UK Telegraph: Clinton's campaign "in state of panic," will try to get Reid to force O out.

[Occam Bandage]

Hillary Clinton's most senior advisers are in a state of "panic" about her presidential prospects and are plotting to enlist Democrat leaders in Congress to thwart her rival Barack Obama's ambitions.

The Clinton camp is braced for Mr Obama to win a series of primary elections over the next three weeks, which they fear could hand the Illinois senator unstoppable momentum in the race for the White House.

The Clinton camp hopes to stop the Obama bandwagon by winning Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4, after which Mrs Clinton is planning to call on party grandees including Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Harry Reid, the party's leader in the Senate, to persuade Mr Obama to stand down.

More at link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/09/wus509.xml

[JVS]

1. People listen to Pelosi and Reid?

If we had known this earlier, maybe we could have had them keep the house and senate from appeasing Bush.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. great observation!

[Hart2008]

9. Right! If Reid and Pelosi won't stand up to a Repuke, why would they stand up to a Dem?

The reality is that these people want to win more seats in November, and Hillary is toxic in many parts of the country.

[Cha]

23. Because they love standing up to

Dems..ergo Pete Stark and Moveon..but evidently bushites are another story that only nancy and harry and the insiders can tell ya about.

[Occam Bandage]

26. They've stood up to Democratic voters countless times before. Note how

we are still in Iraq, and note how we confirmed Bush's appointees without a fight.

[IDemo]

34. Reid will form a committee to draft a note to express concern

Nancy will quietly remind him that concern is not on the table.

[JVS]

35. LOL

[Occam Bandage]

2. kick. Hey, I thought Obama was the "establishment" candidate now...

[Blarch]

4. More Rove like tactics.

Just like they promised.

[onenote]

76. more gullibility on GD-P

Do you believe everything you read. Or just what you want to believe.

[Botany]

There is no way that Reid or Pelosi would call Obama and have him quit

The story is bull.

[pocoloco]

13. Just like they wouldn't call off impeachment!!

Wake up!!

[Botany]

29. Pelosi and Reid have one major goal ... stay in power

If the #s favor Obama asking him to step down would kill their careers.

[tridim]

57. That's what's great about Democracy!

The will of the people can actually alter the power structure of OUR government. It's been a while since the process has worked, so it's easy to forget that's what voting is for.

[Cha]

25. We'll see what the dinos

have planned, won't we?

[Botany]

31. Hillary will not ask Obama if he is winning if he wants to quit to be Veep.

No doubt she will try every back room deal in the book but if the contests keep
going for Obama he will get the nomination.

If Hillary loses either Texas or Ohio she is toast.

[Whisp]

63. yep yep there is something in the shadows.

better believe it.
the keys to the information cabinets in the whitehouse must remain in either Bush or Clintons charge. no oneelse is to peek.

enjoy the ride, the excitement that Obama is bringing to this race, the hope that will be dashed once again - but the end is already scripted, I'm afraid.

I hope I'm wrong, I feel sick about it but that's the way it always seems to go.

[Cha]

69. Oh, I know they're lurking in the shadows and

they do have it all planned out according to them..the only question is whether we and Obama will be able to persevere.

[Whisp]

70. Maybe Obama's popularity and draw to so many

to sold out crowds and surprising popularity caught them unawares without a Plan B.

hope.

[Cha]

75. I'm sure they didn't see

that coming when she was up 20-30 points and from the news that they loaned their campaign $5 million bucks..they didn't have a plan B..just like the bushites didn't have a plan B for the War On Iraq. That was suppose to be about Flowers, don'tcha know just like hilary's coronation. YECH.

[Zodiak]

46. I agree

...and this chief piece of evidence in the article to cue the average DUEr that this is bull.....look at how the "-ic" is missing from "Democratic".

[K Gardner]

5. Pelosi and Reid, because they sooo represent the will of the people.

[panader0]

6. That sounds like a lot of bull to me.

Not that she's not worried about her campaign, but that she would call on Reid and Pelosi to ask Obama to stand down. How or why would R and P do that?

[chascarrillo]

61. Bingo! We have a winner!

The article was referring to Reid and Pelosi's designation as superdelegates. The "reporter" just wanted it to sound more sexy and vile.

[polichick]

7. All I can say is...

FAT CHANCE!

:rofl:

[CreekDog]

8. Your thread title is inaccurate suggesting that Reid is being asked to get Obama out now

No, that's not happening.

