Atticus Chaos

Bill Bradley pwns Hillary http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house...cuss_03-05.html

Ann Coulter supporting Hillary is the most worked thing ever. She's now changed her story and is saying if McCain's running mate is to her liking (Mitt Romney or someone similar) she'll vote for him.

Honestly, that's why I think the SDs will never cheat Obama out of the nomination. Aside from it being morally wrong and all, it's simply not that smart. Obama has more chance of winning. You might even get a sizable number of republicans switching over to him. However, there's no chance of the republicans switching over for Hillary.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/a...tee-member.aspx Michigan Caucus likely?

It's bad for Obama since he's facing two rounds of attacks in the upcoming months: McCain and Clinton. Dealing with one at a time is one thing, but both? If he got Clinton out the way, McCain would be a lot easier to deal with. The republicans are treating him as the presumptive nominee, but the Clinton campaign is treating him as an inconvient hurdle. He's stuck in limbo and gets the worst of both worlds.

What I found interesting was that in the last two days half a dozen Supe delegates have came out in favour of Obama, but none for Hillary (and she supposedly had momentum after winning). Honestly, I think saying McCain would be a better president than Obama will go down in history as a HUGE mistake for her. It basically told the entire party her only interest was getting the presidency for herself, and she would have no problem sabotaging Obama and the democrat's chances in Novemeber. Supposedly, if Hillary only got a small victory in Ohio (2-3%), senior democrat officials were going to stage an intervention of sorts and tell her to drop out for the good of the party. Because her victory was bigger than some thought, those plans have been put on hold for now. I think if Obama gets impressive wins in Wyoming and Missisipi, thus making it even more harder for her to ever make up the delegate count, they'll tell her straight to drop out. The SDs might be the beginning of this, a small nudge if you were.

Honestly, I'm still reeling from that news. The nerve of the woman! Now, after weeks of character assasinations, lies, and smears, she wants him to be positive? All because they asked to see her tax returns? The hypocrisy is sickening.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../06/737322.aspx Hillary is urging Barack Obama to run a more positive camapaign. Seriously. This coming a few days before Hillary's follow up ad, 3.02am: The Evil Muslim breaks in and kills your sleeping kids if you don't vote Hillary.

Obama's race makes it even more of a tricky situation. African American's make up a large base of the democratic base. A black man cheated out the nomination by a white elite? How would that look? Many would leave the democrats altogether and vote republican out of spite from this point foward. Anyway, it's not like Hillary is beloved enough to even warrant the effort of screwing Barack out the nomination. I have to think endorsing McCain must have pissed off a lot of Dems as well as her other dirty tactics. Part of why Ted Kennedy switched was because he was fed up with Bill's race baiting crap in South Carolina.

Follow up to the Hillary's math problem article http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010 I found this encouraging...

The Clinton campaing are now sending Bill to Missisipi. Because, after the South Carolina debacle, that's such a good idea.

If this was Barack sleeping around, you think Hillary would be discreet and not mention it? Of course not. If Ohio and Texas proved anything, it's that negative campaigning works. Ideally, Obama wouldn't have to resort to that, as much as it great that he doesn't want to do that...it won't work. Instead of people going 'oh I respect Obama so much for not stooping to Hillary's levels', they're going 'hmmm...maybe Hillary's right about this guy, after all.' Do I want Obama to fight dirty? Not especially. But if it's a choice of that, or watching Obama sit back and take it all, losing ground in the polls and looking worse and worse come GE time, then it might be the lesser of two evils.

Due to a good show in the caucuses, Obama actually got 4 more delegates in texas than Hillary did. If CNN is right.

Unlike most her smears against him (the Muslim stuff), which is totally BS, most of the stuff he could use against her is probably true or has some legitmacy (whitewater, shady donors, threatening Bill's mistresses). It's not playing dirty. It's self defence. She started it. Are we still talking about Rezko? The Chicago Times reported that Obama was in the clear about that. I meant the laughable plagarism accusations, allegations of his drug use (which he already admitted to), the turban picture and the Muslim allegations, the healthcare meltdown, the 3 am advert, Hillary endorsing McCain over Obama...etc basically most of the things she's done since super Tuesday.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Obviously, Bill is some sort of sex addict, and there's nothing Hillary, or any other wife, could really do about that. I don't think it makes her less of a woman or a strong person because she can't control him. But, say Hillary's in the white house as president, she'll be busy, Bill will be lonely....Mitt Romney pointed this out, as well. Doesn't it make Hillary, and thus America look worse on the world stage if the first gentleman is making international headlines for screwing everyone woman with a pulse? It's embaressing. Who wants to hear about cigars or blowjobs for the next 4 years? We'll hear more about Hillary's personal life than what she's doing in office. I'm not someone who thinks a poltical spouse be thatat major an issue or should a bearing on whether you vote for a candidate. But, at the same time, it's important that a presidential spouse can carry themselves with some amount of dignity and not get dragged into a scandal every five minutes. Michelle Obama, Cindy McCain (yeah, she had a drug problems but she's been clean for decades) both seem fine, but Bill?

