You say: "We do not dislike Hillary." Oh?

A brief sampling of your posts along the way:



"So, screw the Clintons before they screw us. Again. without lubricant."

"Hillary is America's Margaret Thatcher... The only area in which she has a clear lead is lying, cackling, and phony weeping."

"Pimping for NAFTA, helping Bill lose the house and senate in '94, helping him with his zipper in 97 and 98. Hillary, the comeback cackler, is behind by more delegates than she was before her big erection victory of a couple weeks back."

"A shriveled bitter douche bag, resting on laurels that never existed: that's our Hillary 20 years hence."

"If Obama has two faces (one for each race, or what?), Hillary has too many to count."

"Of course, her blind adherents say she "won" Texas even though she received fewer delegates than Obama did. That's Clinton logic. Now, we'll get six weeks of whining about the sexist media, more fear mongering ad campaigns, and more thinly veiled race cards. Not racism - no sane person thinks the Clintons are actually racist. But they'll use anything - any thing- to win. It's what they do."

"My guess is that you...subscribe to the Klinton hints that Obama is getting a free media ride 'cause he's a darkie."

"Poor, poor Hillary...Everyone's against her, and the lucky mulatto is gettin' all de good press. Anybody for a chorus of "Camptown Races".

"She's not a monster. She's a douche bag. Or, she's warm and teary and all fuzzy about the American people. Or, she's mama wonk, spouter of irrelevant cliches."

"Obama is going to kick the Hillster's ample ass today, and again Tuesday in Mississippi. Of course, you all will write that off to all the darkies stickin' together."

"She has no right to the nomination because she happened to pick the color of the drapes in the White House and the Arkansas Governor's Trailer."

Yes indeed, it's easy to see that "We do not dislike Hillary." But "we" apparently enjoy painting her as a completely unscrupulous, race mongering, lying douche bag with no class. Would that about sum things up?

I can't help but jump on this line:

Rosenkavalier: "If only his books weren't self-serving, truth-bending, and not particularly well written. You'll note that Hillary has also written books."

Um, yeah, and Hillary Clinton's books were ghost-written. Obama's weren't.

No word from Rosenkavalier as to whether Clinton's books were self-serving, truth-bending or particularly well-written.

Thanks for that.

So the question is, what percent of the black vote does Obama need to...to...to what?

He's already won the nomination, barring a deus ex machina.

Ok, but let's play this out, as far as the media is concerned.

If Obama gets, say, less than 70% of the black vote, the media will make a big deal of it.

Or if the mayor of Philly can somehow deliver educated, suburban whites to Clinton in unexpected numbers.

I don't know.

At any rate, Clinton needs what, 2/3 of the remaining popular vote to pull even with Obama? Something like that?

What are we talking about here, lj?

I think it's Hillary's camp that's peddling that crap. Trying to do a better job now constitutes sainthood? Sounds like a missive from the no we can't school of political cynicism.

To quote John Lennon, "They hate you if you're clever, and they despise a fool."

Jayzus 2.0 will sway the throngs. Turn the water into better water, feed the 4000 with 4 loaves of multigrain bread, and fishes from which the PCBs have been divinely removed. Obama can cure Autism AND find the G-Spot.

(It's a great opera, btw.)

What are you talking about, "Inflated notion of himself?"

Can you elaborate?

Wow, KateTex, you put a lot of work into researching Tom Payne's various anti-Clinton insults.

Payne is not the best example of civility. Some people are anal-retentive. He is anal-expulsive. But I find his style amusing. (Admittedly, it would be much less so if it were directed at Obama.) On the plus side, Payne usually has intelligent points to make when he's not calling Clinton a cackler.

I've posted this before, about a month ago in War Room. Alex Koppelman wrote back to say he found it hilarious.

It holds up well with repeat viewings:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important

I immediately thought of it when I saw the image of Obama will rolled-up sleeves.

I'll bet you anything that Clinton counters this by playing horseshoes with somebody. Or maybe she'll do a guest appearance on "How I Met Your Mother" and lick the liberty bell. Philly!

P.S. Obama should practice bowling with the Wii. (My top score is 194....still trying to beat the 200 threshold.)

Let me guess, is it the "mysterious stranger" bit?

Good God, that was funny, and yes, I thought of the Onion too watching Obama "bowl."

I saw Obama bowl 100 perfect 300 games once, blindfolded and left handed. Obama can clear a 7 10 split in 2 different zipcodes.

Hillary needs to win the remaining delagates 60/40(ish) to pull even last time I checked (there's been shiftage in IA, and of course TX with more pledged delegates, plus one or two SD to Obama).

Naturally, I don't have a clue as to what Nutter means to this race, or if a mere 70% of the Black vote is "failure". But it seems like a reality based speculation, unlike some of the others encountered here.

An interesting question is how far can Nutter stick his neck out for Hillary? If rumours are true and Obama got burned for backing Nutter's opponent, Nutter may not want to get in too deep himself. He's in a honeymoon period right now. He's probably getting a lot of feedback on his endorsement.

They are still important. They elected Reagan, and had a lot to do with Bush's first election.

The truth about Obama is that he's generally to the right of Hillary in all his proposals: health care, global warming, the bailout of the subprime mortgages. I know it's fashionable in Obama circles to bash Clinton and thus find Obama the true progressive, but in one area after another, he's on the right - how else is he getting endorsements from all those Blue Dogs? You think he's causing a conversion moment for Sibelius and Casey? Don't think so.

The sad thing is how many people are rejecting Krugman as a "shill" or something like that, but the fact is, analyze the programs. Obama WOULD leave more people uninsured, and would thus raise the cost for the insured. Obama would re-regulate the banking industry, and that's good, but Hillary has a proposal to let people refinance through the feds, when the value of their property has sunk below their mortgage, and then the government would work out their payments. That's New Deal, and that's what it's going to take. No careful, down-the-middle crap is going to be enough. I suppose it's ironic, that the centrists of the '90s are being beaten by someone to the right of them, but such is American politics, I suppose.

Talking with Bloomberg, the turncoat scum, is the end for me. This is what the "progressive" Democrat wants to do? The way past the "51% politics" -- announced before he's won the election -- is to sell out to the Republicans?