How far off base the MSNBC duo are is incredible. Appearing on Morning Joe (where Joe Scarborough is blissfully for us absent for the past couple of weeks, hope he's relegated to the late night hours and Mika B. gets the morning slot permanently) NBC journalists ? Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell are giving their takes on Hillary Clinton's astonishing landslide win in Kentucky.
Hillary Clinton, they ask, landslide win in West Virginia and Kentucky. But how does she get up in the morning to face these daunting numbers, uphill, doesn't have the edge in delegates far behind... Andrea Mitchell, she's a role model for women, that's why she's still in the race, fighting for them.
Role model? Hillary Clinton?
Clinton uses her own numbers, not real numbers.
Barack Obama is ahead in the popular vote by 500,000. He's ahead in delegates, both committed and super. He's even ahead in double the amount of states, remember those, claimed for his side from won Primaries and caucuses.
Clinton continues to include the state of Florida for her popular vote totals.
She continues to add the state of Michigan in her totals for the popular vote when Michigan was disqualified - upfront - because of the Primary date change - and Barack Obama - who had not yet won 12 states in a row on Super Tuesday - abided by National Democratic Party rules and along with the other candidates at the time - removed his name from the state ballot.
You see, the state could not remove anyone's name from the ballot for the Party Rules, the candidates were urged to do so because guess what those are the rules we play by and the rules we all agreed to play by a year ago.
But Hillary Clinton wants to claim Michigan as a popular vote win in her column.
It isn't. Therefore, Hillary Clinton is lying.
What a role model for young women.
When you are not winning your local school election in high school girls, just play the sexist card.
Clearly behind in actual numbers for your school board race Mrs. T, just make up some other math equation and point out it's still a man's world.
What a wonderful role model.
Clinton raises the issue in interview with the Washington Post...
Net the Truth Online
Later in MSNBC programming Norah interviews Terry McAuliffe. She asks point blank whether Hillary Clinton believes she has been subject to sexism.
At first McA hesitates.
Then he answers, yes, there has been sexism. Women are voting for Clinton in large numbers...
Seriously, does the man not realize what he's said? Ahm, like men haven't voted for Hillary Clinton? No men? That would be sexism. But men are voting for Hillary and women for Obama.
A DU Poster raises an unusual, but right-n-target, point.
If Hillary claims gender is the cause for her losing the primaries...
Advertisements [?]How does it make a it good selling for her to run against McCain in the general election?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6059987
Now that is an excellent point!
In other words, what will change over a few months if Clinton is the Democratic nominee?
Nothing. It's difficult enough for people to change themselves, let alone change long-standing decisions they've already made and acted upon.
So if sexism is rampant among the Democrats who've voted in the Primaries, that will not change in six months. What might change, many Democrats may be turned off by the entire process used in the Primaries, particularly if Clinton doesn't win the nomination by accumulating the most 'delegates,' mostly from the committed delegates obtained from primaries and caucuses as has held true in the past.
Another thing to ponder. Clinton was considered the "frontrunner" back in March 30, 2007. Yep, take a look.
Last Updated: March 30, 2007 00:26 EDT
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=&sid=atUKcP4eSEvY
Frontrunners nudge ahead in White House race
Posted Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:03pm AEDT
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/20/2142460.htm
And, until Super Tuesday, Clinton was in actuality considered the front-runner.
So only the states Obama won, the ones where Clinton didn't win, engaged in sexism against her?
People in West Virginia aren't sexist, because they overwhelmingly voted for her, but voters in Oregon are sexist because they didn't vote overwhelmingly for her.
It never ends - the twisting and turning - and outright lying - by Hillary Role Model Extraordinairre - Clinton.
Mark Murray reports on MSNBC there will be challenges to Florida and Michigan situation come May 31. There still needs to be some penalty, but probably half of the delegates will be seated.
Real Clear Politics has the tally numbers fairly dispersed and up to date.
USA Today references AP numbers
Delegate counts
Here is the latest count of delegates pledged to Democratic candidates actively seeking their party's presidential nomination. John McCain has clinched the Republican nomination with 1,439 delegates, exceeding the 1,191 required.
Totals reflect primary and caucus results and stated preferences among 797 Democratic superdelegates who aren't bound by primary or caucus results. Tallies may change as states apportion delegates from earlier contests. The half delegate was allocated from Democrats Abroad voting.
Democrats
Total delegates 4,050
Needed to nominate 2,026
Barack Obama 1,909.5
Hillary Rodham Clinton 1,721
Other candidates 19
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080519/a_delegatecount19.art.htm?
loc=interstitialskip
Here's how Florida turned out after the nomination process which remains in dispute
http://www.fladems.com/content/w/florida_delegate_selection_to_the_2008_democratic_national_convention
MSNBC claims clinton has 1, 803 Guest saying Clinton needs 200 superdelegates to clinch 2026 while Obama needs only 20.
If Florida and Michigan are included and the delegate total is upped to capture the nomination, Obama would need 50, Clinton obviously would need about 230.
Let's see Clinton 1,721 plus 105 = 1,8,26
Thanks, guest, as we were about to attempt the math on our own.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment