Top reason the Democratic superdelegates should select Barack over Hillary:

Kook sources like "Right Wing News" really, really don't want them to.

The arguments presented are so full of holes it's not even worth making a long, angry, bulleted list countering them.

But I hope someone does anyway.

Well, that settles it. I'm convinced.

Wow, a concern troll article. How lovely.

That's not because I think she'd be a weaker candidate; it's because I'd love to see that smug tin god, Barack Obama, humbled and forced to taste bitter defeat at Hillary's hands.

Well, as long as you have the country's best interests at heart, I guess your input is appreciated.


Isn't it funny how many righties are taking up the refrain that "it's funny to see the libs finally seeing the Clintons for what they are"--

Especially because it now seems the exact same thing is happening on the GOP side. For so long the Clintons have been demonized by them as 'flaming libs' when it is obvious the RW are realizing now that they really are Republican-light.

The GOP's support of Hillary over Obama highlights this realization.

Oh, and the irony of the GOP pushing a Clinton on us is delicious.

11: Because the republicans have a slam dunk win if she is the front runner.

I only need one reason to not listen to one side's loonier bits telling us what's up with the opposing side.

/dnctfl

Oh, man, I'm convinced. Do they actually expect anyone to take them seriously?

submitter: Hillary over Barack

At first glance, I thought this was a veiled sexual innuendo. The "female superior position" or, in the case of Hillary, the "Biatch superior position".

With blogs like Right Wing News on Hillary's side, Obama is bound to win.

/come on, WTF...

Hey, are there any plans for the Democrats to do away with this superdelegate crap after this election?

Look, if nominating Hillary Clinton is what the democrats need to do to win... they should just give up now. Jeezus people, when Hillary Clinton is your last, best hope for victory, you may as well fellate a shotgun. It's over.

Man, I was at least hoping that would be funny. Instead it was full of fail.

-1

reason #1 Hillary should not be the Democratic candidate: right-wingers want Hillary to be the Democratic candidate.

IRONIC

Because there's a whole, whole, whole lot of baggage to HRC that Obama has been flat out too polite to talk about. I don't think he expected to do very well in Iowa... just wanted to set himself up as the party's future leader. Then he did win there. And, he's been widely ahead ever since. Surprising him as much as anyone. So, why bring up things like her involvement and moneymaking from Bill's pardons? Or the Rose Law documents? Travel office? Any of it? He hasn't needed to. The GOP will be 100% glad to do so.

As for the "identity politics"... I think that black voters might be okay with a substitution (Harold Ford as Clinton's VP) IF SHE WERE LEGITIMATELY WINNING. She's not. He is, and will be the leader in pledged delegates and almost certainly in popular votes at Denver. I'm hoping the "we need a woman" voters can stomach that inevitable substitution (Sebelius as Obama's VP). Note, in the CNN exit polls in PA, among the 80% of voters who said "gender was not a factor in my vote", Clinton and Obama were exactly tied! Clinton won big among the 20% of voters who said "gender was a big factor". If Obama takes the nomination, there won't be a woman running.

wow, not a single one of those reasons is logically sound. not a single one.

Lawnchair: As for the "identity politics"... I think that black voters might be okay with a substitution (Harold Ford as Clinton's VP) IF SHE WERE LEGITIMATELY WINNING. She's not. He is, and will be the leader in pledged delegates and almost certainly in popular votes at Denver. I'm hoping the "we need a woman" voters can stomach that inevitable substitution (Sebelius as Obama's VP). Note, in the CNN exit polls in PA, among the 80% of voters who said "gender was not a factor in my vote", Clinton and Obama were exactly tied! Clinton won big among the 20% of voters who said "gender was a big factor". If Obama takes the nomination, there won't be a woman running.

