<p>Now that the Penn dust has settled AP has announced today 4/25:</p>
<p>the count 1,724.5 - Barack Obama; 1,593.5 for Clinton. </p>
<p>That 131-delegate lead is only slightly down from the 139 going into Tuesday’s primary in PA and also because Obama picked up more superdelegates than Clinton this past week, despite finishing second in PA. </p>
<p>Clinton claims the tide has turned, but the nominee ship has already sailed without her aboard.</p>
<p>Yep, and she’s still sitting in the water on her skis, waiting to pick up speed…</p>
<p>If clinton has problem then Obama has not won any election since mid february including any big state except his home state of Illinois.</p>
<p>If he looses Indiana then he got a problem and electibilty isuue, if she losses then she has problems her own. </p>
<p>Let super delegates make this tough choice.</p>
<p>This is from abcnews blog, so I do not know how accurate rule 11.A of the democratic party is, but assuming it is accurate should they also punish SC, NH and Iowa?</p>
<p>Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:
11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.
++ BUT HERE IS THE KICKER ++
We already know that Florida and Michigan violated Rule 11.A. by moving their primaries to a date before the first Tuesday in February. There is no argument there, but what about Iowa (Primary date 1/3 - 31 days ahead of Feb. 5, allowed 22 days), New Hampshire (1/08, 26 days, allowed 14 days), NV (1/19, 15 days, allowed 17 days, NV is OK), and yes, South Carolina (1/26, 8 days, allowed 7 days).</p>
<p>[Political</a> Radar: DNC Panel to Weigh Florida and Michigan Challenges](<a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/dnc-panel-to-we.html]Political”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/dnc-panel-to-we.html)</p>
<p>Dean stupidity</p>
<p>[DNC</a> Primary Rules/Disenfranchisement of FL & MI Voters | Democracy for New Hampshire](<a href=“http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5465]DNC”>http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5465)</p>
<p>Actually, I’m very impressed by Hillary’s strategy and what she is currently doing by fighting all the way to the Convention. And here’s my thoughts why.</p>
<p>The way I see it, she is in a no-lose situation right now, and masterfully playing the cards dealt to either a nomination this year or a stronger chance in 2012. Do the educated folk here on CC really think she is that stupid that she doesn’t realize her chances are slim to none now? She either has to hope for a move by the DNC to annoint her that would tear her party apart, or for Obama to continue to stumble to the point that everyone in the DNC realizes he becomes un-electable this year. Both are slim hopes, and she knows it. </p>
<p>But what if she keeps fighting to the end, because she is “oh-so close”? She gets to continue to tear into Obama until the Convention, weakening his chances for the undecided voters in the General Election. Let’s face it, come November die-hard Republicans will rally around their candidate (swallowing their distaste for his maverick reputation on some issues), and die-hard Democrats will rally around their candidate (forgeting the bitterness of this primary season). It will then come down to who can get the Undecided vote. </p>
<p>By tearing into Obama, is Hillary orchestrating a McCain victory on purpose by moving the undecided voter to him, knowing it makes a 2012 victory for her that much more likely? By making sure McCain wins, she can remove Obama from the picture in 2012 (he had his shot in 2008 and blew it!), and she knows that McCain will most likely be a one-term President (because of age and the fact that he will have a real tough time overcoming the mess from the current administration). She then can swoop in in 2012 as the best choice for the Democrats, a lot more eexpienced and little bit wiser this time (again, she was so sure a year or two ago that she was the obvious choice, until a very charismatic and well-spoken Obama came along to steal the thunder and deny her “due”. She will be better prepared for this from happening in 2012).</p>
<p>Just my thoughts, but I really believe the Clinot machine has this plan as their ultimate motivation at this point. Impressive in its manipulation, but disheartening in the way they play the game…</p>
<p>Standing by for venemous spears and arrows to come back my way…</p>
<p>I think that the Clintons know that is now or never for her. That is why they will try anything to win.</p>
<p>If Obama wins the nomination and McCain wins the General election, one could argue that in four years, Obama will have four more years of experience and four more years of vetting. He could argue that he defeated the Clinton dynasty and that Hillary single handedly (actually with the help from her husband) damaged the party. He will be the uniter once again.</p>
<p>It is a no win situation for her, and she knows it.</p>
<p>Not so sure about someone losing the Geeral election coming back the next go around, sokkermom. History is against you on that one. Kerry, Gore, Dukakis – there is a rather long standing tradition about this. I think if Obama wins the primary this year, he will be givien his one and only shot at the General Election this time. If he loses, he will just have to settle for a career in the Senate.</p>
