<p>I saw something odd in NYT op-ed about BO’s family. It tells of a first meeting between BO and an older sister, who had been born the year before his dad went to Hawaii. According to her it took place in a bus station, and she spoke of why it was there, her (unfounded) fears about meeting with him, wanting to be able to leave easily. The author, not anti-BO in any way, pointed out that he told the same story in his book about the meeting taking place in an airport, complete with descriptions of security, etc…it was easy to picture it as he described it, rather like a movie scene. I wonder why they had such different memories of it.</p>
<p>Why is it that the bitter partisanship of the 1990s is always the Clintons’ fault? Why do Obama supporters fail to recognize how much of what happened then lies directly at the feet of Newt Gingrich, Ken Starr, Rush Limbaugh and their associates. Do you not all understand that there really is a right-wing network (aided by Rupert Murdoch) that spent millions of dollars and a decade to ruin the Clintons?
Do you blame John Kerry for Swift-Boat?
Do you blame Al Gore for the Flordia vote stealing?
Do you think things would have been any different in 1992-2000 if Barack Obama had been president? If his achilles heel isn’t/wasn’t his zipper, then do you not realize they would have found something else to crucify him with?</p>
<p>Wake up people. No one is perfect and, the good Lord knows, Bill Clinton gave them plenty of ammunition. But it would not have mattered; any Democrat in the White House would have been treated the same way. </p>
<p>So, if you think voting against Hillary Clinton is going to prevent a redux of that era, you are dreaming. Unless you are voting for John McCain.</p>
<p>
And this surprises you why? The major cities in Texas (excluding SA) are now the enclaves of transplanted Yankees. I expect huge numbers of those that voted in the Democratic primary to go back to McCain for the general. Most of the people I spoke with at work (defense contractor, conservative, mostly Republican) were voting HRC simply to confuse the issue. They have no intention of voting for a Democrat for real.</p>
<p>ldmomo6- I agree with you, numbers don’t lie. HRC pulled a lot more of the Hispanic vote in TX. However, IMO, in the GE, those same people will vote for the dem nominee, whether it be BO or HRC. That demographic is a dem stronghold as history has revealed. And turning TX blue in Nov. is more and more possible considering the renewed excitement, youth and new voters BO has brought to the table.</p>
<p>Interesting discussion All!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see these things you’ve mentioned as signs of arrogance. Obama has a right to act irritated at the Rezco insinuations. There is not one shred of evidence that Obama had anything to do with this guy’s illegal activities, although the press continues to raise the issue, but never actually tells the public what the issue is, or how Obama is involved. Rezko is the same kind of smear against Obama that Whitewater was against the Clintons. I’m surprised that you don’t see that. </p>
<p>And “the chosen one” has been Hilary from the beginning, imo.</p>
<p>Regarding “you’re too old,” I’m 57 and I don’t see his message that way at all.
It’s politics as usual that is passe, not the age of the people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Simba, do statements of factual evidence need to express “genuine” support or hatred? </p>
<p>If you want to know, I’d like for both parties to be represented by candidates who could offer a glimpse of a better future. Only Obama offers a question mark. Clinton and McCain are known entities that offer no solutions except a continuation of politics as usual; the only differences being the degree of cynicism, corruption, and character. </p>
<p>You have expressed your distinct affection for Clinton, and I respect that. After all, millions of voters share your opinion. Clinton winning the nomination should make millions of Clinton Democrats people ecstatic, but also more Republicans than Obama supporters. I happen to find the results of Tuesday amusing … as many Texas voted for the candidate from whom they have nothing but “genuine” hatred. I find that amusing but also quite despicable. But then, I find most *political *actions by the Clintons’ nothing short of despicable. Go figure! </p>
<p>Fwiw, I also find the account of your interest in being a delegate in a process you view as nothing but a circus rather amusing and perplexing. </p>
<p>Don’t we all show some ambivalence?</p>
<p>PS I’d love to know when our boys scored two touchdowns in the final 26 seconds of a Championship game. I heard about two TD’s in 140 seconds. Also, who could forget the end of the UT-USC game and the masterful performance of Vince Young. And that is one I am old enough to have seen and one I’ll treasure forever on tape. But even Vince needed a LOT more than 26 ticks. :)</p>
<p>“I wonder why they had such different memories of it.”</p>
<p>My brother and I may as well have been raised by different parents according to our memories. We not only remember some things differently, but there are things I don’t remember at all why he vividly recalls it and vice-versa. I don’t find that odd at all. I think that’s grasping at straws for someone to think it odd.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) the prevailing assumption is michigan/florida will revote. Both states favor Clinton (demographics)</p>
<p>2) FWIW, the Clintons have much more pull with SD’s than a Senator 3 years into his 1st term.</p>
<p>3) Somebody said clinton didn’t have a mathematical chance to win the nomination. Including SD’s she’s down 91 with ~400 sd’s left to decide. This leaves out the remaining primaries which, at this point, are more favorable to her than Obama.</p>
<p>fordiscussion: “I think that’s grasping at straws for someone to think it odd.” I meant nothing perjorative when I indicated I did not understand that different memory of place. What does that have to do with “grasping at straws”? Perhaps “odd” is the wrong word, “strange” “curious” “interesting” might be better. Sorry…</p>
<p>The good old days before the “fierce urgency of now” convinced the rookie he was ready to be the leader of the free world. What a shame his ego overcame his common sense. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gexyfVpFMUe[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gexyfVpFMUe</a>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would seem to mean that the “stealth” HRC votes (actually Republicans) were transplanted Yankees living in the large cities, except for San Antonio. In the last election before this (2006), the DEMS swept the judicial elections in Dallas which had elected nearly all REP judges since the 1980s. I’m not sure there has been a huge influx of Yankee REPs in the Dallas area recently.</p>
<p>But, under your theory since it was only those large cities that went for Obama, are the large Texas cities DEMs actually more pro-BO than the numbers would indicate?</p>
<p>“Essential message to those of us who were actually alive”</p>
<p>His “essential message” is not an “example” – it’s your subjective interpretation of what he’s done and said. That’s legitimate as far as it goes, but it’s hardly an “example” of his behaving arrogantly. If you want to give us some actual examples of things he has said and done that LED you to the conclusion that he is dismissive towards older voters, I’m interested to hear them. Or were they all on that short list?</p>
<p>I mostly never agree with O’Reily, but I think he is somewhat correct here.</p>
<p>"Here’s the deal. According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-partisan watchdog group, from mid-December to mid-February, 83 percent of network news coverage directed at Barack Obama was positive. Eighty-three percent. For Hillary Clinton, 53 percent was positive. Still a very high number, but nothing like the unprecedented Obama media kiss-up.</p>
<p>NBC News led the way, openly fawning over Senator Obama and hitting Senator Clinton much harder during last week’s debate. That’s when Jim Downey stepped in. Downey is the brilliant head writer of “Saturday Night Live,” and he and his cohorts skewered NBC News for its bias. In a mock debate, impersonators of Brian Williams and Tim Russert grilled Hillary and fawned over Barack.</p>
<p>Now that satire received wide attention and Americans got the message. A biased media was trying to engineer the election. Americans don’t like that. They never have, they never will. It doesn’t matter what party you subscribe to. The folks do not want the media manipulating elections. So Obama was backlashed.</p>
<p>The polls show that Democrats who decided late broke big for Hillary. Again, “Talking Points” believes the corrupt media had a lot to do with that. The endorsement of Obama by Louis Farrakhan also didn’t help the senator. Neither did a campaign snafu about NAFTA. But these are relatively small things. The big deal is fairness.</p>
<p>[FOXNews.com</a> - Why Hillary Clinton Won in Ohio and Texas - Bill OReilly | The OReilly Factor](<a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335501,00.html]FOXNews.com”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335501,00.html)</p>
<p>ahh, the media just can’t break the love affair with the Clintons after all. Hillary has once again become the media darling. This reminds me of her coronation as the inevitable nominee that we had been hearing about for 2-3 years… <em>yawn</em></p>
<p>I love it that the current Clinton spin is her “comeback”… From what?
What a tragic story of an “underdog” candidate. Give me a break…:(</p>
<p>83% vs 53%.</p>
<p>Love your spinning style though.</p>
<p>^ I spun nothing. I said that we have been hearing that Hillary is the inevitable nominee for the past 2-3 years. Your <em>numbers</em> refer to the time frame from " mid-December to mid-February", according to your link.</p>
<p>It amazes me how the Clinton obsessed can spin anything to make their poor candidate look better. Sad indeed.</p>
<p>And what if there just isn’t as much negative stuff to say about a candidate? Is the media supposed to make something up so they can be “balanced?” I’ve got no problem with Clinton as a candidate I would vote for in a second over McCain, but I have to admit that there are a lot of negative things to say about her. I find fewer negative things to say about Obama. Does that make me an “Obamaniac?” Am I biased because I find, on balance, more good things and fewer bad things to say about one candidate than the other?</p>
<p>I have a real issue with the assertion that “fairness” requires “equality” of treatment between truth and half-truth. I know that’s the justification for the right-wing whining about “bias” in the media, but can’t we just pursue the truth, regardless of whose ideology it may favor?</p>
<p>You don’t have to find negative things to say about Obama but only recently has the media begun to put him under the microscope and finally scrutinize his “hope” and “change” that he wishes to bring.</p>
<p>The press has been extremely kind to Hillary regarding many issues:</p>
<p>(Ironically, she is accusing Obama of things that may be trivial compared to what he could disclose about her and her husband, and what the press could find out with a little digging.)</p>
<p>Examples (not a comprehensive list by any stretch):</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Hsu</p></li>
<li><p>Her failure to disclose financial (tax) records</p></li>
<li><p>Campaign Financing via Bill’s foreign contacts</p></li>
<li><p>Whitewater / Missing files, etc.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>-Her own NAFTA issues</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Her lack of “experience” or explanation as to why she would be better at 3:00 am. :eek:</p></li>
<li><p>Her health Care failures. Why would it be different now? Because she says so??</p></li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just out of morbid curiosity, how do get to those optimistic “projections.” Inasmuch as most delegates tallies indicate Obama being up by more than 100, I’ll buy the figure of 91 (or even 87.) On the other hand, are you sure the remaining primaries are more favorable to Clinton.</p>
<p>Do you expect her making up ground in Wyoming, Mississippi, Guam, Indiana,
N. Carolina, Oregon, Montana, or S. Dakota? Even with double digits wins, she’d pick up only 20 or 30 more delegates in Pennsylvania, W. Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. Something that Obama should offset with a regular performance in Mississippi, Indiana, and N. Carolina. </p>
<p>Short of a major collapse by Obama and a surprising rekindling of the love affair between the media and HRH, the remaining primaries do not seem to favor Clinton. Unless, one considers that after Ohio, only the votes of Pennsylvania matter. Of course, there is always Florida and Michigan. :D</p>