NationStates Jolt Archive

Dont know if anyone watched the Dem debate last night but...

"You know, no matter what happens in this contest, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama,” Mrs. Clinton said, extending her hand toward his, then resting it near him on the table. “I am absolutely honored,” she said again, looking at him, whereupon he took her hand and, with his other hand, reach around her for a quick half embrace. The audience started applauding. “You know, whatever happens, we’re going to be fine,” she said, the audience now on its feet in a standing ovation.
Caucus readers immediately interpreted the moment as her valedictory.

“She just conceded,” one reader wrote at 9:44 p.m., the moment the debate ended (and before TV commentators started their own chatter along those lines).

“Personally, I think her campaign is over,” wrote another, “but perhaps this is a signal that she’s going to go out gracefully.”

The whole article:http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/what-was-clinton-saying-caucus-readers-weigh-in/


I personally would interpet that as a concession. Especially since Obama now is on an 11 straight win streak (if we count the overseas dems who just voted) and it looks like shes going to loose in Texas too. Whats everyone else's reding on this?

Hell, maybe she'll even go for a VP spot.

As a side note, I like how she almost verbatum lifted her comment from John Edwards, who isnt a good friend and didnt give her permission. Whos plagerising now, bitch?

They're way too close yet to count Hillary out. If she can sway John Edwards into endorsing her she can pull ahead.

Or attempting to re-ingratiate herself to an audience that turned on her for her "Change you can Xerox" comment.

She's in this until the end.

It was a correction and a strong close in the debate. She tried to attack ("Change you can Xerox") and it fell flat. If she kept that tone through the debate she would have been destroyed. So, being the smart person she is, she changed tone and out decented Obama with the closing statement. Now, at once, she was the most 'negative' and most positive person in the debate. Obama is tephlon, it may be true that you just can't go negative against him and have it stick. (we'll see how true that is in the General election should he win...). She had what her supporters and friendly commentators were calling a genuine moment, which has been the only thing that has worked for her so far ('crying' before New Hampshire-I put it in quotes not because I don't think it was sincere, but because it wasn't crying, slightly choked up, emotional, but not crying. Maybe it was and I just need a hi def tv...).

It was the best move to at least stall momentum long enough to try and regroup. I don't know that it will work but I don't think she was throwing in the towel.

It was the best move to at least stall momentum long enough to try and regroup. I don't know that it will work but I don't think she was throwing in the towel.
Quite.

From my viewing, it was also a recognition of Obama's appeal. Both candidates have always left the option of runnng as each other's respective VP's wiiiiide open.

They're, sensibly/cynically, not ruling out anything.

Yeah thats probably true. I threw a beer can at the TV when she made the change you can xerox comment. That was bitchy.

I still lol that she plagerised Edwards too.

well if Obama plagiarized they all plagiarize. I don't think any of the politicians are writing their own speeches. They all utilize professional speech writers.

Someone gave this scenario as a joke, but you know I wouldn't be surprised if it happened:

Hillary graciously and humbly concedes to Obama.
Than quite unexpectantly "something" happens to Obama and Hillary will reluctantly return to her parties call.

Yeah thats probably true. I threw a beer can at the TV when she made the change you can xerox comment. That was bitchy.

I still lol that she plagerised Edwards too.
With the Edwards/Bill thing (it was a hybrid of the two) I think either of them can't have it both ways. If the Obama camp insists it doesn't matter, then it has to not matter. It does look bad for her to call him out on it and do it, but all of that is erased if it's the Obama camp that makes a big deal out of her doing it.

Obama won the point. To have the campaign fire that e-mail out 15 minutes after the debate was unnecessary. If it was pundits that noticed it, fine, that's all they do is stir up shit like that. But if the Obama camp is to say it's not a big deal, then that has to be their approach to her doing it as well, at best saying, "See, this isn't really a big deal." I hope the e-mail is the last we hear from them about it.

With the Edwards/Bill thing (it was a hybrid of the two) I think either of them can't have it both ways. If the Obama camp insists it doesn't matter, then it has to not matter. It does look bad for her to call him out on it and do it, but all of that is erased if it's the Obama camp that makes a big deal out of her doing it.

Obama won the point. To have the campaign fire that e-mail out 15 minutes after the debate was unnecessary. If it was pundits that noticed it, fine, that's all they do is stir up shit like that. But if the Obama camp is to say it's not a big deal, then that has to be their approach to her doing it as well, at best saying, "See, this isn't really a big deal." I hope the e-mail is the last we hear from them about it.

I see it as saying that "if it is such a big deal, why is Hillary doing it?" rather than trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

She's not out yet, especially with Texas up for grabs.

Well, that's the problem, though. Texas can't be up for grabs to turn it around, she has to win Texas like he won the last 11, big. If she just holds her own it might not be enough. She's down @150-160 pledged delegates, Ohio and Texas are the only big states she has left to make up the gap, she can't just pull even, she has to knock it out of the park.

Dont know if anyone watched the Dem debate last night but...



The whole article:http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/what-was-clinton-saying-caucus-readers-weigh-in/


I personally would interpet that as a concession. Especially since Obama now is on an 11 straight win streak (if we count the overseas dems who just voted) and it looks like shes going to loose in Texas too. Whats everyone else's reding on this?

Hell, maybe she'll even go for a VP spot.

As a side note, I like how she almost verbatum lifted her comment from John Edwards, who isnt a good friend and didnt give her permission. Whos plagerising now, bitch?

She's not out yet, especially with Texas up for grabs.

I see it as saying that "if it is such a big deal, why is Hillary doing it?" rather than trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

Granted, but it's far to easy for that to look like like the kid who rats out the kid next to him when he gets in trouble in the hopes that it will get him in less trouble. He already won the point and strongly, she got booed, he had the high ground. To get into the "Oh yeah, well she..." sacrificed a bit of that. I'm not saying it's not a valid point, I'm just saying it's not worth making when it wasn't needed.

She's not out yet, especially with Texas up for grabs.

she needs to win texas, and all the rest of the states, in obama-style landslides. she'll be lucky if she manages to keep even in texas. it's not over yet, but it might as well be.

It doesn't matter if she wins by only a small amount - it's the fact that she wins.

It's the momentum that can carry her into other states, (after all, there are still going to be 650 non superdelegate votes to give after Texas and Ohio).

Then the superdelegates come in, and they're going to vote for whoever they feel like, (although at this time most of them are going for Hillary).

Therefore the race is still wide open.

BTW - Hillary cannot stand losing, so I can envision her lasting until August, even if Obama has a higher pledged delegate count than her.

Actually it's all going to work in the Democrat's favor, because the race between them is so highly publicized. When the voters go into the November polls they'll be unhappy to see it's Hillary v. McCain or Obama v. McCain, and not Hillary v. Obama.

Obama has too much of a movement behind him to lose the nomination now.

It's and ambiguous day: :) and :(

:) because Hillary's no longer running and I don't have to worry about fleeing to Canada if she is actually elected President.

:( because Hillary is very very beatable. Obama, as noted, has a very large grassroots movement and will not be an easy opponent (though, if he keeps letting his wife speak, he may be John Kerry II).

It wasn't so much concession as back-pedaling. She was desperately trying to score points and took a calculated risk. She probably prepared for an ill reception to that remark and had the later suck-up comment as a contingency.

While it probably WAS back-pedaling, still smells a LOT like concession to me.

And this is me crying over it. :D

Okay, the time-warps are just getting ridiculous now.

It wasn't so much concession as back-pedaling. She was desperately trying to score points and took a calculated risk. She probably prepared for an ill reception to that remark and had the later suck-up comment as a contingency.

Then the superdelegates come in, and they're going to vote for whoever they feel like

no, they aren't. they are going to vote for the winner of the primaries. not even the dems are stupid enough to go the smoky backroom deal route this time around, not when there has been this much excitement and participation in the primaries, not if there is a clear winner of the primary campaign by some reasonable metric.

and so to pull off a win, hc has to win in obama-esque landslides in every contest from here on out, and preferably starting last tuesday too.

Then the superdelegates have to decide which way they should vote for primary winner.