<p>1sokkermom Curious as to why you think its now or never for Hillary. She doesn’t seem too old to try again in 4 or 8 years. Is it age or something else?</p>
<p>Hillary can be like Ted Kennedy. She can also be a lifetime Senator.</p>
<p>She will be too old, and too damaged (in addition to all her “baggage”) for another bite at the Presidential apple. The Democratic party will not take another chance with her. She has alienated too many in the party. This was her chance.</p>
<p>In addition, many of her constituents are the (current) elderly. They may not be around next time either. Many younger voters (50 and under) will not forget this election. She is seen by younger voters as a representative of the “politics of old”. Obsolescence may not only be a function of her chronological age, but her less than transparent back room politics as well.</p>
<p>isokkerman thanks for your reply. I don’t personally think 64 or 68 is too old to try again in and of itself. I do think (yes a personal prejudice of mine) she should get herself in better physical shape to have a more healthy appearance.</p>
<p>Your other points are very well taken. I was listening to MSNBC last evening and they were talking about her alienating her colleagues also.</p>
<p>“I do think (yes a personal prejudice of mine) she should get herself in better physical shape to have a more healthy appearance.”</p>
<p>Yes, like Ann Coulter, perhaps, a tall, lanky skinny candidate…whoops, the Democrats already have one of those…do we not need more diversity amongst our candidates???</p>
<p>Too bad physical presentation is so important to so many voters, close attention paid to every haircut, wardrobe choice, etc. If she was not so busy being groomed, maybe she would have time to get some exercise. </p>
<p>Give me a break!</p>
<p>Personally, grooming is much less important to me than physical health. I cut my own hair. I wear makeup only on special occasions. I wear clothes from the clearance racks. But I weight only five pounds more than I did in college. And yes, I was fit in college.</p>
<p>Different people have different things that are important to them. I don’t see why it makes you so angry that people criticize Hilary.</p>
<p>You cannot tell by looking at anyone what his or her current health situation is. To judge someone on the cosmetics of healthy appearance is naive. These remarks are not less offensive than if they were racial slurs. Looks and appearance do not tell all about a person, but a judgment can reveal quite a bit about the viewer.</p>
<p>What about Obama/Pelosi?</p>
<p>According to this piece, she also is playing victim yet again, because of her style and makeup time involved. WHOA is me, I should get points for style! SHE is the one making looks an issue. </p>
<p>“That’s another thing: Do you do you realize how much longer it takes me to get ready than my two opponents?” Clinton asked. “I think I should get points for working as hard as I do, plus having to spend so much time getting ready.” (She mentioned, as a side note, that her hair had been done that morning by someone from Missoula.)</p>
<p>[Clinton</a> Muses About the Hair-Prep Gap | The Trail | washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/06/clinton_muses_about_the_hairpr.html]Clinton”>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/06/clinton_muses_about_the_hairpr.html)</p>
<p>Well, I have to sympathize with her there. I cut H’s hair–it takes 10 minutes. I get my hair done: it takes an hour. Obama says he owns five suits. She HAS to have more.</p>
<p>But the men have to shave every morning. And wear a tie. At least that’s what my sons tell me.</p>
<p>I totally agree with Bullet’s analysis in post 126</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Republicans will more or less cool their heels, letting Hillary milk the Pastor Wright thing until the convention, then they’ll take over from there if she loses the nomination. Then they’ll continue to make it the only thing that matters from the close of the Democratic Convention until November. Unless Obama can reinvigorate his image and message, it will be a slow death until election day. The undecideds and Reagan Democrats (not to mention the people who would never vote for a black candidate) will vote for McCain.</p>
<p>But Hillary should know by now that nothing is assured. Come 2012, other female candidates, ones who didn’t have to ride on their husband’s coat tails, will be looking like contenders. Nancy Pelosi, for instance, will be very viable if she decides to run.</p>
<p>I do think being fit and healthy are very important. I think the presidency must be a very taxing position and I have seen presidents turn gray prematurely and dramatically after being in office. And yep I do think physical exercise increases mental accuity and the ability to deal with stress.</p>
<p>Ronald Reagan in spite of his age seemed to me to be physically fit. Whether he was or not, I do not know. I don’t recall him being into any particular sport while in office.</p>