Unlike most her smears against him (the Muslim stuff), which is totally BS, most of the stuff he could use against her is probably true or has some legitmacy (whitewater, shady donors, threatening Bill's mistresses). It's not playing dirty. It's self defence. She started it.

Not true. He can still keep his stride. It's essentially mathematically impossible for Obama to lose. (2nd source) Hillary's delegate net gain was in the single digits. This was an upset, but it wasn't a defeat. There are the superdelegates. Which Hillary's campaign have said they are counting on. I don't think the SD would over turn the popular vote, but it wouldn't hurt to tarnish her image a little more with them and the voters. Besides, looking at Clinton's kitchen sink strategy, Obama simply needs to throw some mud back, just to distract her from swiftboating him for a while. edit: its already started. http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archiv...ign_strikes.php

Obama needs to go negative now. He has no choice. C'mon, how hard it is going to be to track down one of Bill's old bimbos? The republicans have SIX kept aside for the general election, I'm sure the Obama campaign can find one or two. Hey, what's Monica up to?

I don't think Obama would go for Hillary as his VP. He's probably too worried about her trying to have him bumped off or something like that.

Symbolic victories aside, Hillary is possibly in a worse position than she was before. Because Ohio/Texas where her last chance to pick up major delegates to keep up with Obama, instead, because they were such narrow victories, she only gained 5 or 10. I'm still not sure whether Obama has actually gained more delegates than she has in Texas because the caucus thing hasn't finsihed. I know Hillary has the whole 'I won the major states' to try and persude SDs to side with her, but if Obama wins Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi like he's indicated to and then wins or at least does well in Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota (which also favour him) he could be looking at a 200 delegate lead by the end of that. The superdelegates won't over turn such a wide margin like that. Time had a good article called 'Hillary's math problem', basically she could win the next 16 contests, and STILL be behind Obama in delegate count. She has to get every single state with 60%+ and I can't see that happening. She didn't even get that in New York.# Anyone calling Hillary the comeback kid just hasn't done the maths.

first exit polls Vermont: Obama 67% Clinton 33% (It's over, Obama has won). Ohio: Obama 51% Clinton 49% (Ohio is holding for Obama) Texas: Obama 50% Clinton 49% (Despite the closeness, Obama will win substantially more delegates). Rhode Island: Obama 49% Clinton 49% http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/04/o...ho_n_89741.html Anyone want to predict Hillary's reaction if she loses 12-0?

Which is exactly why Republicans in open elections will go over to the Democrats and vote Hillary even if it doesnt make sense. Theres no way in the world McCain beats Obama and the Republican nomination is for all intents and purposes locked up for McCain so its a wasted vote..and given both Texas and Ohio are red state enough to have enough votes to cross over to make a difference, I think thats how Hillary wins both tonight and it will be proclaimed "a miracle" and give her back momentum for the next round of primaries. I know rush limbaugh urged them to vote like that, but I think just as many republicans will vote Obama just to get Hillary out of the race once and for all. If you're a republican who loathes Hillary and wants her no where near the white house, why take any chances? All that strategic voting can come back and bite you in the ass. Anyway, drudge is saying Obama's won vermont. Which isn't a shock at all. Rhode Island is rumoured to be a dead heat, which is bad news for Hillary considering that was the one she was supposed to win by a large margin.

I liked the youtube debates, mainly the republicans trying to out man each other by bragging about how many guns they owned, and Mitt Romney not having a clue what waterboarding was.

I'd gain a lot of respect for her if she didn't hop on Obama's dick once the primaries were over. Now that's a change in Politics As Usual. I'm not expecting her to kiss his ass from this point foward. But, for the sake of her party, which she claims to love so dearly, she has to refrain from soundbites that will fuel the republican campaign against Obama, and saying McCain has experiencd and Obama has only speeches is exactly that. Why do that? It will only ensure Mccain wins in November. Is she so spiteful she'll help a republican win rather than the democrat chosen over her? Apparently yes. Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan (and considering the large black poluation, he would have done well there I think). And as for Florida: there was no campagin, so how can it be a victory? A lot of Obama's appeal is that people go and see him, hear him talk and jump over to his side. If he could have campaigned there it would have made a differece. Oddly, the Clinton campaign was fine with neither flordia or Michigan having delegates last year, and where the ones pushing for it. But that was when they were twenty points ahead.

I'd pick McCain over Clinton at this point. He might be too old, too much of a kiss ass to conservatives and think life is one big military action movie ('I'll follow Osama to the gates of Hell!') but at least he's an honourable guy and what you see is usually what you get . As long as he doesn't try to ban abortion or anything like that.