It is quite possible that overall, (including Florida and Michigan), Hillary is going to have more actual votes than Obama, but fewer pledged delegates. Also it would be more important to win in Texas with 52% - 48% than to win in something like Delaware or DC with 75% - 25%, simply because of population magnitude.

Wouldn't that be a shame, if the winner had only more delegates, but lacked the popular vote...

Then the superdelegates have to decide which way they should vote for primary winner.

It is quite possible that overall, (including Florida and Michigan), Hillary is going to have more actual votes than Obama, but fewer pledged delegates. Also it would be more important to win in Texas with 52% - 48% than to win in something like Delaware or DC with 75% - 25%, simply because of population magnitude.

Wouldn't that be a shame, if the winner had only more delegates, but lacked the popular vote...

michigan cannot be counted for vote comparison purposes at all, ever. in an even stronger sense than florida, it was not a primary. but it doesn't matter anyway, because unless it is an utter blowout in vote difference, it will be who wins the pledged delegate count. clinton needs nearly obama-esque landslides in all of the remaining big primary states and to limit obama's margins in the rest to catch up in terms of votes too, even if we give her florida's numbers (which we shouldn't).

Well, that's the problem, though. Texas can't be up for grabs to turn it around, she has to win Texas like he won the last 11, big. If she just holds her own it might not be enough. She's down @150-160 pledged delegates, Ohio and Texas are the only big states she has left to make up the gap, she can't just pull even, she has to knock it out of the park.

No, she just has to win them both. Pennsylvania is left and she has large gains there.

No, she just has to win them both. Pennsylvania is left and she has large gains there.

clinton always has big leads early on. it's been the pattern this whole primary season, and it is apparently mainly a measure of name recognition more than anything else.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

"A reader" reported she conceded? I'm sorry, but that source isn't good enough.

If you know Hillary, you know she doesn't throw in the towel, ever (unless she loses health care and turns to baking cookies in 1993). And Obama won't be going to her for VP if he wants "change." (Personally, I think he really does)

John Edwards? Come on, he scored 2% (that's right, 2%) or less in the past 8 primaries, so...

Frankly, a lot of democrats (and by this I mean A LOT more than 2%) will actually be happy if the Clintons go back to grabbing money. Bill seems to be doing real well with that at the moment, and I KNOW we can do a lot better than Bill in the Presidency.

At last, a Democrat without baggage!! Good luck, John "Keating Five" McCain!

Cost: 2 cents

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

"A reader" reported she conceded? I'm sorry, but that source isn't good enough.

If you know Hillary, you know she doesn't throw in the towel, ever (unless she loses health care and turns to baking cookies in 1993). And Obama won't be going to her for VP if he wants "change." (Personally, I think he really does)

John Edwards? Come on, he scored 2% (that's right, 2%) or less in the past 8 primaries, so...
That's what dropping out of the race will do for ya...

Frankly, a lot of democrats (and by this I mean A LOT more than 2%) will actually be happy if the Clintons go back to grabbing money. Bill seems to be doing real well with that at the moment, and I KNOW we can do a lot better than Bill in the Presidency.

At last, a Democrat without baggage!! Good luck, John "Keating Five" McCain!

Cost: 2 cents
I had to look it up (which sucked because that happened in my adult life time...) but I don't know that they're going to want to make a lot of hay about that(Keating Five), McCain was the only Republican of the bunch. And McCain went on to paint himself as a reformer afterwards. I don't know, I just don't see it getting a lot of traction except in those 'anything that sticks a little' circles.

(including Florida and Michigan),
Not going to happen unless they rehold caucuses.

No, she just has to win them both. Pennsylvania is left and she has large gains there.
She may take Texas because of the Hispanic vote, but she is going to have to fight for Pennsylvania.

She says no- (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23campaign.html?ref=todayspaper)

Mrs. Clinton, in an interview on CBS’s “Early Show,” was asked directly if her closing debate remarks meant she thought she was going to lose. Mr. Obama has won 11 straight contests since Feb. 5, all by double-digit margins.

“No, of course not,” she replied. “It is the recognition that both of us are on the brink of historic change.”