My gosh, can't you state things fairly and accurately?

And I'm an Obama supporter, but labeling this thread as you have is simply baiting the Hillary supporters and making fair minded people wince.

Try again.

[Occam Bandage]

16. "Will." Not "is." Where's the inaccuracy?

[CreekDog]

21. No mention of the "when" and "if" --that is the big "if"

It's out of context, you should write it so that nobody is mislead by the title.

[Occam Bandage]

24. The title is at the character limit. There's no misleading involved. I made sure to put

the 'if-when' statement in the excerpt, as one of the three paragraphs quoted. You can hardly blame a one-line subject as being "out of context," when the context is provided two inches below.

And frankly, if she *doesn't* win those two primaries, then her campaign is over anyway.

[CreekDog]

80. Okay okay sorry to give you a hard time

you are miles ahead of many that deliberately mislead, but they rarely stick around to defend their posts.

:hi:

[rodeodance]

41. you are ASSuming they WILL--and sending out a distored message--but you knew that didn't you!

[Occam Bandage]

50. No, I'm only repeating what the paper said. The only "distortion" is that Clinton might not win OH

and TX, but if that were to happen, the campaign would be over anyway.

[pdxmom]

10. Some other interesting stuff down in that article. They appear to be

calling into question the actual fundraising that is going on:

"Mrs Clinton is also under financial pressure.

She claimed that she received $7.5m in donations after admitting lending her campaign $5m last week.

But the source claimed that her campaign is actually in far worse financial trouble than they are letting on.

There will be no proof of how much she raised for three months, when the totals are formally declared to election watchdogs."

How reliable is the Telegraph?

[rodeodance]

42. its a UK tabloid.

[QC]

55. "How reliable is the Telegraph?" - Well, people in the UK call it The Torygraph.

Of course, it's no surprise to find an Obama supporter joyfully quoting far right media, is it?

[pdxmom]

59. I asked about the reliability, because I don't know how reliable their

reporting is. Still don't know, because you haven't answered the question. Show me "joyful".

[QC]

64. OK, their reporting is known for its strident right wing bias.

They have some pretensions to serious journalism, but not enough to keep them from faithfully spouting the Tory line.

As for joyful, look around a bit. Some of the Obama enthusiasts will cite any source, no matter how disreputably right wing, if it backs up their man. In the past few days they have eagerly posted crap by the likes of Peggy Noonan (three times for that piece), Charles Krauthammer, and Frank Luntz. They are also dredging up all the freeper golden oldies, like Billary, Vince Foster, and the rest. Since they seem to enjoy this sort of thing, I take it that they are doing it joyfully. They certainly have no compunction about it.

[pdxmom]

67. Thanks. That's what I was looking for. Except for the BBC, I don't pay

a whole lot of attention to any media in the UK. Was looking for the reliability of that info and how much, if any, weight I should give it. Now I know.

[newmajority]

68. And yesterday, a Hillbot quoted a hit piece on Obama from Daniel "Crack" Pipes

Who (for those of you who don't know) is a genocidal neocon lunatic who even Dick Cheney thought was too crazy for the Chimpministration. But he was a Rudy 9u11ani adviser, and I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up in McCain's camp.

[QC]

71. That shit needs to go, too.

Pipes is one of the worst.

I think a lot of us are forgetting that there's an even bigger election come November and thus we probably should not destroy one another. I wish we could attack Bush instead of Democrats.

[Levgreee]

11. That article sounds like it might not be legit

take it with a grain of salt, unless more concrete sources show up

[workinclasszero]

12. Pelosi and Reid?

Aren't they the Bush playtoys in Congress?? Yeah I could see them tryin to force Obama out of the race on behalf of Hillary.:puke:

[Colobo]

14. Neither Clinton nor her cronies will stop Obama.

[Thrill]

15. I don't want to believe they would do this

I'll wait for a better source.

[davsand]

17. I am not sure Pelosi or Reid carry much weight in this.

Neither one is all that highly regarded on a consistent basis, and I honestly don't see that either one has too much control over the rank and file they are supposed to command.

Something else to factor into this is the foundation of Obama's campaign which is "CHANGE." While it may not ring with everyone, it IS managing to inspire a lot of voters. I honestly think any sort of brokered convention is a huge risk for the DNC--just as the Super Delegate gambit is.

I tend to trust the Telegraph, but in this case I do hope they are wrong. Any attempt to force this election outcome in the backroom could damage the Dem party beyond all hope.



Laura

[Cha]

18. Too late..it's already unstoppable..

hilary should have thought of that in Oct 2002 when she voted to support bush's war on Iraq because sadam was a bad man and had nothing to do with 9/11..and continued to support and is only now lying that she fought bush for 8 years. She wishes..oops! who advised her wrong?.. she obviously doesn't do anything without political calculation.

[saltpoint]

19. With respect to Harry Reid as a human being, I personally don't feel

that he holds many cards in the Democratic Party's current future blueprint.

That's a political observation and not meant as a personal slam on Harry Reid.

Also, the story here reads as an unconfirmed report, as opposed to a recognizable inevitability.

There's a lot of talent in the Clinton campaign and it doesn't feel to me that there's any "panic" afoot.

Just my take.

[Captain Hilts]

20. We're paying attention to the "Torygraph" now? nt

[rodeodance]

48. and using the OBAMAbabies term--the OP is DESPERATE

[TomClash]

22. I'm with Donna Brazile

If the Superdelegates decide for Hillary and Barack has more pledged delegates (or vice versa), the Democratic Party can't call itself democratic anymore.

[Colobo]

28. The "Autocratic" Party would fit better if that happens.

[Tellurian]

30. Good for you..That means Teddy and Kerry will support Hillary!

[TomClash]

32. Do the math

If the SDs go to the candidate who won the state, Barack wins.

[jlake]

77. No, actually if you do the math - Hillary would win.

[Occam Bandage]

33. If all SDs vote according to their state's results, they go to HRC. And I'm fine with that.

[abburdlen]

44. And I'm sure

you will equally call for superdelegates from places that Obama won to switch to him as well, right?

[mckeown1128]

27. kick and rec....nt

[Eurobabe]

36. What a load of crap

Is this the new shit that Clinton's camp is pushing?

"Clinton aides have privately admitted that Mr Obama would only consider such a move if offered the position of vice presidential running mate, something Mrs Clinton has always been reluctant to consider."

Clinton needs Obama more than Obama needs Clinton. That's all I'm saying.

[earthside]

37. Hi-Larious!

Those towering founts of backbone and strength Reid and Pelosi?

If this inside information were true (and I don't believe it is), then Hill might as well just quit now.

If past performance is any indicator, Reid and Pelosi would go to Obama to pressure him to stand down, but come out of any such meeting endorsing him!

[rodeodance]

38. HA Ha

[Karmadillo]

39. Daily Telegraph?

nt

[CatWoman]

66. that was my initial reaction

[Onlooker]

40. It's probably true

They are probably very worried, seeing that Obama is a candidate who's attracting a lot more excitement, making far fewer mistakes, having more teflon, wooing Independents and Republicans, delivering a message that is simple and inspiring, etc. That said, Hillary Clinton is still quite a formidable candidate and I'm sure, like Obama, her strategists are thinking of ways they can win this race if it stays close. I think if she loses Texas or Ohio, she might concede.

[TexasObserver]

43. Team Clinton is delusional. Hillary is the one who will be asked to stop

Everything the Clintons are doing now is evidence their campaign is in its death throes, and they are at the BARGAINING STAGE.

Will Al Gore save them? Could he be consensus candidate, thereby depriving Obama, since Hillary can't get the nod? That's one of their latest. Now they'll try to get others to start with the "for the good of the party" bullshit, which will only make Democrats in power want to see Hillary end her campaign more.

The Clintons already know they are going down to defeat, and that's why they are scrambling for any meme that might deprive Obama of the nomination. She's like the dog in the manger in Aesop's fable. She can't eat the hay, but she doesn't want the bull to eat it, either. It's pettiness, but pretty typical for her and Bubba.

And the notion that Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi carry any weight at all is simply laughable. They are less than inconsequential in this presidential race. Literally, no one cares what they think. Find a Democrat who can moved off of Obama by either of them. You cannot do it.

It's time for the Clintons to accept defeat and do so as gracefully as possible. Otherwise, what is left of Bill's tattered legacy will very, very little.

[SlipperySlope]

60. Yeah, they need to preserve "Brand Clinton"

Once the Wiley Coyote moment comes, it is too late.

[TexasObserver]

62. Hillary is desperate for a Scooby Doo ending to save her.

Look at the Clinton generated memes of late. Gore will save them?! Pelosi will save them?! Harry "I'm useless as tits on a boar hog" Reid will save them?! Howard Dean will save them?! Democrats who have to win re election in November (superdelegates) will save them?!

These people are smoking something, and they ARE inhaling. It's carbon monoxide they're inhaling, which explains the delusions and loss of ability to think clearly.

[Peace Patriot]

79. I think "death throes" is an exaggeration. She's facing a serious challenge,

which is youth-driven, very energetic and rousing to young and old, and is showing many signs and achievements on the road to winning the nomination. It reminds me a lot of the Adlai Stevenson-JFK nomination fight in 1960. What put JFK over the top was young people like me--I was 16 and wild about this beautiful new young guy who spoke so eloquently and wittily. It was time for "new." In truth, Adlai Stevenson was a far, far better leftist (majorityist). But to me he was "old guard."

I think that's how a lot of young people see Hillary vs. Obama: "old guard" vs. fresh new hopes. They want out of this mire of the past--that they associate with both regimes--Bush and Clinton. For my generation in the '60s, it was the mire of the "Cold War." And, although Stevenson was far better on policy--for any of us who bothered to notice--he was a figure from the "Cold War" era, and JFK, who was much more of a Cold Warrior-type than Stevenson (at that point), struck us having that something...that turn of mind...that capability...that originality and creativity of youth, to look beyond the "Cold War" to a better future. And that he did. That he did.

And there the analogy ends. Clinton is not Stevenson (a truly great and genuine progressive). She really is "old guard"--a mire that includes "free trade" and other fascist/corporate policy, as well as the godawful Iraq War. Someone upthread mentions the Iraq War as the pivotal issue--to the young people and the many others who are flocking to Obama. I think that is a very perceptive statement. Iraq War = the mire of the past. (In 1960, there was no such issue, but, if there had been, JFK would likely have been on the wrong side of it--until he actually became president, and really underwent a transformation toward peace-maker--in fact I'm sure that's why he was killed.)

Obama was on the right side of this issue, from the beginning. He hedged his bets a bit, in his speech to the Democratic Convention in 2004--which I found very disappointing, and not at all inspiring (war raging in Iraq, prisoners being tortured, Constitution in shreds, voting system made easily riggable--and he talks about himself?!). But anyway, there is hardly a politician who wasn't hedging some bets, at that point, and he did oppose the war, publicly and repeatedly, unlike Sen. Clinton, candidate Kerry, and others. That was risky and courageous. And if Obama supporters are thinking about issues--in addition to the ability to change--be creative, bring a fresh perspective--that no doubt is the issue.

Think about it. 70% of the American people oppose this war and want it ended--and no one is listening to them! That is an unprecedented anti-war majority--and would be astonishing on any issue (except Social Security and transparent vote counting--in the 90s%). And here comes a candidate--new to most people (the campaign is new to most people--remember that) who opposed this goddamned war, from the beginning.

It's funny how even the most skeptical among us, and the most resistant to war profiteering corporate news monopoly propaganda--and I count myself in this group--fall prey to some of the memes and the black holes in corporate "news." This is the first time that I have perceived that the Obama campaign, to its supporters, is an anti-war campaign! I knew the facts of Obama's position, of course, but...I didn't get it! Why? Because the corporate "news" monopolies don't want it framed that way, and neither do the leaders of the Democratic Party, the Clinton campaign, the DLC, and other powers, and perhaps the Obama campaign itself. So it isn't talked about much at DU. The aforementioned "powers" don't want it framed that way for obvious reasons. They want the war to continue, and they don't want anybody to achieve a mandate to stop it. The Obama campaign, for its part, may not want to raise this red flag to the enormously powerful, wealthy, dangerous fascists and war profiteers who are running the country. But, to his supporters, it is key. He is young, he is new, and he opposed the war!

I recently read an Obama article in Foreign Policy magazine. Very disappointing. He sounds like JFK at the beginning ("Cold Warrior"). In fact, it's hard to distinguish him from a Bushite ("terror, terror, terror!"). I know he has since said that we should talk to our enemies--a revolutionary statement in this dark warmongering era. But anyway, I really don't know how close, or far apart, he and his supporters might be, as to what he may actually do in the White House. (There is, after all, the horrible precedent of LBJ, the "peace candidate" of 1964, slaughtering 2 million people in Southeast Asia, before it was over.) All I'm saying is that these two things--youth and the Iraq War--are key to the Obama phenomenon, and I had not perceived, and possibly many of us had not perceived, how important the second part--the Iraq War--is, to Obama supporters. Hillary Clinton has fully supported the Iraq War until yesterday. Barack Obama has opposed it from the beginning.

---------------------

A note about Gore...

This is the first I've heard that the Clinton campaign is talking about a Gore compromise. I tend to doubt it. There are some old enmities there. However, early on, in the OP's and comments here about a possible Gore candidacy, I figured that one of the bars to it, was that Gore would never run against Hillary Clinton, because it would add to old enmities and thus would anathematize his passionate issue, global warming, in a second Clinton regime. Gore = global warming. Gore's is persona non grata at the White House, because he opposed Hillary in the primaries. Not good for progress on global warming.

But this is a very different political picture, than was the case during that early speculation--Hillary Clinton starting to lose the nomination, and the Clinton's looking for a compromise candidate. But...compromise in regard to what? That is not clear to me. DLC power? Big military budgets? Israel? I'm not sure why Gore--in concert with the Clinton's--would want to "stop Obama." And, if Gore has a line to Obama, and is assured that global warming will be the priority it should be, why would Gore--who is so focused on this issue--and rightfully so--want to be president, with all those other responsibilities? And he has said exactly that--he doesn't want to be president because global warming is too important. He wants to focus on it exclusively.

This was the scenario many us early Gore fans were thinking of, that might catapult Gore into the nomination--a deadlocked nomination process, with bitter divisions, and Gore as the uniter. It seemed a very remote possibility back then. Now it's here--or much more possible, given this neck and neck race, with Obama having momentum. Is this an out for the Clinton's? To what end? Why would they prefer Gore over Obama? Would they have more of an "in" with Gore (despite the enmities)? (He was Bill's V-P after all.)

Dunno. Seems like it might have occurred to other power brokers. But the Clinton's? Doesn't seem all that likely. And I don't really understand it, if it's true that they are talking about it.

One last thing: Gore is the President. Something to think about. A restoration of the proper, legal, legitimate order of things. I've thought about that one a lot. I wanted a Gore/Kerry ticket for that reason. Whatever I might think of them or their policies, they are the ones that the American people actually elected. And that is the proper order of things. The American people decide.

I was also high on Gore at the time--and still am--for many reasons, including his vast experience in both branches of government, his powerful speaking ability (his speeches over the last few years have been totally awesome, in thought and delivery), his positions on war, torture, the Constitution and other such matters--absolutely right on--and his focus on global warming, which will determine the fate of the human race, and all human civilization, in very short order (we have maybe 10 years to solve it, or we are, as they say, history).

Gore vs. Obama? I would prefer Gore. Gore is looking over the horizon to the complete disruption of life on earth, coming soon. It is an unprecedented crisis, and one that will require tremendous powers of persuasion, thought and political/economic understanding to solve. And Obama is so frigging young and inexperienced. (Can he kneecap Exxon Mobile & co., or prevent them from assassinating him?) Gore's been through it--all the danger and the pressures--and has come out the other side with a positive attitude and clear direction.

How about Gore/Obama as a ticket? That is a proper ordering of things, but it may not be what happens.

And Hillary Clinton is by no means out of this picture yet. Her campaign being in "death throes" is not accurate. Many campaigns have up's and down's. It is much too early to say if the "down" is permanent. Remember Nixon! (Sorry, Clinton fans! I just mean his famous up's and down's--Nixon's "Six Crises.") (And if you don't know about all that, you're probably an Obama supporter, and too young to be in politics!) (16 I was, ah me!)

[TexasObserver]

82. DEATH THROES is exactly what it is. She's done. Stick a fork in her.

[Peace Patriot]

84. Could be. But she still has a lot of delegates, and a lot of support.

Really, I think it's premature to say "she's done." And, depending on who her main support is, in the corporate/political establishment that runs this country, and what they decide to do, Obama supporters could be in for a world of hurt. I'm saying, be warned. Haven't we learned by now that things are not on the up and up? I don't trust anybody--not Obama, not Edwards, not Gore, maybe not even Kucinich (the one who seemed most up-n-uppy to me). BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars are at issue in government contracts and other booty, with a filthy money campaign system, and with voting machines run on "trade secret," proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations!

"The People"--a whopping 70% of whom oppose the Iraq War (up from 56%--a significant majority--just before the war started)--and the grass roots of our party, probably 90% of whom oppose the war--fervently want to give someone a mandate to end it. And a mandate for change, period. We have been thwarted for eight years, one way or another. What makes you think that this political establishment--so committed, as it is, to the Iraq War and other fascist/corporate policy--is going to permit us to do that? (--not to mention the question of whether or not the one we give that mandate to, will in fact do the will of the People.)

Hillary has, a) a lot of delegates (more than Obama, at the moment, I think--but, in any case, it's very, very close), b) fairly good polls, not great, but ok, c) some very fervent support among women voters and volunteers, and d) potential "save Hillary" support in corporate board rooms and private clubs across the nation and around the world, including within the "trade secret" caverns of Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia. (Clinton supporters, I'm not saying she's corrupt--except in a general way. She's not exactly a "woman of the people"--she's very corporate. I'm just pointing to who could rig the game for her, for their own reasons.)

Don't count her out, in your heart anyway. Be prepared--emotionally, politically, strategically--for yet another betrayal by our political/corporate establishment. If "the People" want Obama, and he gets skunked--the type of thing that keeps happening to us--we need to land on our feet, and figure out the best way to proceed in that circumstance. And I'd say the same thing for Hillary Clinton, come November. If I felt she had won the nomination fair and square (or as fair and square as possible, in this system), and she rallies and becomes the Peoples' choice, over whatever Puke they put up, I would say: be prepared! It is very unlikely that anyone who is beholden to the People in any significant way will be permitted in the White House.

I'm just sayin. Please be realistic. Be prepared for a long, hard slog to get our democracy back.

[rodeodance]

45. Occam is scouping the bottom of the barrel for LINKS--thought your Obama was doing good.

[Occam Bandage]

52. He is. That's why Clinton is in a state of panic.

[rodeodance]

53. leave it to you to put slime up on this board

[Occam Bandage]

54. I merely posted an article from a newspaper. You're the one talking about "obamababies" and shit.

[cooolandrew]

47. Doesn't ring true Barack is in to win, ovters wouldn't abide it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. Forget the rumors, here is a fact

If Hillary Clinton manages to rally from the results that likely will be coming in from the contests held after Super Tuesday prior to Ohio and Texas, and convincingly wins both of those states and then goes on to win Pennsylvania as well, Obama will be bleeding momentum into the convention and most likely would not deserve the nomination. Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania are very large diverse states, they will be hotly contested in full primaries. If Hillary sweeps Obama in those, on top of winning states like California, New York, Florida (popular vote) Nevada, Massachusetts, and Tennessee; she will deserve the nomination.

[AX10]

78. Very true.

[still_one]

51. I don't believe it. First of all it wouldn't work, and second of all if it was true it would

backfire on them

[QC]

56. So The Torygraph is now an acceptable source on DU?

But then, why not? The Obama crowd has already pointed to Krauthammer, Noonan, Brooks, and Luntz as authorities. Quoting fascist tabloids is the only way they can go any lower.

[Occam Bandage]

81. The Telegraph isn't a tabloid. It's a broadsheet.

[zulchzulu]

58. If Hillaryworld tells Obama to drop out, look for a war to destroy the Clintons from all sides

They will finally have to move to Punjab.

[newmajority]

65. Yeah, because when I absolutely need to get the job done, I know I can count on

Spineless Reid and Jellyfish Pelosi :eyes:

Somebody needs to remind Hillary that her coronation was canceled as of last Tuesday.

[Yossariant]

72. Um --- we're not having primaries "over the next three weeks" and I'll bet

"Clinton's most senior advisers" know it, too.

:rofl:

[cottonseed]

73. She's dillusional if she thinks March 4th will be her bargaining chip.

nt

[Meldread]

74. Pelosi will laugh in her face, she has already all but endorsed Obama.

I am not sure where she stands now that he didn't win CA, but that's beside the point. The establishment can see the writing on the wall, and if Hillary cannot win decisive victories in both Ohio and Texas, they will turn on her. She will be forced out, privately and quietly. It is becoming clear that Obama has the best chances of winning in the General Election.

It is their nightmare that his string of victories leading up to Texas and Ohio will give him so much momentum that he can't be stopped. It increases the chances that he'll win in those states, and even if he wins by 1% it will still look bad. Hillary is going to need to win them by 10% or more to actually look viable after what is about to come down the tubes. I mean, lets face it if Obama is beating her in state after state with 20 point leads over her and she manages to squeak out a 1% or 3% victory it still does not look good. Especially considering the delegates are proportional.

[Occam Bandage]

83. kick