Hillary the Insurgent
EmailSo…former President Bill Clinton in Sparks, Nev., painted the current brouhaha about the Culinary Workers Union, which endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as an insurgents versus establishment dynamic.
"In this case, the establishment organization is with him and the insurgents are with her," he said, the AP reports, calling on pro-Clinton union members to rally for his wife.
"They think they’re better than you are at identifying and physically getting people to their caucus sites," he said. "And I bet they’re wrong."
In Oakland, Clinton was confronted by KGO’s Mark Matthews about the lawsuit the "insurgents" filed against the Nevada Democratic Party for the special at-large districts set up for the thousands of culinary workers who otherwise wouldn’t get to vote.
(Read more on that HERE)
The former president said, "We had nothing to do with that lawsuit. I read about it in the newspaper.”
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Clinton also said, ”There were teachers who filed the lawsuit. You have asked the question in an accusatory way, so I will ask you back: ‘Do you really believe that all the Democrats understood that they had agreed to give people, who worked in the casino, a vote worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct?’ Did you know that? Their votes will be counted five times more powerfully, in terms of delegates to the state convention, compared to delegates to the national convention.”
But the state party — and the DNC — had approved the arrangement, Matthews pointed out.
”What happened is, nobody understood what happened. …they uncovered it. And now everybody’s saying, ‘Oh, they don’t want us to vote…what they really tried to do was to set up a deal where their votes counted five times, maybe even more, as much.’ …This is a one man, one vote country…you should be offended by this. So when you asked me that question, your position is…it should be easier for the culinary workers to vote than anyone else who works in Nevada on Saturday…and their vote should count five times as much as anyone else’s.
”So, if that’s your position, you have it. Get on your television station and say, ‘I don’t care about the home mortgage crisis. All I care is making sure that some voters have it easier than others, and that when they do vote — when it’s already easier for them — that their votes should count five times as much.’ If you want to take that position, get on the television and take it. Don’t be accusatory with me. I had nothing to do with this lawsuit. Some people in Nevada are old-fashioned. They think the rules should be the same for everybody, and everybody’s vote should count the same. I had nothing to do with that lawsuit, and you know it.”
But the rules were set up in March, and affirmed last fall.
”None of them knew that the votes were rigged that way," Clinton said. "They found that out later. The state Democratic party is in the position of defending a system that makes it easier for some people to vote, and counts those votes five times as much…no one could have known that at the time."
What do you think?
– jpt
USS Gabrielle Giffords Honors Courage 
Mitt Romney's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
I think Bill is full of crap. He says the campaign has nothing to with the lawsuit while simultaneously offering ridiculous arguments to support it.
I guess he expects us to buy it, just like he expected us to buy “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and just like he expected us to buy “I was talking about his community organizing” from Bob Johnson.
Sorry Bill, I ain’t buying it.
Posted by: Mike | January 16, 2008, 8:55 pm 8:55 pm
The Clintons had their time in the White House. It is ungracious of Bill to be out in front all of the time rooting for his wife. I think this is nepotism, and it is ruining her campaign in my opinion. If they wanted everyone to have a voting place, then they should have made alot more polling places earlier on, not take away the ones that were put in place fair and square. It’s more Clintonesque sour grapes, and as usual, they are not thinking about others, but they are only thinking of themselves.
Posted by: Justinteim | January 16, 2008, 9:07 pm 9:07 pm
Bill, passion is taking over, nobody is buying your explanations, nobody is crazy to accept that 1vote=5 votes, please cool it down. Yes we know that you love Hillay, but the forcing will not pay off. Credibility is very important, the world is watching.
Posted by: BKMC | January 16, 2008, 9:13 pm 9:13 pm
These people are unbelievable. I like her position on many issues, she would do a far better job that our current president. But for the life of me, I cannot vote for her. The kind of stuff they pulled in the past and what they are trying to pull right now will just divide the country and nothing will go forward. It will be a good fight. If anyone thinks the other side will work with her,….THINK AGAIN. Not a chance.
Posted by: Jason | January 16, 2008, 9:24 pm 9:24 pm
ALL states should have a BINDING primary election ON THE SAME DATE. The convention circuses could then be done away with. It’s that simple.
Posted by: rmberryman | January 16, 2008, 9:54 pm 9:54 pm
If you wanted to vote for Hillary (which a lot of people do — I hear from them daily) but were bullied constantly, even while you were on a lunch break. Would you caucus for Hillary anyway? Or would you just not show up to caucus at all?
