WWTBAM Bored

I saw parts of it, but there were a lot of interruptions.

I heard someone comment about how it looked like Bill couldn't hide that he knew the score.

To me, the most important face on the screen was Chelsea. She wasn't quite able to hide that she was on the verge of sobbing.

I think that they won't be pissing me off anymore now.

What a relief.

The stories I read say she is staying in the race.

Skoop, I too thought he was reporting real news.

Bad Travis. Very bad Travis!!!!

Okay, maybe not as bad has he has been in other ways, but.....

Bad Travis!

Well, I didn't mean to suggest that she had done it overtly.

Please start over, and say this in some other way, because I do not understand.

She was conceding what exactly?

She will not be irritating you why?

Or, we can let it be that I do not understand, and that's fine too.

She asked for more money. I don't think that she will be quitting soon.

I'm watching MSNBC live right now. Commentators are referring to Hillary's speech as a "concession speech." She has cancelled her TV appearances that had been previously scheduled for tomorrow. The analysts say that she is staying officially in the race only for the fund raising angle, because she and her husband have loaned several million to her campaign and they want to get that repaid to themselves.

I have no opinion on this. I missed most of tonight's coverage and didn't see Hillary's speech. I'm just reporting what's on my TV.

It didn't seem like a concession speech to me at all. I watched it live on CNN.

Her campaign sent me a note and it didn't seem like a concession note either.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:It didn't seem like a concession speech to me at all. I watched it live on CNN.

Her campaign sent me a note and it didn't seem like a concession note either.

From what I heard about it, she wasn't giving in at all - and news reports this morning have her in West Virginia campaigning today.

earendel wrote:

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:It didn't seem like a concession speech to me at all. I watched it live on CNN.

Her campaign sent me a note and it didn't seem like a concession note either.

From what I heard about it, she wasn't giving in at all - and news reports this morning have her in West Virginia campaigning today.

I watched it live - the best descirption I heard was that it was two speeches - we're going to soldier on followed by "we" need to do what is right and make a Democrat wins the White House.

I wouldn't use the word concession - but I felt there was more acknowledgement that the war is ever than I have seen before.

I read a report that she cancelled her appearances in WV today. I'll see if there is any more confimation of that.

I don't see her going away any time soon.

I do like that Obama is campaigning against McCain now - not her. That is a very smart move.

peacock2121 wrote:I don't see her going away any time soon.

I think her money problems may make her a little less active for the remainder of the campaign - but she clearly will win KY and WV and keep the race close enough that the superdelegates make the difference.

She'll keep her delegates to the convention on the chance that there is a blow-up in the Obama campaign that forces a bunch of superdelagates to switch and make a difference.

gotribego26 wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:I don't see her going away any time soon.

I think her money problems may make her a little less active for the remainder of the campaign - but she clearly will win KY and WV and keep the race close enough that the superdelegates make the difference.

She'll keep her delegates to the convention on the chance that there is a blow-up in the Obama campaign that forces a bunch of superdelagates to switch and make a difference.

I am wondering if the superdelagates are in pig heaven. I am wondering if being this important and sought after and 'in control' is a power trip like no other.

peacock2121 wrote:

gotribego26 wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:I don't see her going away any time soon.

I think her money problems may make her a little less active for the remainder of the campaign - but she clearly will win KY and WV and keep the race close enough that the superdelegates make the difference.

She'll keep her delegates to the convention on the chance that there is a blow-up in the Obama campaign that forces a bunch of superdelagates to switch and make a difference.

I am wondering if the superdelagates are in pig heaven. I am wondering if being this important and sought after and 'in control' is a power trip like no other.

Possibly. But it also might be very scary, considering the possibility that whichever way they go the other side's supporters will be disaffected and either sit home on Election Day or even vote for McCain (as SSS has said he will do).

All the talking heads I saw last night said that it was over, and NBC's political wonk said that even if the Michigan and Florida delegations are seated, she's still 60 delegates and 200,000 popular votes behind.

nitrah55 wrote:All the talking heads I saw last night said that it was over, and NBC's political wonk said that even if the Michigan and Florida delegations are seated, she's still 60 delegates and 200,000 popular votes behind.

As one commentator (I forget who) pointed out-Obama's 200,000 lead is entirely (and only) from Cook County as he won that county by more than that.

earendel wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:

gotribego26 wrote: I think her money problems may make her a little less active for the remainder of the campaign - but she clearly will win KY and WV and keep the race close enough that the superdelegates make the difference.

She'll keep her delegates to the convention on the chance that there is a blow-up in the Obama campaign that forces a bunch of superdelagates to switch and make a difference.

I am wondering if the superdelagates are in pig heaven. I am wondering if being this important and sought after and 'in control' is a power trip like no other.

Possibly. But it also might be very scary, considering the possibility that whichever way they go the other side's supporters will be disaffected and either sit home on Election Day or even vote for McCain (as SSS has said he will do).

My girls asked me what I would do if she wasn't nominated and I don't know. Hold my nose and vote for Obama, not vote, vote for somebody from another party. It's tough.

Right now, I am going to vote for somebody from a third party.

Time will probably make me change my mind, though I am optimistic that she can still do it.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:

earendel wrote:

peacock2121 wrote: I am wondering if the superdelagates are in pig heaven. I am wondering if being this important and sought after and 'in control' is a power trip like no other.

Possibly. But it also might be very scary, considering the possibility that whichever way they go the other side's supporters will be disaffected and either sit home on Election Day or even vote for McCain (as SSS has said he will do).

My girls asked me what I would do if she wasn't nominated and I don't know. Hold my nose and vote for Obama, not vote, vote for somebody from another party. It's tough.

Right now, I am going to vote for somebody from a third party.

Time will probably make me change my mind, though I am optimistic that she can still do it.

I guess it all depends upon what you want the eventual outcome to be. Voting for a third-party candidate is tantamount to giving the Republicans your vote. Although I would prefer to see Clinton as the nominee, the differences in their policies is slim, whereas the differences between either of theirs and McCain's is significant. I'm not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face, as it were.

Ritterskoop wrote:Please start over, and say this in some other way, because I do not understand.

She was conceding what exactly?

She will not be irritating you why?

Or, we can let it be that I do not understand, and that's fine too.

I wasn't paying much attention to what she was saying, but quite a bit to how she was saying it, and to Bill and Chelsea. There was a real powerful signal of resignation from all three, I thought.

I don't think that she (and Bill) will be irritating me because I think that we'll see a dramatic shift in their tone.

peacock2121 wrote:

gotribego26 wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:I don't see her going away any time soon.

I think her money problems may make her a little less active for the remainder of the campaign - but she clearly will win KY and WV and keep the race close enough that the superdelegates make the difference.

She'll keep her delegates to the convention on the chance that there is a blow-up in the Obama campaign that forces a bunch of superdelagates to switch and make a difference.

I am wondering if the superdelagates are in pig heaven. I am wondering if being this important and sought after and 'in control' is a power trip like no other.

I've met five of Colorado's, and only one seems to be in pig heaven. CO party first vice-chair and DNC member Dan Slater has pledged to Obama and seems . . . well, like he's in pig heaven.

CO Dem chair Pat Waak seems resigned and wanting it to be over so she can get everybody to focus on the national convention. Salazar y Salazar are remaining neutral and insisting that the people will decide before it comes to them. Gov. Ritter looked to me like he was wishing he'd never been named, but that's based only a very brief local appearance when he had other things on his mind -- like running the state.

Contrast her body language last night to her energy throughout the last two weeks.

It was gone. This was one very deflated candidate. Bill Clinton seemed extremely distracted, too. Not clapping at appropriate times, etc.

I think the middle of the speech was concilliatory almost to the point of concession. A response to the olive branch that Obama had held out in his speech,

I think it goes until May 20. Kentucky and Oregon.

Each candidate wins a state that day -- he'll have the majority of pledged delegates, even if Michigan and Florida are seated and she goes out on a winning note, having won WV and Kentucky at the end.

On Michigan and Florida - work it out, seat the delegates.

I am leaning toward seating Florida (where everyone WAS on the ballot, although not actively campaigning) as is.

Michigan is stickier as she was on the only one on the ballot. (Any one of US on this Bored could be a major party candidate if no one else is on the ballot ).

Perhaps they could seat Michigan's delegates as a 55-45 split. Which isn't exactly fair, either because there's no guarantee that Obama wouldn't have either done better or won Michigan if he had been on the ballot.

But, as HRC has reminded us over the last month, maybe the pledged delegates don't have to stay pledged to the person to whom they are pledged.

One side note -- lost in all of this is something that, if I were John McCain, I'd be somewhat worried about.

Lots of Republican votes. For candidates other than John McCain.

It was 27 percent in Pennsylvania and something similar last night.

Mike Huckabee, a man who hadn't been in the race for weeks, got 11 percent in Pennsylvania. Ron Paul got 17 percent.

That means people took the time and effort to face long lines at the polls to vote for someone other than the presumptive nominee of his party. Who cannot crack 80 percent of the vote.

If Bob Barr gets into this race, it will hurt McCain more than mixing up any ethnic groups or commenting that the economy isn't his strong point.

earendel wrote:

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:

earendel wrote: Possibly. But it also might be very scary, considering the possibility that whichever way they go the other side's supporters will be disaffected and either sit home on Election Day or even vote for McCain (as SSS has said he will do).

My girls asked me what I would do if she wasn't nominated and I don't know. Hold my nose and vote for Obama, not vote, vote for somebody from another party. It's tough.

Right now, I am going to vote for somebody from a third party.

Time will probably make me change my mind, though I am optimistic that she can still do it.

I guess it all depends upon what you want the eventual outcome to be. Voting for a third-party candidate is tantamount to giving the Republicans your vote. Although I would prefer to see Clinton as the nominee, the differences in their policies is slim, whereas the differences between either of theirs and McCain's is significant. I'm not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face, as it were.

The Democratic nominee will win in California, so it doesn't matter who I vote for.

peacock2121 wrote:I am wondering if the superdelegates are in pig heaven. I am wondering if being this important and sought after and 'in control' is a power trip like no other.

I suspect for those in public office, it's just the opposite. Superdelegates have been those folks who are party mavens but aren't themselves named as delegates. Many are senators, governors, and other major state officials. They had no real desire or interest in actually making a decision, figuring they'd just appear at the convention to shake hands, schmooze and generally hang out with the other party officials. Now that they are being forced to make a decision, they're either saying they'll vote the way their state did (i.e., "I don't have to think for myself" or "I'm gutless"), or are officially undeclared, hoping and praying that things are resolved before the convention. Voting their actual convictions and explaining the decision to their constituents seems beyond their capabilities or desires.

The lower echelon of superdelegates, the union bosses, state party officials, local organizers, lobbyists, etc., probably are enjoying the attention. It lets them get their own agendas to the fore.

mellytu74 wrote:If Bob Barr gets into this race, it will hurt McCain more than mixing up any ethnic groups or commenting that the economy isn't his strong point.

I had to google him. Former congressman from Georgia, now seeking the Libertarian nomination? How would he have more of an effect than any other Libertarian nominee?

MarleysGh0st wrote:

mellytu74 wrote:If Bob Barr gets into this race, it will hurt McCain more than mixing up any ethnic groups or commenting that the economy isn't his strong point.

I had to google him. Former congressman from Georgia, now seeking the Libertarian nomination? How would he have more of an effect than any other Libertarian nominee?

People outside of his immediate family have heard of him.