Comments on If You Can't Stand the Heat...

The best part is the classic Bill Clinton quote:

Now one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That's the best.

Why would John McCain need to raise further cash, with Hillary pulling more than twice as much from Democrats' own pockets and doing his ads for him?

Is she even aware that this kind of thing is going to bite her in the ass when the primary ends, even if she somehow does eke out a victory? Does she care?

I agree, Obama is the new Clinton. Hils is the new Kerry, and McCain is the new Dole Bob Dole (Cialis anyone?) ....

If she keeps up with the attacks, she'll be ambassador to Greenland ...

That kitchen reference is totally sexist.

@3 that makes not effin sense. who are you agreeing with? who is the new whatsit?

Zoinks! Osama bin Laden! Let's get outta here, Scoob!

@5:
Will in Seattle was just agreeing with his own internal monologue. Pay it no mind.

God, tomorrow can't come fast enough. I am so glad I don't live in Pennsylvania, I probably would've spent the weekend cowering under my bed trying to avoid the incessant phone calls, doorbell ringing, and over hyped television ads. I'm fairly certain at this point, considering the pace that both Obama and Clinton kept up the last week, that both of them have been replaced by robots.

Someone should ask Max Cleland how he feels about this ad. How many Republican's have used this same footage against Democrats in the past?

I generally am pretty empathetic and can understand people's reasons for doing the things that they do - but how Hillary Clinton or Bill or whomever could actually go through an internal conversation and determine that running this ad was a good idea is beyond me. And how any principled Democrat can continue to consider voting for her is even further beyond me. I've always thought that Karl Rove was an indication of what was wrong with Republicans and that thank god we weren't like him - if she's our nominee, I won't be able to think that anymore. Rove will have officially won the political discourse in this country.

hillary clinton has the scary man voice down pat, but who's the woman at the end of the ad?

I find it interesting that Hillary brings up the war she did not oppose in her ad. You'd think she wouldn't want to remind folks of her critical mistakes.

Having just seen the gut wrenching documentary Body Of War, I am even more disgusted by her refusal to stand against it when it really mattered.

She couldn't take the heat then, and can't now. I hope she gets her ass whupped in Pennsylvania.

It's a multi-topic response to the last week of topics, culminating in this one.

Tuesday will be fun - the last dying gasp as Clinton "wins" with 4-6 points before being subsumed in 10-20 point losses until the convention.

throw in a couple explosions, throngs of angry shrieking muslims, and a few burning effigies, and you've got yourself a giulliani ad.

Um, she might want to rethink that whole quoting Truman thing. Truman was the only president in history who had (briefly) a lower popularity rating than Bush.

Obama dropped about ten points in a few days in the Gallup Tracking poll. He is so far behind McCain in Fl it's ridiculous, he's far behind McCain on OH, too, he's like tied in some states like NJ & HRC does significantly better than him in places like PA.

In short, his electability argument is in tatters.
Other data: he ain't the one ahead in Pa. Why not, if so electable?

But instead of dealing with these realities, or talking about how to make him more electable, all we see is whining that the voters are too dumb, the media is too dumb, HRC is too mean (how dare she not submit and agree Godlike Obama is Entitled to a Free Pass??) and gloating in advance of Barry's upcoming win based on ekeing it out via pledged delegates.

What no one is talking about:

um, how're gonna win in the Fall?

Obviously if HRC itty bitty patty cake attacks for one week can make him drop ten points or so, then, fuck, an intense GOP barrage for months could very well make him another McGovern.

No shit.

Deal.

option A: continue to attack HRC. Oh, oopse, that won't work in the fall.

option B: blame HRC for attacking him first with GOP-style talking points. Oh, oops again, errr, that won't actually work to elect him in the Fall.

option C: continue to whine that the media and voters are unfair/dumb & he shouldn't have to pass all these "I am a patriotic American tests" to get dumb swing voters.
Um, this won't work. Gotta tell ya.
Note: if this did work, he'd be the one 6 points up in Pa. right now!

option D: lose -- but feel good -- cuz we picked the most lefty liberal pro-African American most "hangs out with radicals" candidate and proved how progressive and elite and smart and liberal we all are compared to those dumbasses all over the rest of Amerika!!

Hey that's it!

He won't win, but we'll feel superior.

It's a plan!!

Obama dropped about ten points in a few days in the Gallup Tracking poll.

The rest of the nonsense aside, will anyone here be the least bit surprised to learn that unPC got it completely, utterly wrong?

Support for Barack Obama's nomination bid has rebounded among national Democratic voters, who now favor him over Hillary Clinton by a seven percentage point margin, 49% to 42%.

Silly unPC, Obama will split the delegates from PA about 50/50 when it's all said and done.

Again, she would have to win PA by 30 points to even have an outside chance - and then rack up 20-30 point gains in every remaining state.

She won't do that - and by the cold hard electoral machine of the DNC that means she loses the popular vote, the delegate count, and total number of states.

Making it a losing cause.

Throwing mud at your opponents when you're being beaten at poker because you thought it was chess does not endear you to anyone.

OK, please please do not attack me for this because my question isn't really about one candidate or the other. Given that even in states where a candidate loses, they get some of the delegates, how exactly is it that one candidate is able to say they have the most support? I guess I just don't get this whole apportion (sp?) the delegates thing and how it could prove one candidate is the more popular choice over the other and I'd like someone to explain it to me.

Hey, Hills, if you're gonna be spending all that time in the kitchen, how's about whipping me up a batch of cookies?

That ad looked like an Adam Curry-era Head Bangers Ball submission, sans audio.

Please God. Make it stop.

unPC,

options A and B apply to hillary as well.

option C: hillary was up by over 20 points just a few weeks ago. now only a 6-point spread? sounds like it's working to me.

option D: did it ever occur to you that the obama smear-fest you participate in at no quarter might be part of the problem?

If you just ignore unPC/raidrop/McCainCrist2008, he or she or ECB will get bored and give up trolling here.

Good point, @23.

LOL. "Vote for Hillary because she's not a liberal."

At least that's something Susie and I can agree on.

I look forward to further excuse making along the lines of the "I only lost 29 contests because more people voted for Obama" whining.

Also hilarious (and sadly telling) -- Susie considers being "pro-African American" to be a negative.

If she's aiming to increase her already-historically-high negative ratings, she's doin' a heckofa job...

23 - we've tried ignoring her, to no avail. i'm pretty sure she get's paid by the comment. or if the length of her diatribes are any indication, by the word.

Never mind on my question, not that any of you were answering me anyway. The New York Times sort of explained it.