In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth is Revolutionary.
Saturday, December 2, 2023

For Clinton to win, she has to cheat

Hillary Rodham Clinton's plan to win the Democratic nomination for President are fueled by a campaign strategy built on fantasy and illusion and based on a program of lies and myth. Her own campaign advisers admit privately that Clinton has virtually no chance of winning because she cannot, under even the most optimistic scenario, overcome Barack Obama's lead in pledged delegates.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s plan to win the Democratic nomination for President are fueled by a campaign strategy built on fantasy and illusion and based on a program of lies and myth.

Her own campaign advisers admit privately that Clinton has virtually no chance of winning because she cannot, under even the most optimistic scenario, overcome Barack Obama’s lead in pledged delegates.

That leaves her one option: Win dirty and destroy the Democratic party and its chances for victory in November.

Clinton and her “winning is everything” former President husband appear ready to do that but an increasing number of Democratic leaders no longer buy into the Clinton myth that she should win the nomination simply because she feels she deserves it.

More and more Democatcs realize the race is over and not even the famous Clinton ego can overcome that.

Writes Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen in The Politico:

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

18 thoughts on “For Clinton to win, she has to cheat”

  1. Don’t assume anything. I also have a white male friend, turning 49 next month who, like Obama, doesn’t like to think of himself as part of the baby boomer generation, even though he is (1946-1964). He lives in California, originally from Massachusetts, liberal as far to the left as you can get and a card carrying member of the ACLU. Has an IQ that would blow us all away and is not at all racist.

    He voted for and still supports Hillary.

    Go figure.

  2. (update) I think you may have heard the number of Superdelegates, not pledged delegates. Hillary has 253 Super Delegates. But each day, more go to Obama’s side.

    That would not have been MSNBC unless it was Keith Olbermann pointing out, as he often does, that FAUX News misreported it that way. Fox often puts a (D) under shamed Republicans when reporting as they did during the Mark Foley scandal.

    MSNBC is the most balanced network with both Liberal and Conservative anchors, but is more liberal. They just cancelled Tucker Carlson (cons) and Joe Scarborough is not the hard edge cons he used to be. He really has an open mind.

  3. I don’t know what the author considers cheating. Seems to me that would be stealing votes or something and not just malicious tactics and personal attacks Instead of arguing the important issues facing the nation to offer their solutions for them. But I suppose denying the voters a real honsest to goodness campaign on the issues is cheating them.

    I do know that the Clinton hope is that they can keep the primary vote close enough to justify their logic to the super delegates that She has won all the large important states that usually decide a national election and, therefore, the supers should override the will of the voters because she is more electable in the fall.

    That is a totally flawed logic, of course, because these primaries only reflect the way party democrats and already left leaning independents will vote. We already know there will be a substantial republican cross over vote for a decent democratic nominee by those fed up with their own party.

    But Hillary is so objectionable to the average non-radical republican voter while Obama is much less so. Other than the standard racial issue there is no basic objection to him. Which brings me to the real flaw in Clinton thinking that the super delegates would override the primary vote and “appoint” her the party nominee.

    Race and gender have been a natural issue in this campaign without any help from anyone. However, the Clintons have chosen to make race a central issue when they began to lose. They have/are promoting the Reverand Wrights “Goddamn America” as the death knell for Obama and there is no question it has caused Barak some damage. But not with his educated base and his speach repaired the damage with 90% of the independents. Essentially, it has only reinforced the anti-vote crowd already existing. However, we can expect that video to keep popping up until the voting is done.

    The timing and significance of Bill Richardson’s endorsement cannot be emphasized enough. It says that the political views of Obama’s religious/spiritual counsel are irrellevant and have no affect upon his support of Barak Obama for POTUS. I believe Richardson’s support far outweighs any of the other super delegates. And he looked very much like a running mate doing it. Which finally brings me to the BIG flaw in Clinton’s hope of the superdelegates overturning the primary voters.

    Having made race the central issue, can you imagine the reaction if the whites gang up to “STEAL” the fairly won election from the black man?!!! And probably his hispanic running mate?!!! There would be rioting in the streets, down the halls, and right on the convention floor. The Democratic Party would be torn asunder, left in shreds and tatters. Even if Obama had won by only one vote, it would be so.