If we’re talking about a job, why would anyone risk that job and caucus for Hillary in the face of having a boss TELL them to caucus for Obama? It’s ridiculous.
Also, if those Hillary supporters decide to skip it all in order to keep their job or at least keep their respect, then the election will be rigged b/c the casinos get 10% extra delegates.
If you only have 400 show up at every special precinct, that’s 9×80 delegates = 720 additional. Since Clark County contributes somewhere around 7k, the casino precincts are the extra 10% everyone refers to.
Something’s wrong here with this. Why won’t anyone do something? Oh yeah, I forgot: the teachers have and the Clintons have. Thank god!
Posted by: patrioticgrrl | January 16, 2008, 10:01 pm 10:01 pm
Funny how no one thinks it’s a trick to round up all the Union members to vote where they can be watched by other union members. You’re defending your forced Obama votes. No one is naive enough to believe anything other than that fact.
Posted by: irma | January 16, 2008, 10:08 pm 10:08 pm
I would not want to vote with all the people who belong to a Union that supports a certain candidate. If I support another candidate, no way would I feel safe in that caucus. You are surrounded by union members of a Union who made a decision for you already. So much for the “Right to Vote.” The whole caucus thing is social pressure. We feel we have a right not to share who we vote for, yet here are these people having to. at work no less, with the Union. Sounds completely wrong and UN-American.
Posted by: irma | January 16, 2008, 10:11 pm 10:11 pm
From the State’s Response Brief to the TRO:
Plaintiffs’ John/Jane Voter hypothetical is absurd because it “assumes relatively low turnout at John’s at-large caucus (only 261 voters, even though the caucus site employs at least 4,000 people) and simultaneously unheard-of 100% turnout at Jane’s precinct caucus (261 voters out of 261 registered Democratic voters). Given that bizarre premise, the conclusion of Plaintiffs’ fable hardly comes as a surprise.” Finally, NDSP points out that, in reality, “as the turnout in the at-large caucus increases, the number of delegates per voter declines dramatically.” Interestingly, the NDSP estimates that each of the nine at-large caucuses will attract, on average, “somewhere between 400 and 1,200 voters and, under the formula just described, will elect between 50 and 80 delegates” at each location. In other words, “betwen 3,600 and 10,800 voters will elect somewhere between 450 and 720 delegates” when all 9 at-large sites are totalled. By comparison, in the rest of Clark County, “a reasonable estimate is that somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 voters will elect 7,224 delegates.” This 40,000 – 60,000 turnout estimate is based on extrapolating the turnout from the Iowa Caucus. Under this scenario, “the ratio of voters to delegates would be between 8.0-to-1 and 15.0-to-1 in the at-large caucuses and between 5.5-to-1 and 8.3-to-1 in the precinctc caucuses elsewhere in Clark County. That is hardly a disturbing disparty. If anything, the Party’s delegate allocation system for Clark County somwhat disfavors the voters who participate in at-large caucuses – directly contrary to Plaintiffs’ unfounded, and utterly unrealistic, speculation.”
Posted by: greuben | January 16, 2008, 10:12 pm 10:12 pm
Is it me, or does Bill no longer sound rational anymore? Watching the video of him answering this question was actually a bit disturbing, as if he’s on something.
Posted by: Jen, New York, NY | January 16, 2008, 10:56 pm 10:56 pm
This is sad, they really should have had a primary and all of this could have been avoided. This caucus also leaves out the Jewish and Seventh Day Adventist voters who are unable to vote for religious reasons. Everyone should only be given one vote and the unions shouldn’t be forcing it’s members to vote for Obama is they don’t want to. This is really sad.
Posted by: Kardasia_Prime | January 16, 2008, 11:02 pm 11:02 pm
Voting is something very private. It is something between a person and his/her God and should be kept that way. Caucus takes privacy away, it is stupid to say the least. It should be banned.
Posted by: JL | January 16, 2008, 11:23 pm 11:23 pm
As a Democratic ex-president, Clinton’s future role would normally have been that of advisor to the next Democratic president.
As long as he kept things positive, one could not fault him for attempting to sell his wife as a candidate.
