinton will cause a backlash wherever she goes, regardless of what she does or proposes. There will be an instant wall thrown up because the idea came from her. Her ideas and proposals will not be judged on their merits because they came from her.

It's unfair, but I think it's the reality.

Obama has a chance to get things done. I don't think Clinton does.

I used to like her a lot. I bought a pin in 1992 that said "Hillary for President in '96," so it's not like I'm a lifetime member of the Hillary hate machine. I just don't think she will be effective.

My wife and I are split over this one too.

It's blatant anti-woman thinking here. "Oh, she's a bitch!" And, like all the men in politics aren't motherf*ckers? Riiiiiight.

but see the problem is that we can only assume that obama is a motherfucker because he is a politician, whereas we know hillary is a bitch because we've been watching her for 16 years.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't ;)

Right. AND we know that McCain is a motherfucker, B. Clinton, Reagan, Bush and Bush, jr. are, too (yet all were elected despite this) and every single man involved in politics for more than two days is one. Barak is a politician, he's a man=he's a motherf*cker. You don't have to know someone for 16 years to "know" what they are.

And why is Hillary a bitch? Damn bitch standing up for herself, disagreeing with things, speaking her mind. Freaking beach! ;)

P.S. Hillary is winning in Ohio. Ohio picks 'em and has ever since 1960. You don't win Ohio, you don't win.

yes, I know that today, for whatever reason, I am crazed. Your bad luck!

i think, in all honesty, what makes hillary a bitch is that she doesn't have a penis. if she had a penis she probably wouldn't be called a bitch at all. she would then qualify as a motherfucker.

but seriously, i want hillary to get the nomination. i think obama has a far greater chance of being elected than she does. and any candidate who supports nationalized healthcare would have to be running against satan himself before they'd get my vote.

Oooh, if satan were running, now there'd be a race. :)

Around the same time I was buying that Hillary pin in the early 90's I really hated McCain. I can't remember why anymore. It had something to do with some crap he was pulling with National Airport. Not renaming it after Reagan, but something else. After a while, I kind of liked the maverick persona he was wearing, but I'm back to not liking him again.

When I took the political test, I was closer to Obama than anyone else who is running.

Have you heard how much JUST the chemo is costing me? The drugs (poison) they are pumping into me costs 9,600.00 American PER DOSE and I will complete the eighth dose March 5. Doesn't include the oncologist's bill, the hospital's bill, the surgeon's bill, the surgery bill, all the other p.o. Rx's I take (Plenty of 'em) etc. This will end up costing me well over 200,000 bux in the end. My insurance co. is paying LESS THAN HALF.

This is more than you've posted in the last 6 months. It's great!

i understand that and i am personally sorry that you are going through this. that doesn't change the fact that i don't support a national healthcare system paid for with taxdollars. no more now than i did when i was nearly driven bankrupt because our insurance wouldn't cover my wife's pregnancy and i had to find a way to cover $70,000 in medical expenses. or the day that the hospital office decided that my wife's life wasn't in danger (only my unborn son's) so they wouldn't send her into surgery unless i could come up with cash. fortunately there was a doctor who liked my truck and bought it from me in the parking lot. if i was going to change my opinion, that would have probably been the time to do so.

you may think this makes me an asshole, but i think changing my political/financial beliefs based on what would personally benefit me or my friends would make me a hypocrite.

wow, lookout. I am truly sorry that those horrible things happened to you. But can't you see how WRONG those things are? Just from a HUMANE point of view? I'm sure you haven't seen SICKO...I know a lot of you here are Michael Moore haters. He asks this guy in Canada why should his fellow Canadians pay for his bad luck for having had a heart attack? He answered, "because I would pay for theirs." Wow. Humane, no?

Shit! Who's paying the rest?

see here is the thing for me though C, it sounds well and good - how would "free" medical care be anything but good? but then you realize it is a government run program. how well does our government run anything? how efficiently do they operate? how objective and logical in deciding who and what is covered and for how much? what quality of doctor will you have working inside of such a system?

i don't trust the government to do anything but eff things up. i'd rather stick with what we have - a private healthcare system with a support net for those that don't have private insurance.

Moi.

They run the police, fire, first responder/EMT's, the libraries, the post office, the MRDD programs, mental health hospitals (no paradise, I worked in one, but better than a lot of private places I've worked in, too). Profit-driven health care is blasphemous. You'd rather people with a financial stake in it make the decisions? Ok, so, you've answered your own question: those people put your unborn son at risk and your wife at risk in a really horrid, hateful way: pay up or they die! This is better? The docs in the UK, France, Canada, Sweden,etc. all say they "wouldn't work for" a system like ours. Profits before people...people who will die? If that's what you like...

Shit! Fuggin' goddamn it --!

*sigh*

Now calculate how much you'd get under the Obama plan, versus how much you'd get under the failure of Hillary's plan.