Hillary is a crybaby.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-01-08 03:29pm

Hillary sure is falling flat in the war of words with Obama. Its not his fault he had to compare himself to Kennedy and King, Hillary's party hack did that for him.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-01-08 03:47pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Hillary sure is falling flat in the war of words with Obama. Its not his fault he had to compare himself to Kennedy and King, Hillary's party hack did that for him.

Perhaps the worst part (and a sign that her campaign doesn't yet know which way to go) is that she actually came out and gave him the Kennedy and MLK comparisons and compared herself to...LBJ. Right now if I was the Obama campaign I'd be storing up every single one of those quotes and get ready to offload them in South Carolina, California, and every state with a sizeable minority population. I don't think she could have said anythign more foolish than that she could say aside from admitting that she though she was owed this nomination.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-01-08 05:33pm

On Bill Clinton
Am I missing something here? But since Bill Clinton is a two term president he can't be on ANY Presidents cabinet? Seeing as that puts him in the line of succession and he can't legally hold the job since he can't (Due to term limits) hold the office again.

Or is there something I'm missing there?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-01-08 05:35pm

Mr Bean wrote:On Bill Clinton
Am I missing something here? But since Bill Clinton is a two term president he can't be on ANY Presidents cabinet? Seeing as that puts him in the line of succession and he can't legally hold the job since he can't (Due to term limits) hold the office again.

Or is there something I'm missing there?

There have been presidential cabinet members previously (and currently, I think) who are not qualified for the presidency. In that event, the line of succession simply passes over that person to the next in line. Madeline Albright, for instance was not a natural-born citizen, and could never have assumed the office of the presidency.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2008-01-08 08:06pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:On Bill Clinton
Am I missing something here? But since Bill Clinton is a two term president he can't be on ANY Presidents cabinet? Seeing as that puts him in the line of succession and he can't legally hold the job since he can't (Due to term limits) hold the office again.

Or is there something I'm missing there?
There have been presidential cabinet members previously (and currently, I think) who are not qualified for the presidency. In that event, the line of succession simply passes over that person to the next in line. Madeline Albright, for instance was not a natural-born citizen, and could never have assumed the office of the presidency.

Indeed. Only the Vice President is constitutionally required to meet the same minimum requirements as the President.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2008-01-08 08:11pm

Mr Bean wrote:On Bill Clinton
Am I missing something here? But since Bill Clinton is a two term president he can't be on ANY Presidents cabinet? Seeing as that puts him in the line of succession and he can't legally hold the job since he can't (Due to term limits) hold the office again.

Or is there something I'm missing there?

Strictly speaking, isn't the two-term limit for elected presidencies? Here's the relevant text:

Amendment XXII wrote:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

It seems to me that although Slick Willy can't be elected again, nothing appears to be in the way of his holding any other office, including VP. Am I misreading this?

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2008-01-08 08:12pm

Doh! Can someone with the requisite permissions please amend my shitty quote tags?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2008-01-08 08:22pm

Stuart wrote:The tears, by the way, are probably genuine. HRC is a rabid control freak and completely self-centered. Her response when something doesn't go exactly according to plan is either an outbreak of screaming fury (there are rumors that when WJC was President, his Secret Service bodyguards actually had to pull her off him - it was the real claws-to-the-eyes time) or hysterical weeping from frustration.

Was it over Lewinsky? Or was it over something else? I wasn't at all surprised to think that she wasn't faking her tears recently (although as others have pointed out, probably not for the reason she was attempting to convey) but from what you've said I wouldn't be surprised if she had an episode after her ridiculous health-care plan crashed and burned.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-01-08 08:31pm

He can't be elected VP but the other flip side is that the Presidential succession law (Title 3, chap 1, Sec 19 ) does state that the officer who will occupy the Presidency must qualify as President. The exact meaning of that I can't find but near as I can guess it would include meeting all other requirements for an elected President.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2008-01-08 08:42pm

Stuart wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Stuart- Under what context did you meet her? And, if you shook her hand, did it suck the warmth out of your body?
Senate briefing. I didn't shake her hand but I did notice everybody who did seemed to age suddenly. Also, not a few counted their fingers afterwards.

Yoink.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2008-01-08 08:48pm

Justforfun000 wrote:Can you explain the significance of this to a non-American? Why are these two States such definitive places?

"BAAAH! Oh look, Brand X won rounds 1 and 2 out of this 50 round contest! BAAAH!"

Stuart · Post by **Stuart** » 2008-01-08 09:14pm

Uraniun235 wrote: Was it over Lewinsky? Or was it over something else? I wasn't at all surprised to think that she wasn't faking her tears recently (although as others have pointed out, probably not for the reason she was attempting to convey) but from what you've said I wouldn't be surprised if she had an episode after her ridiculous health-care plan crashed and burned.

No, this was somewhat earlier than that. However, I've also heard that such events were not uncommon, and that the Clinton quarters were quite, ummmm exciting.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-08 09:17pm

Darth Raptor wrote:
Justforfun000 wrote:Can you explain the significance of this to a non-American? Why are these two States such definitive places?
"BAAAH! Oh look, Brand X won rounds 1 and 2 out of this 50 round contest! BAAAH!"

To me, it seems like the excitement over who scores the first touchdown in a Super Bowl game. And of course, whoever scores the first touchdown goes on to win most of the time: a fact which the commentators invariably bring to the audience's attention complete with precise figures and maybe a nice graphic.

Gullible Jones · Post by **Gullible Jones** » 2008-01-09 05:48pm

Well damn it, looks like I was right... The teary moment was calculated and people fell for it by droves. And now she's winning the primaries.

Fuck fuckity fuck fucking fuck.

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2008-01-10 02:24am

The culinary union is the one of the biggest here and the most powerful. Obama also maintains more campaign offices in Nevada, and in particular Las Vegas than any other candidate. Obama and Edwards are the only ones that seem to consistently pronounce the state name properly, a big selling point.

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Presidential candidate Barack Obama has won the support of the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union in Nevada, a coup for the Democrat that could boost his candidacy against Hillary Rodham Clinton in the state's nominating contest.

Leaders of the Culinary Workers Union, Local 226 announced the endorsement at a news conference with members Wednesday, the day after Obama narrowly lost the New Hampshire primary to Clinton.

Culinary secretary-treasurer D. Taylor praised Obama's work with a sister union in Chicago and said the Illinois senator would appeal across the union's diverse ranks. He took a jab at the mostly white electorate that had so far shaped the race in New Hampshire and Iowa.

"We're not just Wonderbread here, we got pumpernickel, we got whole wheat, we got rye. We're excited about that. That's America. That's why Senator Obama excites us and excites the country," Taylor said, following cheers and the union chant "Si se puede."

Obama chanted the English translation, "Yes we can," in his concession speech Tuesday.

The endorsement was on behalf of the Culinary group and its parent union, UNITE HERE. UNITE HERE claims 450,000 active members; its endorsement is Obama's first from a major national union.

"Our organization and our members will do everything in our power to see that he reaches the White House this fall, because we know he will bring working Americans with him," UNITE HERE president Bruce Raynor said.

The move could affect the race in Nevada, where Clinton has long enjoyed solid support from the Democratic establishment and a hefty lead in the polls. Obama has sought support there outside the pool of experienced activists.

The union, representing hotel, restaurant and laundry workers in Nevada's casino industry, is the largest and best organized labor group in the state. It has the potential of steering thousands of voters to the state's Jan. 19 caucus.

"The technology they use is shoe leather," said Ted Jelen, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. "This is an experienced and politically savvy outfit."

The union's skeptics point to its large number of immigrants, roughly 45 percent, and suggest many are not registered to vote. They also note the union has left itself little time to rally its ranks around Obama.

In a sign that Clinton was, at least for now, still in the fight, her Nevada campaign came up with a counterpunch to the Culinary announcement.

Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley, who represents Las Vegas, announced her support of Clinton on a conference call with reporters. She previously said she would stay neutral.

The campaign also announced late Thursday that Clinton would be the first candidate to visit the state after New Hampshire. She was scheduled to campaign in Las Vegas on Thursday. Obama planned a rally with Culinary members on Friday.

Obama also picked up the endorsement of the Nevada chapter of the Service Employees International Union, which voted to endorse him Tuesday.

The unions' decisions are a blow to former Sen. John Edwards, who finished third in New Hampshire and is struggling to prevent a two-person race between Obama and Clinton.

Edwards had attempted to position himself as the labor candidate in a state where nearly two-thirds of Democratic voters are union members.

With labor now split, Edwards is outmanned by the better-funded Obama and Clinton operations. He has not yet run television ads here, while Clinton and Obama have been airing positive, introductory commercials for three weeks.

Aides say Edwards plans to spend most of his time in the next week campaigning in South Carolina, where he was born, ahead of its Jan. 26 Democratic primary.

The role of unions is amplified by the expectation that relatively few caucus-goers will show up in Nevada, a previously irrelevant contest that has never played a significant role in picking the nominee. Even among Democrats who say they are engaged in the race, many don't know what a caucus is or why Nevada's matters.

State party officials and campaigns are not expecting more than 10 percent of registered Democrats, around 45,000 people, to participate.

Awareness is even spottier on the Republican side. The Nevada Republican Party's caucus has been overshadowed by the primary in South Carolina, which shares the Jan. 19 date. The GOP field has given Nevada little attention.

Clinton has visited the state eight times, Obama 10.

Link

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2008-01-10 02:30am

Gullible Jones wrote:Well damn it, looks like I was right... The teary moment was calculated and people fell for it by droves. And now she's winning the primaries.

Fuck fuckity fuck fucking fuck.

Don't despair. Look, more people are hearing about that by now, and it'll probably scare her off of doing it again. I wouldn't begrudge her a single gutpunch, and expending your 'gender card' this early on is fine.

The point isn't that "lol hilary is evil" or anything, since this is very normal politics, it's just that gender politics is messy. It's just that the N.H. women's voter crowd bought into it, and a good amount of other influential women did too, which shows an over-readiness to fall in behind a woman merely because she is a woman.

So 'winning the primaries' is a long way off. Hillary still needs to prove she'll do more than get the democratic vote--as anyone would vote for their own party versus anyone the republicans field (besides McCain) but siphoning off the independants and fringe republicans for the Democrats and building a more lasting coalition government is a big goal that Obama still seems a shot at doing. I wouldn't put it past the Democratic heads to go "you know, seems about an even shot either way with our party, but the independants go huge for this guy. I think we gotta give it to him." Doing it otherwise would be strange.

So this one tiny little contrary state hasn't destroyed Democracy. She was ALWAYS winning the primary, anyway. Any leads Obama takes are new rather unprecedented--she used to have leads of 10-20 across the board. Plus, Hillary is pretty weak in huge rallies, which is what we have since now. Maybe she'll really get a new sort of 'voice' and compete with Obama for that--but if so, that'd be a good thing. If she wins fair and square, then that's fantastic, as we now have a better candidate for it. Either way, there's life in the race, and so long as more people in the future don't vote for a charade, we should be okay.

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2008-01-10 02:32am

bloody hell wrong thread.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2008-01-10 02:40am

ghetto addition:

Shelly Berkley is now supporting Hillary? Honestly, I really dislike this, why not Stanny Berkley or some other random dude? Why not, like, a hispanic guy or something? I don't know for sure, but from her picture she seems as Wonderbread as me (though with a healthier tan in some pictures) and also fought against the Yucca Mountain facility, which means she may be another anti-nuclear energy roadblock.

It's really aggrivating to me, anyway. It just seems... somewhat disenfranchising to have a candidate so monolithicially female endorsed. That may be just a ridiculous feeling, but I hope it's just random happenstance. I want to see more of Wes Clark and other guys stumping for Hillary.