Unfortunately, his red-faced, win-at-all-costs attacks on Obama of late have gone way beyond simply negative and are starting to get more than a little unseemly. As a result, any chance that any future Dem president (other than Hillary, of course) would avail themselves of his experience and counsel have been extinguished — by Bill himself. And it’s not just the bad feelings and burnt bridges fostered by his personal attacks that have submarined his future role as elder statesman, but also the nearly unhinged nature of the attacks themselves. Tone matters, and Bill’s tone is increasingly hysterical.
On top of all that, the Clintons 11th hour attempt to change the rules that they had previously rigged in their own favor only after they turned around to bite them in the ass is — well it’s despicable really, but, at this point, not really surprising at all. We’ve seen ‘em do it a bunch of times in this campaign, and have become educated consumers of their nonsense, to the point where we almost expect it of them.
You see, while the Clintons were and are world-class political manipulators, the people that followed them into office have taken their schtick to a whole new level over the past seven years; as a result, the Clintons’ parlour tricks just aren’t that impressive anymore. It’s kind of like watching the original Star Wars today — it was mind boggling at the time, but just doesn’t have the same impact today.
And while they’re obviously very bright, they just can’t seem to get that we’ve really had enough of them, thank you very much, and just aren’t interested in doing that dance, or watching the next/last three episodes of star wars for the next four or eight years. At least not in the theatre. On DVD, maybe.
Posted by: ched | January 16, 2008, 11:54 pm 11:54 pm
It’s funny how Hillary bashed the Iowa caucus, saying that people who work at night were deprived of the chance to participate. Now she and Bill are singing a different tune, and had she won the Culinary Workers endorsement, you can bet his lawsuit wouldn’t have materialized.
The bottom line is the Clintons will do anything to win. I no longer have a shred of respect for either of them. They represent the worst of American politics, and that’s coming from somebody who was an avid supporter of Bill Clinton.
No longer. Their behavior is despicable. This is now America is all about.
Posted by: Michael | January 17, 2008, 12:43 am 12:43 am
I always admired Bill Clinton for what he did for the country. But lately he has lost my respect. He has been unstatemanlike. Some hardcore Democrats who vote democrat in the general election may choice for the first time to not vote at all, or may even vote republician. This strategy by the Clintons to win at any cost, may ultimately cause the Democratic party to lose as a whole.
Posted by: Joe | January 17, 2008, 1:35 am 1:35 am
You know, some of us look up stuff and then comment on the issue. I was reading an article by Paul Kane of the Washington Post, and here is an exert. “The suit was widely expected by state party officials as well as Obama’s campaign and the powerful Culinary Workers Union 226, which earlier this week endorsed the Illinois senator in advance of the Jan. 19 Nevada caucus. That endorsement had been eagerly sought by Obama as well as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), and by yesterday afternoon culinary union leaders told the Washington Post they expected an outside group with ties to Clinton to file a motion seeking to quash the casino caucuses.
The Nevada State Education Association, some of whose top leaders have individually endorsed Clinton, filed the suit and is using a law firm with close ties to the onetime front-runner, Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw, and Ferrario. Former congressmen James H. Bilbray (D-Nev.), a lawyer at that firm, has endorsed Clinton and is stumping for her in the Silver State.
“The Democratic Party of Nevada has violated the principle of ‘one person, one vote’ by creating at-large precincts for certain caucus participants, based solely on the employment of such participants,” the suit alleges”. Looks like duplicity to me. If Hillary would have gotten that endorsement, the Clinton Camp would have said nothing. But since the Obama Camp got the endorsement, the Clinton’s act like they don’t have any ties to the Nevada State Education Association, or the law firm handling the lawsuit. Did Bill Clinton run his campaign like this when he was running for President? The Clinton Camp must be eating too much ice cream too fast. A ‘Brain Freeze’ has just occurred.
Posted by: ji_john | January 17, 2008, 1:42 am 1:42 am
BUSH DID IT FOR 2 TERMS SO THE CLINTONS ARE TRYING IT TOO
Posted by: EANDJ | January 17, 2008, 7:34 am 7:34 am
What i see is this. If Clinton got the nomination Dennis kusinich would have brought the lawsuit, to keep Obama in the clear of having nothing to do with it.
the point is, a SHOW OF HANDS CAUCUS is a lot easier to rigg than a primary which is a private vote.
You got a whole pile of workers running off on their lunch hour in the casino where the UNION operates, to RAISE YOU HAND in front of your boss , and so you HAVE to vote for Obama.
On top of this, the delegate award would be outrageous for that concentrated of a vote it justs hands the state caucus over to obama.
Its ridiculous if you ask me. This ‘show of hands’ thing is too easy to rig by peer pressure.
We would ALL love to have the caucus set up at OUR UNION with a show of hands by our employees.
Its so far beyond unfair that they should either send them back to their voting stations where they are SUPPOSED to go, or make it a PRIVATE VOTE.
Posted by: tom | January 17, 2008, 8:36 am 8:36 am
Why does everybody assume Bill wants Hillary to win.At present he can come and go as he pleases which is not the case if he goes back to the WH,although she has Huma to fill his role.Part of her appeal(83%)is Bill and he is doing his best to lose appeal.
Way to much emotion in this primary.Mother nature is already starting to destroy this country because even with the environmental Democrats leading Congress nothing is being done because both parties are concerned with re-election.That must be why they are called parties because each side has one at our expense.
Posted by: skvira | January 17, 2008, 8:57 am 8:57 am
wow mabey there is some hope in our country….these are the kind of comments i like to see. i agree i have lost a respect for the clintons because they do play dirty, dirty politics and i don’t like it at all. all its doing is spitting our democratic party.and i am not saying that i do not like them b/c i do like them but i don’t think it is the AMERICAN way to win. i donno i just think that obama will bring us all together, to really work with one another. not seperate us. we do need some new blood in the white house and and i think that he is going to bring us alot of good. i Just pray that people will really think hard about who they want for president and not be single minded but to open there mind and thoughts to every candidate and really listen to what they ALL have to say this is the most important election we have ever had! ITS IN OUR HANDS
Posted by: cris | January 17, 2008, 9:04 am 9:04 am
Look because of Clinton/Monicas case that is why Al Gole lost. Clinton is really think of him not any Democrats. Listen folks, be wise with your votes. Look for someone new not the Clintons.
Democrats for life!
Posted by: George | January 17, 2008, 9:23 am 9:23 am
Well First this is why unions should not be involved in politics! And they definitely should not be telling their members how to vote!
This is illegal! and The Obama Campaign should speak up and tell the union to lay off!! (unless of course Obama is behind it)
I really hate defending Hilary, but it seems Obama is worse at the dirty tricks then her, he has his surrogates go out and attack!!
All Funded by George Soros (Look him up)
Posted by: spock | January 17, 2008, 9:38 am 9:38 am
Jen, it is you -and all the other Obama supporters who act if Bill and Hillary Clinton just popped up yesterday. They are who they are, a lot of people hate them. I don’t like them either, but rational thoughtful people who care about the country can see what a dangerous disaster Obama would be if elected.
Posted by: Bryan Shuy | January 17, 2008, 9:52 am 9:52 am
Clinton is wrong. Read the law. the casino caucuses could get at most 6% of the delegates. How is that 5 times as much? The casino caucuses were set up precisely to give people a chance to make their vote heard. Of course the Clintons knew exactly what the decsion was about. They just didn’t dream that the culinary union would back Obama. So now that they have, all of a sudden he is the ‘establishment’ candidate? Give me a break, Bill. You are not good for your wife’s campagn.
Posted by: katharine | January 17, 2008, 10:28 am 10:28 am
What concerns me is the possibility of voter intimidation by the Union/s.
Voter intimidation cannot & should not be tolerated, ever.
Posted by: Pressure | January 17, 2008, 10:35 am 10:35 am
I didn’t know Clintons were so disparate.. I am a lifelong democrat and I used to like them but now I am absolutely against them. If Hillary is nominated I am not going to vote in the next election. We had enough of Bush and Clintons.. They only know how to divide this country for their own benefit.. We are just tools to them nothing else…
Posted by: John S | January 17, 2008, 12:12 pm 12:12 pm
It was FINE last year when Hillary was leading and thought SHE had the Culinary Endorsment…but when it went to Obama, VOILA! A LAWSUIT!!
IS this what America needs? More slimy Politicans?
Obama 2008.
Posted by: cathy | January 17, 2008, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
In a perfect world we would have primaries only (except maybe Iowa for traditions sake) so votes are confidential. But Hilary was more than willing to take the union’s endorsement under the caucus system and I see no proof that casino votes count fine times than other votes. While voting at work has it’s draw backs, especially in a public setting, when you have a 24/7 industry I can see the benefits. I think Obama is a good man, not a saint, and the Nevada system while imperfect is the system in place. Sometimes I feel Hillary has an air of entittlement, that this was to be her time to rule and there is anger that others aren’t following their script. The one person who can unite and energize the Republicans is Hilary. The right has unafairly made her into a demon character that in their minds is more leftist than she is in reality (for example the biggest recepient of insurance industry donations is Hillary who advocates making purchasing health insurace mandatory. The right has made her the source of all leftist evil and some on the left have made her into a secular saint. She is in reality a politician with lot’s of experience not much accomplishments. Too many people have too negative a feeling about her, while I know conservatives who have a good impression of Obama. Voters might or might not vote for him, but he will at least be considered on his merits.
Posted by: Franco | January 17, 2008, 1:21 pm 1:21 pm
Chill out BillyBoy!!! Looks like Bill needs a little anger management.
Lordy, Lordy, who would think the Clintons would ever try and sway an election??? Me and about half the free world that’s who.
So we are to believe culinary workers votes count 5 times those of everyone else…Bill really GIVE US A BREAK!!! Filing a lawsuit against an election process that’s days away…really a desperate act. Saying the voters will be intimated by the bosses at the caucus sites is just plain ridiculous. If voters were intimidated don’t you think they just wouldn’t vote. If they want a chance to speak out and really be heard…don’t you think they will vote.
Why are some top Democrats just now starting to come out in support of Obama? A late apology from a black leader??? Do you hear the sound of thunder in the air??? It is the sound of an uprising against the Clintons. After all those years of having the Clintons crammed down our throats, the dynasty is about to fall. Fear of heavy handed tactics is fading.
Bill’s tirades need to go….he needs to go…Hillary needs to go.
Posted by: A Texan who Cares | January 17, 2008, 2:03 pm 2:03 pm
In the pre-Internet days of the first Clinton bid for office all of these petty and underhanded tactics of the Clintons could fly under the radar of the main media outlets. Bill, it is not 1992 anymore. Listen to your advisors and cease and desist with the allegations and attacks.
Posted by: Christina | January 17, 2008, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm
Caucuses are frauds they minimize someone’s actual vote. I agree with all that it should be a private vote(primary) with it. And who is going to ensure that all persons casucusing are american citizens, as Lou Dobbs has pointed out that half of the Culinary Union is illegal immigrants. One news channel reported that all you have to do is show your union card to vote. Someone has to be an idiot to not realize this is already rigged -just as Florida was in 2000.
And by the way whoever said(posted) Gore lost the election he won the popular vote, but lost delegates in Florida-Remeber all News channels projected him as winner and good old GW called up and said wait My brother is FLA Governor and it’s to close to call.
Another rigged election sort reminds you of Chicago back in the 60′s.
Posted by: Rich | January 17, 2008, 6:48 pm 6:48 pm
Well, I am buying what Bill Clinton is saying because he is ten times smarter than anyone making comments against him. If you don’t under stand what he is saying you need to go back to school and I don’t mean college. You know that as well as I do. There is so much jealousy and hate for the Clinton’s because they have what people can’t have and never accomplished what they did. That’s too bad. Most of this generation only thinks of parties, booze, sex and drugs. You reap what you sow and if you want accomplish your goals in life then do it don’t think about it. If Hillary and Bill Clinton only thought about it they would not have accomplished their goals. How many presidents can say their wife is a senator and then running for president.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | January 17, 2008, 6:58 pm 6:58 pm
I wish i could get an endorsment of a union, then hold a show of hands vote right where the union members work, with the BOSSES staring at you while you raise your hand.
Pity the guy who actually wants to vote for the other guy.
Posted by: tom | January 18, 2008, 1:19 am 1:19 am
Yesterday, Bill Clinton said about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton quote,” the establishment organization is with him and the insurgents are with her”. Yes, he actually said that yesterday. Do you think the Clintons are the insurgents in this presidential election or part of the established Democratic Party? I think that the Clintons are part of the establishment.
The establishment at large, including the mass media, wants to see a Clinton versus McCain presidential election. The reason is that both of these candidates are part of the establishment as well. This means
business as usual, the business of making money, not for you or me, but for themselves.
The establishment has been trying influence these elections on many levels, not just through the media.
The Democratic Party on a national level has super delegates consisting of high level Democrats who are part of the Democratic Party establishment who get an entire delegate vote all to themselves. Its very unfair, anti-democratic, yet not against the law. According to CNN right now, Hillary Clinton has 166 super delegates committed to her, more than twice her nearest competitor, Obama. Bill Clinton
himself is a super delegate.
In a similar manner, at the local level in Nevada the Democratic Party establishment weighted the new created casino caucuses to help the establishment nominee, in this case Clinton, win. Unfortunately for
her this backfired when the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama. The establishment quickly filed suit through their proxy the teachers union. The Clintons have spoken out against the casino caucuses as
being unfair. I agree. It is very unfair, anti-democratic, but it is not against the law.
I would love to ask the Clintons, “Now that you see super delegates aren’t fair just like the casino caucuses, will Bill give up his super delegate vote?” or will both of you remain firmly entrenched in the
establishment, playing politics, business as usual, making money, not for you or me, but for the establishment. People are now saying, “Don’t vote for the establishment, don’t vote for the Clintons. Vote for change whether for Obama or Edwards”
Posted by: greg | January 18, 2008, 3:11 am 3:11 am
greg…..i don’t agree with the principle of the “super-delegate” system the Democratic party has right now……but its a no-brainer to take the experience and qualifications of either Bill or Hillary Clinton over anyone else running right now, for the best interests of our children, our soldiers and the very future of our country and our world…..
Posted by: chris | January 18, 2008, 3:35 am 3:35 am
This is all amusing. one thing comes to my mind, how come everyone is chanting Obama as if he is am acomplished hero. Lets face the fact, Obama has un-answered questions. You think the press that is giving him a free ride will continue when he faces the replicans. The truth is that we all know who are behind all these. Its easy for him to past jufgement on the Clintons. Where was Obama during the civil rights movements? He wants to ride on the horse of MLK as a black president. Many white americans suffered, marcched and were criticise for supporting the movement. Please can someone tell me what OBAMA did for the civil rights movement. Check up the Clintons personally participation and his record while in office as governor and president. Its all simple Obama cannot lead, he lacks the ability. Oratory is not leadership. O, lets come back home. Do you think Obama can stand against Mccain or Hukebbe, questions of his drug use, so called muslim affiliation will be xrayed. Do you think the whites, considering the race card OBAMA is playing are going to vote for him to be president?…..You better wake. the whole truth is that Obama is being setup to see if he can undo Hilary, which offcourse he cannot. After the race card, i wonder what else his right wing press supporters are going to throw up. One thing interests me, the right wing press are not even given coverage to the activities of the GOP, that makes think, men what a country called America………it is the America the beautiful.
Posted by: Hilary Ugorji | January 18, 2008, 7:29 pm 7:29 pm
Just one question……what will happen if OBAMA is defeated…..Will the right wing press swallow thier venoms!
Posted by: Hilary Ugorji | January 18, 2008, 7:34 pm 7:34 pm
im just disappointed that the first woman to be seriously considered as president of the United States of America is sniveling phony riding on her husband’s coat tails. IMO the Clinton’s view the presidency as THEIR right.
Posted by: peej | January 19, 2008, 1:41 am 1:41 am
There may be unanswered questions about Obama – but what’s really sad is we all know the answers regarding the Clinton dynasty… the blue bloods from Arkansas. Im not an Obama fan – but a fresh new face that doesnt have to have ride on the coat tails of their spouse is refreshing. Hilary is Bill is Hilary is Bill – no more Bushs or Clintons PLEASE!!!
Posted by: peej | January 19, 2008, 1:46 am 1:46 am
Seems the repubs are doing a helluva job inatigating the two leading dems!
Posted by: john silverstone | January 19, 2008, 10:54 am 10:54 am
I’m a white moderate republican and the way I see it is if Clinton wins the primary the Republicans win the General Election. I don’t know why you hardcore dems don’t see it but people hate here with a capital H. Not just Republicans but independents. This primary election makes her look worse. If Obama wins the primary Democrats have a good chance to win the general election, not only democrats but independents, AND republicans (such as myself) will vote for him. I became a republican so Al Gore wouldn’t win. I stayed a republican so John Kerry wouldn’t win. When will you Dems learn to pick a good candidate? You pick candidates that people love to hate with a passion.
Posted by: Rich | January 19, 2008, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm