Hillary Clinton cares nothing for democracy

You are ridiculous. I have responded to the posts and issues you and your cronies have brought up concerning this Presidential race. If the discussion included experience and readiness I addressed it just like I would address the Economy, Health Care, Energy and Iraq. I have stuck to the issues and will continue to do so.

All the money in the world can't make Obama a better candidate. Obama can play a million commercials and inundate people...or he can hire an army. He will only look like he's trying too hard.

Remember folks.....we're speaking of politics!Theres no honesty in politics and the successful candidate is DEFINATELY the best liar.

Sorry Zoe. You seem to be a bit confused above:
"chopped off the summary that has Obama ahead by +9"

You seem to have mis-interpreted
RCP Average 03/15 - 03/28 Obama +0.9
(which is less than 1.0) to equal +9
You don't, by any chance, work in accounting at Bears Stearn do you?

He doesn't need all the money in the world, an army, or commercials........Barack Hussein Obama is a great man and will be the next President. He doesn't need to "try".

I am not confused about anything. I left 0.9 on the top of the spread (it bright blue) you CHOPPED that off of the poll in your post.

I left a (.) off, but the source displayed +0.9 - so there was no confusion in my understanding. You however are manipulating the source by selecting 2 of 6 polls Which ran from 3/15 - 3/28.

You only lifted the 2 that gave it to McCain out of 6 polls from the same spread that give it to Obama.

Obama +6 +2 +1 = 9
McCain +5 +2 +1 = 8

The point being you did not cite the full source of the poll. My missing (.) is a typo and presented with the original 0.9 on the top of the poll. You had a purpose to distort the polls by providing an incomplete data form the polls. 3 of 6 gave it to McCain, you picked the top 2 spreads for McCain and left off the rest that give it to Obama, that overall give to Obama.

If you're going to cite the polls, cite them proper in their entirety.

By the way, did you work for Enron, for the way you represent the data in your source?

*kisses*
-Zoe

Ridiculous Trinity is the absurd almost racial underlying tone that you are making that "But Obama's candidacy is real and he is not GW Bush, so he should be the VP." So basically you're arguing that Obama is winning the majority of Pledge delegates, popular vote, for president, his doesn't get the nomination.

As far as money goes. I only bring it up because that was her being selling point to superdelegates, the fundraising prowess of the Clinton machine to raise funds for the general election.

It will be a hard sell for Hillary to make to the superdelegates (her only option to win) to convince them to give her the nomination at the DNC is she cannot raise funds. She's 8.7 million in debt.

Fundraising is part of the process.

As is back-door trickery like the campaign did in the Texas Caucus this weekend, to tell them they don't have to vote for who they agreed to caucsus for at the precinct. They targeted delegates that caucused for Obama at the previous precincts, they failed to look at whether their candidate of choice won from precinct or not. Clinton's campaign just assumed that every delegate selected to caucus for the county caucuses yesterday that had supported Obama, came from Obama-winning precincts.

In their attempt to convert Obama delegates to caucus for Hillary, they reached Hillary delegates that were informed they could caucus for their candidate of choice - Obama.

Nice.

psst..

You also left out the national poll against McCain and Hillary - favoring McCain.

Obama is still beating McCain. McCain is still beating Hillary:

Obama vs. McCain
RCP Average 03/18 to 03/28 Obama +.9%


I mean your point was who would win a general election based on the latest polls. None of the national poll spread of polls have McCain winning you've got 3 polls of 2 polls spreads that give it to him, none of them average in his favor however.


Hillary vs.McCain
RCP Average 03/18 to 03/28 McCain +1.6%

You can barely stay on the point enough to make your own arguments. Please do not attempt to make mine for me.

Obama is less experienced and relying on less substantive credentials ie relying on inspirational speeches. Obama seems okay with making the narrowest win in history, when 2 states haven't been counted. According to Dean, the number 2 will have "49.8" of the popular vote.

This is similar to G.W. Bush who relied on his family name and image, money and power while he refused to debate. Also "W" ended up stealing the election in Florida.

My point was...Obama isn't G.W. Bush. Obama is a Democrat. A number of Democrats have determined he has value. But he has much to prove. Based on what Obam has been able to do in this election and the trust many have put in him (which I do not share,) he could start with the Vice Presidency.

As for your racial accusation. You don't know what you are talking about.



Not quite Zo.

Both Democrats ended up with more than $30 million in the bank, but Mrs. Clinton can't use two-thirds of her cash on hand because it's only for the general election. That and her debt left her with less than $3 million in the black. The New York Sun

Again you don't know what you are talking about. I will give you that Obama is raising more money and out spending her. Sen. Clinton is still neck and neck with Obama even with him out spending her 3 to 1. Wasn't it was Senator from Illinois who chided in a debate that Gov. Romney hadn't gotten a very good return on his investment?

If you only bring up money because of the rationale to the superdelegates, then never fear. That rationale is valid. Sen. Clinton is more than able to raise the funds necessary to beat McCain in a general election. The rationale to the Superdelegates was however, that the candidate needs to be electable...you know...actually able to beat McCain and strong enough and vetted enough to weather the general election.

Wrong. While both FL and MI broke the rules and sanctioning the states is not the DNC's or the candidates faults...the mess we find ourselves in? Yeah...there is blame to be laid.

Obama's campaign did everything it could to keep a revote from happening in Michigan while using Machiavellian tactics once again...claiming to want every vote to count.

The DNC and Howard Dean should have never let this happen from the start. The sanction should have been equal to the RNC's sanction. So in fact they created the problem we have right now.

Couple that with the DNC and Howard Dean's error with Obama's lax cooperation because it benefits his candidacy...yes blame can be laid.

The Democrats in FL tried to Move the Primary back, but the Republicans out voted them.

In Florida Democrats had a conundrum: Either allow what happened in 2000 to happen again (Democrat wins the general election, Votes Are Lost and Courts decide for Republican) where a Republican is able to "steal" the election or risk a solution with the DNC. In other words, Democrats in Florida weighed it like so - deal with your enemy or deal with your family. They chose wrong. Howard Dean being the weak leader that he is, made a critical error in chosing to disenfranchise two major states. One can only wonder if his failed Presidencial bid had anything to do with his actions now.

In Michigan the Dems pretty much did it to themselves, but it only highlights that Dean should have made a better decision considering it was two major states and not one.

Apparently, Obama doesn't realize that the Democratic Nominee will need Michigan and Florida to beat McCain. Clinton recognizes it. Those two states are not silently sitting by while they are being disenfranchised. It's not over for MI and FL.

Trinity...Trinity...sweetie. Your candidate and her husband, have been stressing how important fund raising is to her campaign. Do try to keep up.

Her campaign is in the red and that is of concern to Superdelegates.
read about it here: TPM Election Central | Talking Points Memo |


In your cluster of contradictory threads - the one theme you have been pushing is that Obama would not win in a general election. It is an assertion that the Clintons have made since he announced his exploratory committee last year in January. They said he would not be able to raise the funds for a presidential campaign. The Clinton machine meant cash for the democratic party - they can raise money.

It costs money to staff a campaign, run websites, and advertise, print, run tv ads and to fund travel for their candidate on the campaign trail.

Well Obama raised more money than Hillary last year in the first quarter. He raised more in January and set a record for fund raising in February ($55 million) more than any candidate for a primary - more than McCain has raised in entire his primary election.

With regard to the general election, Hillary and Bill are trying to convince Superdelegates that if she can win Pennsylvania, they can make the case that she is better suited to in a general elections (that she wins the big states and they count in a general election against McCain). Great but if her campaign is in the red, can she still fund raise for a general election? That is what superdelegates are looking at.

With regard to the superdelegtes, consider that Obama has won the support of 50 undecided superdelegates in the last 3 months, Hillary has netted only 9 more superdelegates in the same 3 month period. So Hillary is banking a lot on Pennsylvania, to convince superdelegates that she is better win for the democrats in a general election. She cannot run a campaign without funds for a general election, so they are looking at it.

Speaking of a general election:

The National polls STILL have McCain beating Hillary. The polls STILL have Obama beating McCain.

Obama has more state votes, more pledge delegate votes (overtook her lead in Texas yesterday in the latest round of Texas caucuses) and Obama has the popular vote.

All of those things superdelegates look at.

It matters, given that is the only route she has left to win the nomination and she's campaigning on it. So again - keep up, she's your candidate.

Your nuts if you think they are not looking at what candidate will draw in the most money for their party in a general election. It's their livelyhood at stake as well.

Live in the now. Accept that Obama will lock the nomination.

Maybe Hillary should run for governor of New York instead, when Patterson's term (covering Spitzer's is up).

Earth to Trinity......Hillary is in money trouble:

Cash-strapped Clinton fails to pay bills - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com


and just because you keep repeating a million times, Obama can't win in the GE......it still doesn't make it true.

I agree! He is a great man, and I hope future USA president!

Hillary Clinton has a page dedicated to LGBT issues on her site but I agree with you, it does need to be more readily accessible.

HillaryClinton.com LGBT

Hillary Clinton Campaign for President has a distinguished Steering Committee on LGBT issues

Thanks for finding that for me.......it confirmed that Obama is my man.......I dont think this gay man wants to be used and then thrown under the bus by a Clinton again and look....someone is going down and someone is going up:

March 30, 2008

Gallup Daily: Obama Now at 52% to Clinton’s 42%

Gallup Daily: Obama Now at 52% to Clinton’s 42%

Zo, Of course fundraising is important to all campaigns. All the money in the world won't make Obama a better candidate. He can out spend her and its still close.

Your very own article contradicts what you are trying to say. The article explains exactly what I stated...that including all debts Hillary Clinton's campaign would still be in the black.

"It should be noted, however, that Hillary isn't obliged to repay the $5 million debt to herself. Nonetheless, even factoring in that, once you subtract the other debts her cash on hand number would be in the neighborhood of $3 million."

Read your own article. You were inaccurate in your previous post so I pointed that out. The superdelegate argument is all good...after Pennsylvania. Besides, Sen. Clinton is still out fundraising McCain. And already has funds put aside to begin that contest.

Your article Industrial, also says the same thing. It says that from the 33 million raised in February 16 million can be spent on the primary with the rest designated for the General Election, 8.7 million would go to debts and Sen. Clinton would be in the black. Although, the Politico Article is a better support for what you are trying to argue because it does go to great lengths to show some small businesses who say they are not receiving payments on time. Anyone who has ever worked on a campaign knows how finances work particularly when you are in a tough campaign.

But just to point this out...the article is biased. It probably has some truth to it. There may be some small businesses receiving late payments, Obama is bringing in more funds but the article fails to present a link to Clinton's cash on hand report from Federal Elections as they did Obama's. The article is trying to imply that the Clinton Campaign is severely crippled financially which is NOT the case. Pennsylvania will bring in more funds and the race continues.

Obama:

SUMMARY

5. Covering Period 02/01/2008 Through 02/29/2008



Clinton
SUMMARY
5. Covering Period 02/01/2008 Through 02/29/2008