    For the Clintons to even consider such a senario speaks volumes to their character. Even if they claim those super delegates has committed their votes prior to the first vote it simply will not fly. The racial blacklash would set this nation back 50 years and those super delegates must be cognizant of that fact. I cannot believe they would not. Obama will arrive at the convention with a lead of at least 150 votes and that will be that. The super delegates will have no choice but to join in nominating him.

  4. Woohoo Janet! Thanks so much for the update in your area, your life, and your state! I hope Pennsylvanians go strongly for Obama. Oh please please please please! 😉

    I like to view Hillary’s supporters as the older women of the 1990’s who now smell like stale cigarettes and are bitter in their feminism. Poor things. When Geraldine Ferraro opened her mouth I knew in an instant I was correct in my assumption.

  5. Thanks SEAL for your feedback. I too would prefer Richardson and sent an email to Obama’s campaign addy some time back after Richardson dropped out of the running, recommending that he would be the best choice for a v.p. running mate especially for securing some of the Hispanic vote that seems to be in Clinton’s favor for whatever reason.

    It’s my suspicion that Hispanics feel that Hillary will promote a massive carte blanche, national security unfriendly solution for the illegal immigrant problem; ie., allowing them unchallenged amnesty. She was quick to climb onboard with Eliot Spitzer’s plan to have regular licenses issued to illegals in New York, then backed off after she realized the winds were not in her favor. This is what concerns me the most about Clinton is that she’s demonstrated that she’s a situational, political opportunist. She will do the same concerning the war, immigration as mentioned, job outsourcing and a host of other issues once elected; ie., reneg on her campaign trail promises whatever they might have been. She can do alot of damage in four years as we’ve learned so painfully with G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney’s first term in office.

    If the Democrats regain control of the House and Senate it wouldn’t surprise me that they’d go along with anything Hillary wanted regardless of how questionable whereas I feel an Obama/Richardson profferred solution would be more reasonably protective of U.S. security interests. I could be wrong, but those are my thoughts on the subject.

    I’ve listened to Richardson’s immigration solutions on occasion and they make sense. So if he is selected as the Obama’s running mate then I feel more Hispanic voters will climb onboard to support Obama.

    So in summation I think both of these guys are a good choice at this point in time. As you I’ve aired my choice as being for Richardson, but Edwards might solve another issue; ie., at least having a white male on the ticket instead of two minority candidates. This would prevent holdout whites, predicated on racially based reservations from feeling alienated, thus refusing to support an Obama/Richardson ticket and going for the “white mans” ticket; ie., John McCain/? … /:|

    Regardles of the outcome, we surely don’t want Hillary or John McCain in the Whitehouse…ouch!

    Carl Nemo **==

  6. Carl, I agree with you about Edwards or Richardson as VP candidates but Richardson has the foreign relations experience needed for this general election. That’s going to be a big issue for the repugnants.

    Apparently, they are building their whole campaign around the Middle East and I haven’t heard them say anything about altering any plans. Frankly, I believe this plan is suicide.

    I’m sure That Obama will tie the economy to the war. More than two thirds of the voters are fed up with the war already and when they are made to understand that it is also responsible for the 4 dollar a gallon gas and all the other high prices, the democrats should win by wide margins in most states. Most certainly they will take over the congress by a wide majority. Passing new legislation will be no problem.

    Another thing about Richardson is he has a maturity about him that Edwards could never match. Edwards has that little boy charm that is so appealing to many but that is not what is needed for the fight with these repugnants.

    Add the fact that Richardson is also a minority candidate and almost anything the repugnants say about the individuals will appear racist or prejudicial. It will be very difficult for them to attack they way they always do without making themselves look very bad. No doubt they will make race an issue but that is going to backfire on them big time.

  7. For the record, I am technically the Clinton demographic (White Female, 61, college grad, professional).

    However, I am firmly, proudly and most enthusiastically in the Obama camp. Most of my friends (50-62) are also voting for Obama. One of my friends (white female, 56), a lifelong registered Republican and daughter of a Republican politician, just switched her registration to Democrat so she can vote for Obama in the primary, both because she hates Bush so much and likes Obama so much.

    Oh, did I mention that I/we live in Pennsylvania? (Philly suburbs Montgomery/Bucks counties strong Rep country)

    Don’t pigeonhole people. Obama is a candidate like no other. This is an election year like no other. Demographics are out the window, no matter that the pundits say.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: