[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20080401" target="_blank">Botched coronation</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> April 01, 2008

It is looking increasingly unlikely that Hillary Clinton will be able to clinch the Democratic nomination. Slate magazine has her chances pegged at only 10%. <br> <br>Barack Obama has won more states and is also leading in the delegate count. Though he won\'t enter this summer\'s party convention with an out-and-out majority, it seems likely that he\'ll be able to use his front-runner status to win over a majority of the convention\'s so-called \"Super Delegates\" who get to vote any way they want. For the Supers to do otherwise would to be basically veto the democratic will of all the state primaries to date— which is basically Hillary\'s strategy. <br> <br>I can only imagine the sort of rage Hillary must have towards Obama. This was supposed to be her easiest victory ever... until HE came along out of nowhere.

[CanadianJeff]

You know Hillary really did this to herself by being so oportunistic.

I mean just look at her stance on video games and assosiation with Jack Thompson for an example of just how stupid she gets. It's not that she's unintelligent or incapable of sticking to a posistion but just that it's obvious that she's a politician through and through with only part person.

I think her stance on Iraq really clarifies that matter. It does read "If I knew what we know now I would never have voted to approve the war". It should read and really does in a lot of ways read "I would never have voted for the war If I'd known it would become so unpopular"

[BartSimpson]

Hillary may pull it off yet. If Robert Mugabe can keep plugging away so can Hillary.

[Lunchbox]

Basically, I see several (moste likely) outcomes to this election.

1) If Hillary gets the nomination by slinking ahead in Pennsylvania and getting the super-delegate win, it will have taken so long that McCain will have had enough to beat the Democrats' "sure thing" in the presidential election, in a sort of oddball version of the Dewey vs. Truman election.

2) Obama grabs Pennsylvania, but there's that snowball's chance that Hillary can win:
2a. She'll pull a Huckabee, trying to dump off the last of her campaign funds, claiming she still has a chance (Possibly trying to win the super-delegate victory with very little chance of success forcing Obama to still to primary campaigning, losing possible votes in the presidential election.
2b. She'll pull out of the race, will endorse Obama after a few small primary
victories for him.

Either way, I still hand out the wild card of McCain's crazy grandpa statements possibly ruining his bid.

[Vinid]

In reference to Lunchbox's comments,
I think what hurts Obama in the general election is his crazy old pastore, and his new pastore. A lot of people see him getting a pass from the media and the other democrats for these comments and his lack of any real stance against them. Not to mention it makes Michelle Obama's comments make way more sence then before. I think either one of the democrats are easy targets for their faillings as politicians(IE Obama's claim of being a uniter but only voting along party lines, Hillary's inability to tell the truth on events, ect) McCain's not my first choice, but he's a better man then either one, although I think Hillary maybe more of a man.... (Te-he)
McCain maybe crazy grandpa, but at least he's not a bigot.
Dear Mr. President
There are too many states. Please eliminate three. I am not a crackpot.
A. Simpson

[Calbeck]

I'm looking forward to a McCain/Obama race. At the very least, we can expect the candidates themselves to be civil about it, which will be a refreshing change all by itself.

If Hillary gets the nom, I expect a contest at least as nasty as 2004 regardless of "who starts it".

[dog77_1999]

The Democratic Elites need to rein in Hillary. Yes, she's your girl but your party members are choosing Obama. Put a muzzle on her and allow Obama to waltz over McCain this election.

Seriously, this will be the easiest Democratic win in years.

[Psudo]

Considering how many candidates there were initially, it's pretty sad that these are our choices.

[fire_i]

Hillary staying in the race makes things a piece of cake for the Dems. Poisoned cake. And it kills them slowly (despite a few advantages? - arguable).

It's more than time for her to swallow her pride and fall behind Obama. She's done enough damage already.

[CanadianJeff]

I can't help but agree that Hillary needs to start taking a back seat and yesterday. She's only hurting the party for her own selfish wants of trying to run the nation again if you beleive what she says about her husbands term.

[Lunchbox]

Vinid wrote:

In reference to Lunchbox's comments,
I think what hurts Obama in the general election is his crazy old pastore, and his new pastore. A lot of people see him getting a pass from the media and the other democrats for these comments and his lack of any real stance against them. Not to mention it makes Michelle Obama's comments make way more sence then before. I think either one of the democrats are easy targets for their faillings as politicians(IE Obama's claim of being a uniter but only voting along party lines, Hillary's inability to tell the truth on events, ect) McCain's not my first choice, but he's a better man then either one, although I think Hillary maybe more of a man.... (Te-he)
McCain maybe crazy grandpa, but at least he's not a bigot.
Dear Mr. President
There are too many states. Please eliminate three. I am not a crackpot.
A. Simpson

What do you mean his not a bigot? Obama and Clinton haven't said anything really bigoted, while McCain still proudly calls his captors Gooks. And yes, I understand that his captors put him through hell, but the fact that we allow an official to openly flaunt a word that denigrates Asians is just kind of unsettling on the whole.

And I think Obama got a free pass because he didn't say the stuff, and because he showed a bit of a human side by not kicking and old friend to the curb for political gains.

[Vinid]

What I find hypocritical is that if McCain or Clinton went to a church with this kind of retoric, their political careers would either end or their chances for the presidency and possibly reelection would be over. Their has even been cases where someone said a simple and stupid sentence to compliment an old southern senator and the man lost his job as the Majority leader.
All that I ask is that the rules that get applied to one party or one race of people gets applied to all equally.
I think that if Obama does get elected, he'll be the next Jimmy Carter. He's new! he's different! He got attacked by a rabbit! He's just like the rest of you, but he farmed peanuts! Now all Obama has to do is get attacked by a rabbit and farm peanuts and he'll win.

[Lunchbox]

Vinid wrote:

What I find hypocritical is that if McCain or Clinton went to a church with this kind of retoric, their political careers would either end or their chances for the presidency and possibly reelection would be over. Their has even been cases where someone said a simple and stupid sentence to compliment an old southern senator and the man lost his job as the Majority leader.
All that I ask is that the rules that get applied to one party or one race of people gets applied to all equally.
I think that if Obama does get elected, he'll be the next Jimmy Carter. He's new! he's different! He got attacked by a rabbit! He's just like the rest of you, but he farmed peanuts! Now all Obama has to do is get attacked by a rabbit and farm peanuts and he'll win.

"Things would be a lot better if he were elected president." Lott said this about a man who wanted to strip civil rights from people because of the color of their skin. Obama's pastor said those things, not Obama. It does not reflect upon his leadership. Why not scream at McCain for all of the crazy crap his priest friends say, and we haven't squat about race relating to Hillary since Ferraro said her stupid crap.

In all honesty, it's what the politicians do and say that affects me. Obama, Clinton, and McCain are running for office, and if they disagree with the statements of Wright, Falwell, and Ferraro then I couldn't really care less.

[Psudo]

RE: Trent Lott
1) He was providing Strom Thurmond an idle compliment at the old man's birthday party.
2) There's nothing in context that suggests he intended any point about segregation.
3) He admitted that it could be taken offensively and apologized less than a week after the comment was made. [CNN]
4) He then voluntarily stepped down, as Republicans tend to when confronted by controversy. When was the last time a Democrat voluntarily resigned?

In order to condemn him as racist, you have to utterly ignore the context of his comments. But if context doesn't matter, explain these examples of racism from the Democrat side: Steny Hoyer (D-MD) apologizes for "slavish" comment, retains job; Joe Biden neither apologizes nor loses job; Howard Dean equates minorities with hotel staff, gets elected Democratic Party Chairman.

Apparently the only relevant context of such a quote is the political party of the speaker. One sees more racist comments and less consequences on the Democrat side time after time. Giving McCain a pass when calling his personal torturers nasty names hardly balances out the political scales here.

[Voyager]

People disect Wright's statements, and Obama's association and/or disassociation with them, primarily because there are so few things to really get a gauge of him on. He's said a lot of things, but he hasn't really done very much.

And yes, this is what we're going to hammer him on if he makes it to the general. The refrain will be "Yes, but what has he done?" If he doesn't have anything, or has something trivial, its gonna be bad.

Harry Voyager