Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Hillary Retakes Lead

With nearly 150,000 more votes than Obama in West Virginia, Hillary Clinton has retaken the vote lead over Obama.

Yesterday, Hillary received 239,062 votes to 91,652 for Obama -- a whopping 41 point advantage that wiped out any Obama total tally lead.

But not to worry, Obamaphiles. The media has already informed us not to get uppidy. Hillary's win means absolutely nothing. In fact, in a special ceremony in Denver to be hosted by Keith Olbermann and Donna Brazille, West Virginia is to be enshrined in the Hall of Futility along with Florida and Michigan.

Hillary supporters now have high hopes that Kentucky will be allowed to be seated along with her sisters in August. Stay ain't over 'till the fat man sings and right now he's clearing his throat.

Check out Real Clear Politics. It's only a popular vote lead for Hillary if you:

A) Include both Florida AND Michigan, the later of which Obama wasn't on the ballot,


B) Do not count the caucus states. If you do, Obama still has a lead.
Dan, don't spoil it! Why would you bring up those pesky facts that spoil this bizarre screed.

Prior to reading this blog I had the mistaken impression that the Democratic Party nominee was chosen by a majority of delegates at the national convention. Here I have learned that any strange, or delusional thing you can dream up trumps the rules we thought we operated under so long as it results in a Clinton nomination.

I don't quite get the crack about Kentucky. Of course their delegation will be seated. They are holding a primary completely within the rules.

Unlike Kentucky, Hillary Clinton said that the Florida and Michigan primaries would not and should not count.

At least until her change of position changed her position.

So much for her integrity.
Yellow Dog, I really feel the unity...thanks!
Forgive me, but you have quite a nerve making sarcastic remarks about unity while you publish posts that play fast and loose with the facts and that can fairly be described as inflammatory and intended to promote division.

I know many people who are strong supporters of Clinton (my own daughter-in-law is one) who have a lot of emotion invested in her candidacy. I am sensitive to their views and their feelings. But then, they don't regularly distort facts and mindlessly regurgitate ludicrous campaign spin as you do. And they have the integrity to admit that Sen. Clinton's change of position on Florida and Michigan is based solely on political expedience. I notice you conveniently refuse to comment on Sen. Clinton's own words on the subject when she thought she was a shoo-in for the nomination.

As for your yammering on about vote totals, the nominee isn't chosen that way. The nominee will be chosen by a majority of the delegates at the national convention. But even if the popular vote totals were relevant, you insist on distorting the facts as Dan Geroe pointed out above.

You could have simply made the point that after all these many contests the popular vote was extremely close and that Senator Clinton had received almost as many votes as Senator Obama. That would have been truthful and no one could take issue with it. You hardly make a compelling case for Clinton by being untruthful.

There has always been a case to make for Clinton. You just haven't been one of those making it.

You haven't been adding much of value to the debate.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?