This. If Clinton does take the nomination, a lot of Obama voters will not cross over to her, not because she's a woman, but because she will not be able to get past the impression that she stole it. She has to pull some seriously shady shiat at this point to win, unless she does really blow it out in the remaining primaries. If the impression does arise that Obama just blew it and Clinton passed him up at the end, sure, I can see this. But I don't see how she can legitimately reach that point.

It amazes me how every single one of their ten bullet points is UTTER FALLACY.

That's not because I think she'd be a weaker candidate; it's because I'd love to see that smug tin god, Barack Obama, humbled and forced to taste bitter defeat at Hillary's hands.

The thing is, when Obama loses, he tends to come back stronger. If by some chance Obama loses the nomination, he will still have a lot of upside because it will look like he was mugged by the establishment. He'll have four more years to mature and build up a legislative record, the new voting generation of Millennials coming online in 2012 will increase his support and, if things get bad in the next four years, he'll be treated like a savior.

Lawnchair: As for the "identity politics"... I think that black voters might be okay with a substitution (Harold Ford as Clinton's VP) IF SHE WERE LEGITIMATELY WINNING.

This moniker amuses me, because political parties have become the new politics of identity.

It's good to see something from Right Wing News once in awhile. We need some other kind of insanity besides Daily Kos.

Nero Kalem: So a Republican/Conservative website is giving Democrats and Liberals advice on how to choose the candidate that is most likely to beat them.

Nope, nothing suspicious there.

Wow, you don't miss a trick!

Come on, folks...you guys should know by now that RIGHT WING NEWS is the most fair, balanced and impartial source of political journalism you'll find anywhere!

/seriously, they're probably to the left of Fox News...

Lawnchair: If Obama takes the nomination, there won't be a woman running.

Which is why the smartest thing John McCain can do if Obama wins the nom is to pick Olympia Snowe. He doesn't need to worry about the far right, if the dems are split he can dip into their party for the votes. It's ironic, after selling his soul to ultra conservatives regarding torture and the tax cuts it turns out he might now even need their support.

That being said, if Clinton gets the nom he needs to pick Charlie Crist. Those should be the only two options on the table right now if he really wants to curb stomp the dems. And he should be moving closer and closer to the center every day.

I wasn't going to give the website a hit anyway, but it sounds like it's completely full of Fail.

Skleenar: Especially because it now seems the exact same thing is happening on the GOP side. For so long the Clintons have been demonized by them as 'flaming libs' when it is obvious the RW are realizing now that they really are Republican-light.

This
That
and the other Thing too.

Its like there is some sort of distortion mirror around the Clinton's that has finally shattered.

They have built a new one though made of baby boomer women's hopes and dreams.

Lawnchair: I think that black voters might be okay with a substitution (Harold Ford as Clinton's VP) IF SHE WERE LEGITIMATELY WINNING.

THIS.

If they overturn the pledged delicate count and give the nom to Hillary, it will look like white people stealing something a black man rightfully earned. Then you can say goodbye to the black voting block for a generation.

Win or loose in the general election doesn't matter at this point.

JerseyTim: I put what say in different colors because it's important and everyone should read it. Everyone listen to me.

Yes, and?

Me: delicate delegate

FTFMS

wow look at the latest polls. after weeks of non stop negative campaigning against Obama by both Hillary's machine and the GOP and the right wing media,and the MSM echoing all that ad infinitum over and over he's still ahead and moving away.

He's leading Hillary in Indiana by 8 points which should be hers. He's beating McCain in the general both nationally and in Indiana.
He's taken one of her big fundraisers. He continues to get the superdelegates. He continues to raise the money.

must frustrate the MSM that lot of their BS can be exposed by citizens on the net.

Wow....simply... wow.

Good old fashioned racism.

To list out all the bigotted, hypocritical, and blatant logical falacies of this article would take me a very long time.

She didn't "WIN" Michigan or Florida for example, she was the only one campaigning in those places after she promised she wouldn't.

JerseyTim: I put what say in different colors because it's important and everyone should read it. Everyone listen to me.

Here ya go, bek.

1) Hillary's voters are more likely to defect to McCain than Obama voters are if their candidate doesn't get the nod. In fact, according to a Gallup poll last month, 19% of Obama voters would vote for McCain if Barack lost, but 28% of Hillary's voters would do the same if the situation were reversed. Of course, the percentages wouldn't turn out to be that high, but however you slice it, the conventional wisdom about Obama's supporters being the ones that sit home or defect if he loses appears to be wrong.

The only Hillary group that's really has a danger to defect is the
2) According to a study done at Yale, "(i)n House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black."

Think about those numbers and then consider that McCain is a moderate who may genuinely appeal to many white middle-of-the-road Democratic voters and that Obama has refused to disavow his connection with anti-white racist, Jeremiah Wright. It's not a pretty picture for Obama, is it?

I'm glad they managed to misquote a nuanced statement based on a House race. The link to the study provides a 404, so I have my doubts. The rest seems to be what's their racist mind is mentally masturbating to. Wright didn't hurt Obama. Obama did much better in PA than he was when he started out and managed to make her finish that campaign in debt in what should have been a lock for her.

3) In a number of states, including Pennsylvania, Barack did significantly worse than his poll numbers indicated that he would. What that suggests is that there is a Bradley Effect happening in large swathes of the country that is making Obama's numbers look 4-5 points higher than they are in reality. Take away that bump, especially in key states like Pennsylvania, and Obama would clearly be a weaker candidate against McCain than Hillary Clinton.

This is just wrong. Maybe he did a little worse than his one internal poll. But the polls I saw pretty much predicted PA.

4) Hillary has beaten Obama in the large swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, and Ohio. Chances are, these states are going to decide who the winner of the 2008 election is and Hillary seems to be running stronger in all of them than Barack so far.

Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado all seem to be missed as swing states when Clinton is talking. The same point I made before, when her constituency is faced with being able to provide medicine or not, the tone will change.

5) In a Republican winner take-all system, Hillary would be ahead of Obama. Granted, "If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride," but it's still worth noting that Barack only has more delegates than Hillary because he has managed to game the Democrats' wacky primary system.

Classic Clinton argument, if the rules were different, I wouldn't be losing. They both knew the rules of their contest going in and Obama played the game better. He racked up his delegate counts in the caucus states and knew it wasn't worth the resources he wasn't sure he'd have in the huge states. His campaign strategy has been remarkably consistent. I'm sorry if "Right Wing News" doesn't like the Democrats' rules...they'll get over it.

6) Despite the fact that Obama is raising more money than Hillary, she is still out-raising McCain. Moreover, given that Hillary is beating Obama in states where he's outspending her by a considerable margin (3 to 1 in Pennsylvania, for example), you have to question whether Obama's fundraising prowess will turn out to be any more important than Howard's Dean knack for raising cash was in 2004.

Anyone who has read Freakonomics can tell you how little money actually matters in an election. Money is usually an effect, not a cause of a candidates favorability. As I've said before, Obama didn't spend so much in PA to beat her, he spent that much to break her, and she finished the PA campaign in debt and has enough to march on to Indiana, where he can finish her on his terms.

7) Although Hillary has a lot more baggage than Obama, she has also proven to be much more adept at dealing with scandal than Barack. Keep in mind that we're talking about a guy who was so stunned by getting a few tough questions at an ABC debate that he cancelled his next debate in North Carolina. For all her faults, Hillary has proven that she can take the heat while Barack has looked like a bumbling wimp under fire.

These scandals have not hurt Obama on a national level, where Clinton's Tuzla thing did. The GOP will be adept at making sure a juicy little tidbit from her library of scandal will be released November 1st.

8) Obama, who hasn't even completed a single term in the Senate, comes across as unqualified when he's up against a man with as much experience as McCain -- especially if voters are worried about a 3 AM crisis. On the other hand, Hillary has completed a term in the Senate, has been re-elected, and since her husband was President, voters will give her some credit for his experience. McCain would still have an advantage over Hillary in the experience category, but many more voters would consider her to be at least qualified to do the job in the first place.

Both of the dems are inexperienced. Somehow, when she says her experience her work in a law office and being married to a politician counts while Obama's grassroots organization work in Chicago and his time as a state senator are irrelevant.

9) If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, it will only be because black voters overwhelmingly voted for him because he is black. That has been his ace in the hole so far, but it would mean nothing in a general election because black voters already break 90% towards the Democrats anyway. His other potent voting block, young voters, are notoriously unreliable. Today they may be pulling the lever for Obama, but in November, they may be too busy playing video games to show up and vote. On the other hand, Hillary's strongest voting blocks, white women and older white voters, do show up to vote and they're much more up for grabs in a general election than Obama's core supporters.

Clinton was pulling a strong amount from the black community when she started. That said, turnout is a huge issue in November, both in the black community and the young. If people are excited to go out and cast their vote, expect HUGE turnout numbers. Also, the point I made earlier, the young are doing a lot more than just voting, there is a lot of active work in the local campaign offices to make sure Obama gets the nod.

10) Hillary is arguing that if you count the vote totals in Michigan and Florida -- and haven't Democrats been saying "count every vote" -- then she has a lead on Obama in the popular vote. So, if the superdelegates want to respect the "will of the people," shouldn't Hillary be their choice?

I'm willing to give her Florida. Now, hypothetically let's give her Michigan, but let's make make it a little more fair and be sure the 40% 'uncommitted' go to Obama. Oh, she still loses the popular vote argument. That said, a nomination isn't, nor has it ever been a "will of the people". That's the party throwing the population a bone. It's the party's decision, period.

TMBGfreak: 1) Hillary's voters are more likely to defect to McCain than Obama voters are if their candidate doesn't get the nod. In fact, according to a Gallup poll last month, 19% of Obama voters would vote for McCain if Barack lost, but 28% of Hillary's voters would do the same if the situation were reversed. Of course, the percentages wouldn't turn out to be that high, but however you slice it, the conventional wisdom about Obama's supporters being the ones that sit home or defect if he loses appears to be wrong.

The only Hillary group that's really has a danger to defect is the

uhh...that got cutoff, so let's complete that thought.

The only Hillary group that's really has a danger to defect is the

Mistah Scrotie:
Which is why the smartest thing John McCain can do if Obama wins the nom is to pick Olympia Snowe.

Obama/Sebelius vs McCain/Snowe would make me very, very happy when at the beginning of this year it looked like it might well be Giuliani beating Clinton by 15 points.

bah....my fark-fu is weak today.

only the under 60 women are in danger of defecting. the rest want health care.

/My ultra short version

JerseyTim: I put what say in different colors because it's important and everyone should read it. Everyone listen to me.

I'd rather that than the people who put a picture with every single post trying to get people to read what they write.

burndtdan: wow, not a single one of those reasons is logically sound. not a single one.

Every one of the articles points were right on the money your just in denial.

1) Hillary's voters are more likely to defect to McCain than Obama voters are if their candidate doesn't get the nod. In fact, according to a Gallup poll last month, 19% of Obama voters would vote for McCain if Barack lost, but 28% of Hillary's voters would do the same if the situation were reversed. Of course, the percentages wouldn't turn out to be that high, but however you slice it, the conventional wisdom about Obama's supporters being the ones that sit home or defect if he loses appears to be wrong.

Every poll thats been taken beard out this point the Hillary clinton Supporters are angry and will stay home/ or vote Mccain in large numbers should they feel ripped off.....yes same is true for the reverse but less so according to tyhe poll data .....now you might say well peole will change thier minds once its a done deal...perhaps but not all of them and the defection will be a significant factor leading to a GOP victory sad to say....
2) According to a study done at Yale, "(i)n House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black."

Think about those numbers and then consider that McCain is a moderate who may genuinely appeal to many white middle-of-the-road Democratic voters and that Obama has refused to disavow his connection with anti-white racist, Jeremiah Wright. It's not a pretty picture for Obama, is it?

This is a no brainer the Jermiah wright deal is gonna be played for all its worth in the general election and will likley cause a lot of damage....and note the study was done by an independents not affiliated with any party no axe to grind just the facts...

3) In a number of states, including Pennsylvania, Barack did significantly worse than his poll numbers indicated that he would. What that suggests is that there is a Bradley Effect happening in large swathes of the country that is making Obama's numbers look 4-5 points higher than they are in reality. Take away that bump, especially in key states like Pennsylvania, and Obama would clearly be a weaker candidate against McCain than Hillary Clinton.

I would agree with this as well although its not as tangible as the other nine points ...The media is mesmorized by Obama and it has artificially inflated his lead every primary.

4) Hillary has beaten Obama in the large swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, and Ohio. Chances are, these states are going to decide who the winner of the 2008 election is and Hillary seems to be running stronger in all of them than Barack so far.

Theres no disputing this point at least for the time being and I don't see much of a hope these states would go for Obama in as great of numbers at least if hes the canidate in the general.

5) In a Republican winner take-all system, Hillary would be ahead of Obama. Granted, "If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride," but it's still worth noting that Barack only has more delegates than Hillary because he has managed to game the Democrats' wacky primary system.


True I would also add that the caucuss states really gave Obama an extra advantage as well....

6) Despite the fact that Obama is raising more money than Hillary, she is still out-raising McCain. Moreover, given that Hillary is beating Obama in states where he's outspending her by a considerable margin (3 to 1 in Pennsylvania, for example), you have to question whether Obama's fundraising prowess will turn out to be any more important than Howard's Dean knack for raising cash was in 2004.

Hes out spending her in a huge way and she still manages victory makes you wonder why if hes the cats pajams?

7) Although Hillary has a lot more baggage than Obama, she has also proven to be much more adept at dealing with scandal than Barack. Keep in mind that we're talking about a guy who was so stunned by getting a few tough questions at an ABC debate that he cancelled his next debate in North Carolina. For all her faults, Hillary has proven that she can take the heat while Barack has looked like a bumbling wimp under fire.

Yep she has wethered the storm better than Obama and you have to admit he didnt do well in his last debate appearing abit on edge....also true he ditched the last debate and held off reporters for 10 days of silence too.....


8) Obama, who hasn't even completed a single term in the Senate, comes across as unqualified when he's up against a man with as much experience as McCain -- especially if voters are worried about a 3 AM crisis. On the other hand, Hillary has completed a term in the Senate, has been re-elected, and since her husband was President, voters will give her some credit for his experience. McCain would still have an advantage over Hillary in the experience category, but many more voters would consider her to be at least qualified to do the job in the first place.

Hillary has more experience simple enough to see that and it has proven to be a strong motivator in the exit booth according to exit polls....

9) If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, it will only be because black voters overwhelmingly voted for him because he is black. That has been his ace in the hole so far, but it would mean nothing in a general election because black voters already break 90% towards the Democrats anyway. His other potent voting block, young voters, are notoriously unreliable. Today they may be pulling the lever for Obama, but in November, they may be too busy playing video games to show up and vote. On the other hand, Hillary's strongest voting blocks, white women and older white voters, do show up to vote and they're much more up for grabs in a general election than Obama's core supporters.

True look at historical data it bears the statment out.

10) Hillary is arguing that if you count the vote totals in Michigan and Florida -- and haven't Democrats been saying "count every vote" -- then she has a lead on Obama in the popular vote. So, if the superdelegates want to respect the "will of the people," shouldn't Hillary be their choice?

