NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an
event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law
school in the early 1970s.
Penn Rhodeen, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up,
leading Clinton's eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her
left eye. At the time, Rhodeen was saying how proud he was that the
sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now
running for president.
"Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path," Clinton said with emotion after the introduction.
Clinton is holding a roundtable discussion with Connecticut women to talk about childcare and healthcare.
When Clinton got misty-eyed at an event in New Hampshire on Jan. 7,
politicos and pundits filled hours discussing if it helped her, and
Clinton eventually pointed to the moment as when she "found her voice"
and turned the corner in the Granite State.
At the time, there was much debate if the candidate's emotional
response to a question -- "How do you do it?"" -- was genuine or
calculated.
Well Mav, If Obama is garnering votes for his color, Hillary is getting for her gender and glamor ('cleavage') too hahaha. Not all Americans are smart enough to comprehend who stands better than who. Obama has been trying to stand as a transcendent figure but people still label him as a predominant 'black' leader. Can't do much to stubborn prejudices. It's a part and parcel of politics--doesn't matter who started the game, a dirty game is still a dirty game.
Obama is a big time underdog in this race and it amazes me why the so called favorites are doing more of the crying when all they needed to do, if they had some balls, was to sit back and relax haha. Just goes to show how dark the underdog horse is, no?
To all Obama supports who think that super delegate’s idea is bad. Let me tell you something. The superD rule has been in Democratic party long before Obama and Hillary were running for president.This rule was not implied just this year to help Hillary win the nomination.And didn’t Obama say he plays by the rule and delegates from MI and FL should not be seated.Well if you really want to play by the rule than play it 100%.If super delegates were not to be counted than lets count the real vote from normal folks who voted in MI and FL.Let me guess, ohh again that will be against the rule right.You know you can’t have it all your way.And I like what Bob is saying.Anybody can Cut and paste from NY times or quote from political pundit.Lets share our idea here….
HAHAHA...
jonny jonny, yes papa
eating sugar, no papa
telling lies? yes papa HAHAHA... j/k.
jonny,
why are all Hillary supporters getting infuriated now? The heat of
another prospective clean sweep day is perhaps too much to bear?
hahaha... The superdelegates have the preemptive right to decide whom
they want to pick as the candidate. Why are you guys already worried?
No one's playing against the rule here. It's just that they have to
make sure that if they do NOT go by the notion of the majority of
popular choice, they don't end up paying price to the republicans in
the November election.
हुन त, "कागलाई बेल पाक्यो, हर्ष न बिष्मात" भने झैं, अमरिकाने चुनावले आफूलाई के नै हुने हो र? न त यहाँको नागरिकता लिने ईच्छा नै कहिले राखें, न कहिले राख्ने नै छु। तै पनि...
Having lived in this country for almost two decades now, I can hardly remain disaffected by all the hoop-la(s) that has been surrounding the 2008 US electoral process, particularly when there are two candidates who capture my interest keenly. Yes, Hillary and Obama, to name them -- I consider myself staunchly liberal on social issues, and find myself grieving for the poor more than cherish the rich -- that I can never imagine supporting a Republican cause.
At first, it was a dilemma, like, I suppose, it was for many. It was about time the US populace proved to the rest of the world that this supposedly "greatest democracy on earth" is ready and willing to elect a minority as a president. But, I really didn't like the way it came about, the choice, that is. An African-American vs. a woman? Not only they merely represented the respective minorities, but were both highly appreciable in terms of their respective capacities to lead the world.
In the beginning, I told myself, "Look at it this way: They are both well qualified, of course, but if I had to make a choice based on my urge to see a minority be elected President, Obama is only half-black, whereas Hillary is full-woman. So, go for HER!" Grudgingly, I did so, and even began to question Obama's "exprience," despite his flambouyant, charismatic, and unwittingly inspiring speeches.
South Carolina did it for me. The turn-around, that is. What the SC juncture in the Democratic primary proved to me was that Hillary is perhaps just another white male trapped in a woman's body. "White male" in a sense that she represented the status-quo -- nothing against white men in a literal sense. After the SC primaries, she, along with her hubby Bill -- whom I had a lot of respect for until then -- came out as cunning, pushy, arrogant...well, you name them...the typical "I-want-it-at-any-cost," cocky, ready-to-cut-throat, corporate types. Since then, I have been all for Obama. And since then, I have gone through a profound realization of yet another key reason to support him.
People have been criticizing Obama for his lack of experience. I see the greatest opportunity for America (in him) right there! In the matters of leading a country, experience should count for little, I believe. The more "experienced" one is in politics, the more likely that that person would have been completely soaked by the status quo that s/he would find it extremely difficult to come out dry, despite his/her best of intentions. Hillary proved it. What matters to me in politics (much more than "experience") are: VISION, and the SKILLS to carry out the former. Skills do not necessarily require experience -- some are simply born with it. I see in Obama both, profoundly ingratiated with the urge to "TRANSFORM", another impeccable need to fulfill the qualities of the leader.
Change is what America needs, like any other progressive country would. Status-quo obviously stales the raison-d'etre of any nation in due time, and America has been so since, perhaps, the times of JFK. Over four decades is too long to wait, and the real opportunity, which are rare to come by, to change course stands before her now. And looks like Americans are grabbing it gradually. Good for them!
Still doubting Obama's capacity to be different? Consider this now: He is not only half-Black, but half-White too! And only a second-generation immigrant. Christian-convert (born Muslim). He's everything Hillary can never be; and Hillary is everything a White-man-run-establishment is, except that she's a...err...woman. Most importantly, he's "inexperienced" Washingtonian -- perhaps "experienced" just perfectly enough to realize the misfortunes of the status quo. And from the way he's been managing his few years as a Senator, and the way he's managing his campaign thus far, it seems he is good at it.
VISION, and the WILLINGNESS to transform, coupled with acceptable SKILL of managment. That's all America needs now. And that's all Obama's got!
शायद शुरुमा उल्लेख गरिएको उखान असान्दर्भिक भयो होला यति लेखुन्जेल। जे जति मनसाय पोखें, आफ्नै देशमा नि भईदिए हुने भन्ने भित्री ईच्छा पोखिएको पो हो कि ओबामा को समर्थन गर्दा गर्दै?
The word CHANGE is very good to listen, but perhaps is very hard to TRANSPIRE. I don't see material difference between OBAMA's CHANGE and that of HILLARY!
I voted and here's my experience and humble suggestions to all our future Nepali voters:
If you're in a caucuses state (some 30+ of them are), don't bother voting (that is if you are eligible to vote) in the primary, cause your vote doesn't count. You cannot join the caucuses either, so you're F**K anyway. I don't care who wins now, I'm joining some of the grass root organization who're raising their voices to abolish primary completly from democratic party's race. Good luck with election and remember that in most state, candidate does NOT win nomination by majority of votes. Few people with ties elect them.
It all up to the Democratic Convention and the Super D's now I guess. From what the experts are saying even if they sweep all the states they won't have enough delegates to win the nominations. But we have yet to see if they(Super Delegates) will heed to people's choice or make some backroom deal to pick their Democratic Nomination. And if they choose to make some backroom deal instead of listening to the people choice, then McCain might win the general Election come November. So its still up in the air.
Democratic Super Delegates Guided By Voters, Not Backroom Deals
Heidi Przybyla and Catherine Dodge
Feb. 14 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro hosted a meeting in her Washington home last night to recruit super delegates for Barack Obama. The Connecticut Democrat was preparing for a big turnout.
With Obama reeling off eight straight victories in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, DeLauro and other backers of the Illinois senator say they see a chance to bring more of those delegates into his camp.
``They're going to be looking at the will of the people that they represent,'' said DeLauro.
Some Obama supporters have voiced concern that the super delegates -- party officials and lawmakers who can vote however they want for the nominee -- may tilt the election in favor of Hillary Clinton if neither candidate wins the 2,025 delegates needed for the nomination. Conversations with party officials and an informal survey of the delegates show it's more likely they'll get behind the candidate who wins the most votes.
The 796 super delegates are all politicians, House Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is neutral, said in an interview, and ``they'll be sensitive to the public will.''
Added Ray Buckley, an uncommitted super delegate from New Hampshire and the state party chairman, ``When something breaks, you'll see the natural movement'' toward one candidate.
Clinton, 60, out-organized Obama, 46, in reaching out early to the super delegates. According to an Associated Press tally on Feb. 10, she leads him 243 to 156, although estimates vary widely among various news organizations.
`Long-Time Relationships'
``They've probably been more aggressive,'' said Illinois Representative Jan Schakowsky, who is heading Obama's super- delegate outreach efforts in the House of Representatives. ``They've got Bill Clinton on the phone and calling people who have long-time relationships.''
If Hillary Clinton wins on March 4 in Ohio and Texas, where polls show her leading, and later in Pennsylvania, she would regain the edge, and more super delegates may come her way. If Obama wins one of those states, he'll cement his front-runner status, and more super delegates will break toward him.
``If Obama manages to win one of those big states and come in very close in the others or win two of them, there's going to be a big call in the Democratic Party for Senator Clinton to step aside,'' said Democratic strategist Jenny Backus, who isn't aligned with either campaign.
Super delegates include all Democrats in Congress, governors, members of the Democratic National Committee and party leaders, a category that can encompass ex-presidents. The delegate class was created following the 1980 election, after many core Democratic groups had been excluded from conventions, especially when George McGovern was nominated in 1972.
20% of Total
This year, super delegates will account for close to 20 percent of the overall vote at the Democratic convention. An unofficial estimate by the independent, non-partisan Web site thegreenpapers.com shows Obama ahead of Clinton in delegates by 1,034 to 955, not including super delegates.
Both campaigns have set up war rooms for a full-court press for delegates, with former Senators Tom Daschle and John Kerry leading the list of callers on Obama's side. Former President Clinton is serving as his wife's chief lobbyist.
Some Democratic National Committee officials like Donna Brazile have voiced concern that super delegates may subvert the will of voters if the race is close enough.
There's ``a growing chorus of concern out there'' about the role of super delegates, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a conference call yesterday. ``We've won 10 more states than Senator Clinton and we've amassed more votes.''
On Their Own
Super delegates like Ruth Rudy, a former Pennsylvania representative who endorsed Clinton, have stoked those fears. ``Super delegates are people who have their own thoughts and ideas on everything,'' she said. ``I don't think they should necessarily abide by what their state did.''
Clinton's aides echo that opinion.
``Super delegates are supposed to vote their conscience,'' said Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist. The campaign's calculations include those delegates, he said. ``We are not making distinctions. We are interested in acquiring the support of delegates. Period.''
Other super delegates are likely to ``keep their powder dry'' until there's a clear favorite, said Mark Siegel, a former Democratic official who helped write the rules for the delegates.
Schakowsky, the Illinois Democrat who acknowledged Clinton has the early advantage in super delegates, said she's not ``wringing my hands'' over it.
``It's at their peril if they put the election in a different direction from the way their voters cast their ballots,'' she said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Heidi Przybyla in Washington, at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net ; Catherine Dodge in Washington, at Cdodge1@bloomberg.net
Super delegates = Caucuses at the state level. Favoritism and nepotism (like in Nepal) literally makes the selection of the candidate, which we know is undemocratic. But if you want to criticize Super Delegate electoral system, then what about the caucuses at the state level? It's done the same way. The whole democratic party system of selecting candidate will eventually fall apart in this election. It's an ancient system that needs to change. There will be war, no mater what. Who will win from all this drama....John McCain.
I am getting more confident for Obama. Even if Hillary manages to win TX and OH, it's highly unlikely that she will be able to do it with wide enough margins to come on top of Obama in the number of pledged delegates. The race is getting away from Hillary. Unless some biggest turn of events happen, this is going in Obama's favor.
I have this feeling that Obama is gonna win OH and Hillary will win TX (55-45), in which case Obama will have a decent lead in the delegates. I don't think they're going to go all the way to the August convention. The superdelegates will have to, at the end of it, think of the Party's goal (win against republicans) and that's why they will go with the public choice.
McCain has slowly started attacking Obama's campaign. There is some sign of nerves on their part as well, which proves Obama and his campaign's building up strength.
Obama/Hillary '08 looks clearer and rational to me at this stage :D
Obama clearly is in a better position now. Clinton has to hope for some sort of miracle to catch up with the lead of 135+ pledged delegates. If the superdelegates decide to overturn people's choice, then the Democratic Party will be in disarray for years to come!
Obama/Clinton ticket is not going to happen. There are some fundamental differences between the two candidates. Instead, two likely candidates that have often been discussed in media to be on Obama's ticket, should he win the nomination, are Kansas Governor and Arizona Governor, both females.
Here is an interesting quote from the Washington Post that argues what the Clinton nomination, at this point, could mean. Its better for her to bow out gracefully now and do great things on the Senate floor.
"Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination -- and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules."
And then there is the NYT, repenting over its not-so-glorious endorsement a few weeks ago and now calling on Clintons to release their tax returns. They are basically saying unless she releases her tax returns, people should not vote for her. Un-endorsement, may be??
Last time I checked you still need 2,025 delegate to win the nomination which both are not going to get.So no matter what happens there will be controversy regarding the nomination.And why is it that every media and poltical pundits are talking like these Super delegate rule were implied just last month on Hillary’s favor.I don’t understand why Washington post wants Hillary out of the race now.If they think that she is taking on the inspiring young man than what about many other who think her as inspiring Women having a real shot of becoming the first women president. I’m so sick of these media treating Obama like a golden boy and Hillary like a Bully.
absolutely right Jonny. Super D rule has been there for quiet a while, nobody had any problem. Now when there is a chance your candidate might loose all because of Super D, all of a sudden, they want to change it. You cannot change the rule at the 3rd quarter of the SuperBowl (I hear that on the TV). For those who listen to all the BS from the papers and paste it here, if Ron Paul has not quit, what makes you think Hillary should?
Obama wins Wisconsin Primary making it 9 straight losses for Hillary.
Interesting article from Howard Fineman of Newsweek. Don't wanna 'copy/paste' in here as some of you may not entertain the views expressed in it. If you want to read, here's the link:
and it begins - on Day 1 Trump will begin operations to deport millions of undocumented immigrants
Travel Document for TPS (approved)
All the Qatar ailines from Nepal canceled to USA
NOTE: The opinions
here represent the opinions of the individual posters, and not of Sajha.com.
It is not possible for sajha.com to monitor all the postings, since sajha.com merely seeks to provide a cyber location for discussing ideas and concerns related to Nepal and the Nepalis. Please send an email to admin@sajha.com using a valid email address
if you want any posting to be considered for deletion. Your request will be
handled on a one to one basis. Sajha.com is a service please don't abuse it.
- Thanks.
Live Vote