This is a must if Obama wants to be legitimate he should have or should still if possible sign off on a redo and not try to win from a fluke...if he really cares about voters prove it and allow them to vote its not that damn hard...the only reason to not do so is to win by cheating....why be afraid of a fair redo vote why fear the voters?


The dems do looked poised to give obama the nomination but I don't think he stands a chance unless he concedes to a joint ticket....otherwise the anger will come back to haunt him in the general and cost him victory

TMBGfreak:
only the under 60 women are in danger of defecting. the rest want health care.


The over-65 women already have it. It's the mid-boomer women that are the worry.

Skleenar: The GOP's support of Hillary over Obama highlights this realization.

While what you say is true for the right wing media, the actual right wing masses tend to support Obama over Hillary. Easily. And we're tired of Bush and pissed off at the republicans who had power in Congress for six years with Bush as president.

I voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries. I don't remember why, exactly, but he seemed like the best candidate. I still wish he would have won. I don't know why he's sucking up to Bush now, but I have a feeling he would never have gone into Iraq in the first place at least.

Jennifer: Hillary has more experience

I give this troll about 3/10. You had me going until you started started saying that the media reported him "way ahead" in the polls going into every contest. Spin spin spin spin spin.

Wow. My expectations for that article were very low.

And it didn't manage to live up to them.

Lawnchair: TMBGfreak:
only the under 60 women are in danger of defecting. the rest want health care.


The over-65 women already have it. It's the mid-boomer women that are the worry.

I just wonder how much of the defection argument is emotion. I'd would personally be an Obama defector because my biggest concern is executive power, in which she will make W look like Ron Paul. But even that, a fear of reinstatement of the draft may at least lead me to a third party.

5) In a Republican winner take-all system, Hillary would be ahead of Obama. Granted, "If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride," but it's still worth noting that Barack only has more delegates than Hillary because he has managed to game the Democrats' wacky primary system.


Why is it 'wacky' to have the delegates divided the way the people voted? I find it sad that some people believe 51% of the people should be allowed to make decisions for the other 49% without debate.

TMBGfreak: Lawnchair: TMBGfreak:
only the under 60 women are in danger of defecting. the rest want health care.


The over-65 women already have it. It's the mid-boomer women that are the worry.

I just wonder how much of the defection argument is emotion. I'd would personally be an Obama defector because my biggest concern is executive power, in which she will make W look like Ron Paul. But even that, a fear of reinstatement of the draft may at least lead me to a third party.

I'd say a very big part. Hillary staying in this thing is only making it a personal battle between the two camps. There is a decent part that will vote D anyways but I'm afraid that the longer it drags out the more likely the defection argument becomes. Especially since all that's happening now is the D's pointing out each other's flaws while McCain just sits by doing whatever he wants and getting a free pass. If that continues to the convention I'd be wagering my money on McCain.

picturescrazy: I voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries. I don't remember why, exactly, but he seemed like the best candidate. I still wish he would have won. I don't know why he's sucking up to Bush now, but I have a feeling he would never have gone into Iraq in the first place at least.

I voted for McCain in 2000, also. I think that McCain would have finished the job in Afghanistan/found OBL, and wouldn't have really bothered with Iraq unless it was really necessary.

nimbers: 5) In a Republican winner take-all system, Hillary would be ahead of Obama. Granted, "If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride," but it's still worth noting that Barack only has more delegates than Hillary because he has managed to game the Democrats' wacky primary system.


Why is it 'wacky' to have the delegates divided the way the people voted? I find it sad that some people believe 51% of the people should be allowed to make decisions for the other 49% without debate.

I really didn't get this point at all. It's like the author is trying to pretend that Obama sabotaged the system years ago to make it easier for him to win. Obama has run the campaign the way it's supposed to be run, with every state and vote being important.

This is just as stupid as the people who rounded the numbers in Penn and then subtracted them so that it gave Hill +10% when it's raelly ~9.2%.