Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
June 28, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Truthdig Bazaar
Whose Knees Are These?

Whose Knees Are These?

By Jabari Asim

more items

Ear to the Ground
Email this item Print this item

Clinton Wins Pennsylvania

Posted on Apr 22, 2008
Clinton in PA
AP photo / Elise Amendola

D-day: Hillary Clinton greets voters outside a polling station in Conshohocken, Pa., on Tuesday.

Hillary Clinton has scored a big, if expected, victory in Pennsylvania, a win crucial to her big-state argument to superdelegates. According to exit data, Obama won over new voters while Clinton appealed to those who made up their minds in the aftermath of the ABC debate. Clinton needed a double-digit win and she nearly achieved that, beating Obama by 9.2 points.

Update: Media reports originally put Clinton’s lead at 10 points, which is how we reported it, however the Pennsylvania Department of State says the difference was 9.2 points. What that means and whether it matters is now open for debate.

Next up it’s North Carolina, a state Obama is expected to win handily, and Indiana, the next true battleground. Both states hold their primaries on May 6th.


One out of every seven Democratic party voters was not registered as a Democrat at the beginning of the year, and 60 percent of them cast their ballot for Obama, according to the exit polls.

Clinton fared better with voters who made up their mind in the last week, the exit polls showed.

Fifty-eight percent of those voters said they chose the New York senator. That includes voters who made up their mind in the aftermath of last week’s heated Democratic debate.

Read more

Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile
Watch a selection of Wibbitz videos based on Truthdig stories:

Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 24, 2008 at 6:24 am Link to this comment

Penn has always been a good old boy repug state, may answer your question.

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment

Even with all of these ‘broken machines’ she still couldn’t do better than a 9.2 ‘win’?

These people disgust me, and what the hell is wrong with Congress? Then again, I guess we know by now that it’s up to the States to do this stuff.

We had a big ta do over this in California, because the Repugs were planning the cheating operation long ago. Got rid of the machines though, and got back to the good old fashioned paper trail. This is just another one of those things where only the old fashioned will do.

Thing is, leaving it up to some states means that nothing gets done. Some states either can’t afford it, or don’t know any better, or are already committed to cheating.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment


Let’s get this right you believe Obama will not have a chance against McCain?  So we should support Hillary because she will defeat McCain?  How come the republicans, which I believe includes you are supporting Hillary?  Maybe she offers more of what they want or they believe she will not win against McCain so what?

In my case I do not see any difference between McCain, Hillary and Bush.  So your argument or point will never make sense and if your are right it will make little difference in the scheme of things anyway.

Report this

By bert, April 23, 2008 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

Altara says:      “So the claim that Obama can’t win the big states is nonsense. He can and he will. “

Not true. From the New Republic

The New Republic
The Next McGovern? by John B. Judis
Obama may still get the nomination, but his loss tonight deals a harsh blow to his electibility arguments.
Post Date Wednesday, April 23, 2008


“For his part, Obama cut into Clinton’s advantage, but couldn’t erase it. Even though he campaigned extensively among white working class Pennsylvanians, he still couldn’t crack this constituency. He lost every white working class county in the state. He lost greater Pittsburgh area by 61 to 39 percent. He did poorly among Catholics—losing them 71 to 29 percent. A Democrat can’t win Pennsylvania in the fall without these voters. And those who didn’t vote in the primary but will vote in the general election are likely to be even less amenable to Obama.
But Obama also lost ground among the upscale white professionals that had helped him win states like Wisconsin, Maryland, and Virginia. For instance, Obama won my own Montgomery County, Maryland by 55 to 43 percent but he lost suburban Philadelphia’s very similar Montgomery County by 51 to 49 percent to Clinton. He lost upscale arty Bucks County by 62 to 38 percent.


Indeed, if you look at Obama’s vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the ‘70s and ‘80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State’s Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.”

There are even some polls now that show Obama losing MA to McCain in November. That is very bad news.

As I have said before on TD: Obama08 = McGovern72 - MA.

Report this

By bert, April 23, 2008 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment

Obama supporters here on TD prefer to not hear the truth and shut it out via the echo chanber they have going among themselves. This echo chamber is so loud it drowns out any other vuew point or fact. I could post the results and analysis of what really happened yesterday, including the fact that based on voting patterns it looks like Obama is becoming the 2008 version of George MCGovern. And I have pointed that out on more than a few occasion myself.

But why take the time and effort when the echo chamber wil drown out anything you say, discount it as lies, and call you racist and other vile names? Let them live in their delusional world. I prefer not to be sucked into it. I prefer to live in reality.

Report this

By jbart, April 23, 2008 at 4:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

With the “results” in PA. now “verified” I’m left with a couple of questions.
#1 - Why is the “machine” malfunctions primarily occuring in Afro-American communities/districts? A statistical anomoly?  Yeah, right !!
#2 - Why is there a disparity between states with primarily “paperless” voting and those with manual/historic voting processes?  Are there statistical correlations with “Big State” victories and the voting processes employed in those “Big States”?
Doesn’t it just “reek” of the Repugs and “status quo” voter results? What can we, Americans who truly love our country, do to stop this crap, short of armed revolution? I’d appreciate input/response from any of you same-minded Americans. Those close-minded “same old/same old” are not welcomed to this request, however.  You’ve already, through your steadfast ignorance lost the right, at least to me, to offer your moronic opinion.  That’s to me, or any thinking American. You earn the right through your decisions and, without truly caring, you also lose it.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 23, 2008 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

She “needed” a double digit win, but 9.2 is close enough, right?  There are, after all, two digits in 9.2.

She really needed to win by like 20, but i’m assuming that the Clinton camp is spinning this as some kind of comeback/mandate win.

Onward Clinton soldiers…only you can save America from itself.

Report this

By Gmonst, April 23, 2008 at 3:07 pm Link to this comment

Some good points Cyrena.  I think Obama is going to be just fine, and he’s not loosing. Hillary needs to win bigger than she did last night in all the rest of the contests just to cut Obama’s pledged delegate lead to under 100. Its not going to happen.  She won’t even win all the remaining contests, let alone with bigger margins than last night.  He will win the nomination.    In his speech last night he didn’t really talk about Hillary at all but went strongly at McCain.  I think thats a good strategy at this point, as it shows the undecided superdelegates how tough of a candidate he will be against McCain this fall.  I don’t think he is anywhere weak enough for the superdelegates to override the voters.  Hillary has thrown everything she has at him and he is still there and still winning.

Report this

By SMS67, April 23, 2008 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The PA Department of State’s unofficial numbers as of today, 04/23/08 are 54.3/45.7%, indicating an 8.6% difference. Even with generally accepted rounding rules, it seems the reporting should be: 54/46% with a 9% difference not a “huge double-digit win”. Please report accurately. Thank you.

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

Who’s ‘losing’?

Sore losers? I’m not sure Obama or his supporters even ARE losers, not in Pennsylvania, and certainly not in the big picture.

The ‘win’ is to be determined by pledged and so-called “super” DELEGATES, right? I mean, that hasn’t changed since yesterday has it? So yesterday, Clinton won more delegates than Obama, (I don’t know the exact breakdown).

Now, Clinton was holding a 20 point lead in that state from very early on, which stayed relatively consistent until about 6 weeks ago. She ended up winning by a 10 point lead, and that’s taking into account the suspected cheating. (‘problems’ as usual – with the voting machines in African-American communities. No surprises there).

But, is that really a loss? I guess it depends on how we look at it, but I’m looking at it like Clinton is still WAY behind in terms of delegates needed to win the nomination, and I’m pretty impressed by the fact that Obama narrowed that lead.

So, what we call a ‘win’ might indeed be a ‘win’. I’ll go along with that, without being the least bit ‘sore’. But, remember what Hillary’s team has consistently claimed about ‘winning’ Texas? Except of course that she DIDN’T, because Obama came away with more delegates?

Be careful of the semantics here, as the last of the contests unfold. She’s not likely to ‘win’ Indiana either, or at least not any more than she ‘won’ Arizona, (2 more delegates than Obama). I don’t know about West Virginia, who may very well vote along the lines of Pennsylvania. I would expect that to be a Hillary win, just as Arkansas was.

Puerto Rico? Another guess there, even though I know they firmly detest Dick Bush there. Still, I don’t know if the collective wisdom in Puerto Rico is aware of the incestuous relationship between the Clinton’s and the Bushes, and how closely aligned Hillary’s war hawk status is to the Bush-McCain ideology. So, that just depends. Guam? My guess would be Obama. Now we’re still l waiting on Oregon as well. ? I’m guessing Obama to the rescue there as well. Did I miss anybody?

So for the only figures that matter, tell me again who the sore losers are?

Report this

By Louise, April 23, 2008 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment

Talk about shades of a republican controlled election! Same ol same ol. What a noxious situation! Only THIS TIME, it’s NOT a republican! Which leads me to wonder ... how come the republicans WANT Hillary to win the nomination so bad, they’re willing to fix it? Well maybe they believe Hillary will be easier to defeat than Obama ... huh?
Think about it!


“Morning Joe and Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC have reported twice this morning that the exit polls in PA at 5pm yesterday showed that Sen. Obama would win by 5% yesterday. Joe says the exit polls were off by 15%! Andrea verified this.”

“Breaking: Andrea Mitchell already reported bad news from inside Clinton camp!!! “

by Hope Monger
Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:16:22 PM PDT

“She just said the Clinton camp has known for two hours!!! SHE WILL NOT HAVE THE VICTORY SHE NEEDED!!! And she also said, the campaign is out of money!”


Wow, it’s almost like watching a re-run of that last presidential election. And the one before. Lesson here folks ... whatever do you suppose it is?


“Machines malfunctioning”

“Readers and Inquirer reporters attempting to cast ballots this morning found long lines across the region created by broken machines.”

“One of two machines was down at a busy Delaware County polling site.  About 50 people already had voted by 9:15 a.m. at the Temple Israel on Spruce and Bywood Avenue in Upper Darby, which is heavily populated by immigrant and first time voters. Many of those freshly-minted voters had difficulties using the one machine that still functioned. “Hell of a day for one of the machines to be down,” said one poll worker.”

[Like it was working just great yesterday!? Duh. How come the machines ALWAYS malfunction on election day? Of ALL days!]

“In South Philadelphia, both voting machines were broken at 4th and Ritner, smack dab in the middle of a John Dougherty strong hold. “The dirty tricks have begun,” said Frank Keel, spokesman for the Dougherty campaign, who sees a conspiracy. “Democratic State Rep. candidate Christian DiCicco is the poll watcher,” Keel said. “Coincidence? We don’t think so.”

“One reader wrote: I got to my polling place before 7 a.m.; 2nd ward, 27th division: as the polls were opening, one of two machines for my division was malfunctioning: electrical problem.  Hmmmm….isn’t Dougherty an electrician?”   

“In the city’s Spring Garden section, home to State Sen. Vincent Fumo, both machines were down at St. Andrews Lithuananian Church at 19th and Wallace. Voters grumbled when they learned their provisional ballots would not be counted tonight.”

And for the stubborn and the doubting, I hesitate to use the phrase, “It’s a well known fact,” cause facts make repubs get all fidgety and develop a “tic” so I’ll simply say. Vote Fraud, especially electronic vote fraud is a well established FACT. Just because congress chooses not to do anything about it doesn’t alter the reality of it. So it falls to the States, who by the way, all across the country are throwing their electronic voting machines in the garbage ... where they belong!

Forgot to check in with Greg Palast, wonder what his take is on this?

Report this

By Guffy, April 23, 2008 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It seems that with every primary, Hillary makes the same statement time after time after time.  And what is that statement?  I will tell you, but you already know:

“This state is a do or die situation,” along with, “Aides say they will encourage Hillary to pull out of the race if she does not win the __________ (fill in the blank) primary.”

Could it be that some voters are taking the bait and voting for Hillary for no other reason than to keep her in the race, for whatever reason?  Sympathy vote anyone?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

You made this all up, were are the facts?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

Not so strange bed fellows for Hillary. Ultra-conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife a right wing conservative has endorsed Hillary with open arms probably while holding his nose.  Scaife is Using his media to promote a smear campaign against Obama in support of Hillary is interesting, because he used the same tactics against Bill Clinton in the past.  Remember the “slick Willie” adds? 
Not only is Scaife pumping out discrediting Obama adds, they are still discrediting Democrats. Seems Hillary is in good company. 

One can suspect with out much heavy thought, Scaife is using Hillary as a pawn to attack Obama his real target. Don’t you love politics.

Report this

By Aegrus, April 23, 2008 at 8:36 am Link to this comment

The fact is, Lee, you and every Republican/Hillary Supporter have bashed in the same tired talking points since January. None of your concerns have been justified with the facts of reality after Obama won state after state in February.

You need to watch your damn words about the re-votes as well, Lee. I live in Florida, and the majority of the people here wouldn’t let our government have a do-over, and furthermore our government suggested they couldn’t even do a re-vote accurately. and MOREOVER, If the two states were counted as is, the number of delegates to win the nomination would increase as well negating any supposed lead Hillary might get. She’d still be 500,000 behind in popular vote. So quit spinning this stupid and inane talking point Hillary has chosen to take up as some real cause when, for whatever reason, most of our voters didn’t care to vote again.

For the record, I wanted a re-vote. Obama would have gotten huge numbers.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

Obamabot zealots should admit defeat because Lee says so.  Of course being called an Obamabot zealot hurts my feelers and I cannot stand to be called such hateful names. This positive approach to discussion, warms me hart and influences me to accept the cuddly positive Hillary for what she is.

Vocal Obamabot zealots, should sit on their hands and accept the comments of bigots and racists and Hillary as they are the nothing but the truth, for she, Hillary has never said a lie or attacked anyone that did not need be told lies, lied about or did not warrant attacking.

Truth is not an option, for Hillary is to be in the minds of those who love status quo and seek blind truth.

Report this

By Lee, April 23, 2008 at 8:15 am Link to this comment

The Obamabot zealots on this website have consistently disregarded the fact that all along, half of the democrats in America have supported Hillary Clinton. Just because Obama supporters on Truthdig have been more vocal than the Hillary supporters, it does not mean that Obama has already won ... even though they have demanded that Hillary withdraw prematurely. Although Hillary made a mistake by not participating strongly enough in the caucuses, which put Obama in the lead, Hillary has not only won the big states, necessary to defeat McCain, she won them by double digits, and most recently while being out spent 2 or 3 to one. Now, Hillary’s victory is met with conspiracy theories and nasty accusations of all kinds. The simple fact is that Obama does well when he’s been able to rehearse and deliver a prepared speech, but in a debate he falls apart. That’s why he refuses to debate Hillary again. Obama is also afraid of a revote in Michigan and Florida, in fact he blocked such efforts. These kind of tactics are evidence of the fact that Obama will do anything to win, even disenfranchising the votes of millions of Americans.

Report this

By bert, April 23, 2008 at 8:01 am Link to this comment

You write:    “Please tell me as directly and briefly as you can: name one unimpeachable source that provides credible, referenceable, fact-based evidence that suggests fraud was involved in Clinton’s PA win.”

They won’t be able to do that. They don’t care. And when ever some one calls them on it, or asks for proof they say none needed, everyone knows. Of you cite and proff they will say the source is part of the vast right wing conspiracy and therefore not believable. Then they call you racist.They always have a retort. But no substance.

Pretty pathetic isn’t it.

Report this

By Aegrus, April 23, 2008 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

As much as it conflicts with some of the attitude of Obama supporters, I really think this is a good wake up call to Barack’s campaign team to step up and be more consistent with their original message. The only reasons Obama has fell short of what he could claim in this primary are machine politics not wanting to work with Obama supporters and the out-right smearing which put him on a little bit of a defensive.

This is all good, though, because as bad as America needs Obama… we won’t get real change until a candidate is able to stand up to these debased tactics of deception. I have confidence Obama will regain his footing, and seeing how we’re still ahead on real terms.. this is just a small battle in the war for the Presidency.

If Obama can’t debunk this stupidity, then he isn’t doing his job as my candidate. Period. Of course, a little competence in the mainstream media wouldn’t hurt.

Report this

By altara, April 23, 2008 at 7:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary did well. She is a good candidate and would be a good president.

But once again we’ll hear that Obama can’t win the big states, with many electoral votes, and that this win in Pennsylvania proves it. For Pennsylvania, and probably the others, this argument is specious.

In addition to Hillary’s usual 15 year head start, in Pennsylvania Obama faced the formidible Governor Ed Rendell and the Democratic establishment, including the mayors of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and most other cities.

Also, he was not running against John McCain nor any other white male. Hillary benefits considerably from the votes of white women. These women are not going to defect to McCain in the general election. Nor will most other Hillary voters suddenly turn Republican.

So the claim that Obama can’t win the big states is nonsense. He can and he will.

In the larger picture, it of course would be important and beneficial for the United States to elect a competent woman to the presidency. But women have led countries before and such a positive step does not
compare to the prospect of a talented and inspiring black man as leader of the world’s major, largely white country.


Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 23, 2008 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

Blame the messenger all you want but it still doesn’t change the facts.

Clinton had another suspicious win.  She’s a known liar.  She’s aligned herself with the “vast right wing conspiracy”.  She’s already made the comment, “Obama can’t win”. (What was that about..?), She never said a word as they cheated for her in Ohio and Texas.  I also hadn’t heard that scores of people turning out for her stumps in PA, not like they were for Obama’s stumps.  Two and two are not making four here.

So you can call me a sore loser if you want.  I’m getting very accustomed to Lee and yourself (bert) calling me names.  But we’ll see in the end. Remember how the right-wingers all cried and screamed for being called cheaters in Ohio and Texas in 2004, but that also turned out to be true.

I realize there are some stupid people in America.  But, there aren’t enough of them to elect Clinton or McCain in a FAIR election.  Bush either for that matter.  So gloat in your delusion…but don’t worry…, it’s nothing a little dose of reality won’t cure.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 6:31 am Link to this comment

What kind of argument is that supposed to be?  Obama has more money and spent it, if he had ignored Penn and waited for the next state Hillary folks would have been saying look Obama does not care about Penn. 

One other thing, I believe Penn was a hard state, because it may like Texas have a larger number of bigoted folks, I have been their and I would suspect they would vote against their own best interests for many reasons, but not wanting a black president is one which seems possible.

Hillary offers me nothing, but finger nails clawing on a chalk board, sorry that is what I see in her.

Enjoy your so called victory, it is not at my expense, except the incessant sound of finger nails will continue for awhile longer, if she wins, I will become reclusive in order to keep the screech droning sound out of my ears.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 6:16 am Link to this comment

A known win, was a given and expected, so what is the sore loser stuff? I suspect if Hillary was in Obama’s behind by 22 point spread in the beginning of Penn, she would have said the state was not a big state and she would have done light campaigning or ignored them.

Obama, havening been spent time and money in Penn will have a head start for the GE.

Sure, he may have tried to put Hillary away, but the Clintons will never go away, they are like flies on wet cow dung.

Entitlement does not mean Hillary should win, if she does it will be by some special slight of hand, not a fair fight.

If Hillary wins, I have said the Republicans will love it, because than they get a second primary.

Report this

By jbart, April 23, 2008 at 4:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Note the demographics at play here.  Old people and less educated.  Add to that the system’s “same old same old” and you get a victory.  Looks very much like the demographics that put BUSHCO in place, doesn’t it?  Unfortunately for her and the “same old same old”, THIS TIME we win !!! There aren’t enough under-educated and same olds to carry her.  We’re going to take back our country.  We’re “on to” the fear crap and “smoke and mirrors”.  Let’s just keep on keeping on and try to salvage what they, in the last seven years, have damaged, to it’s former state. Let’s get our country on the road to health and stability.

Report this

By bert, April 23, 2008 at 12:01 am Link to this comment

What else would you expect, Lee from this whining set of ungracious losers? And just for good measure they hint at election fraud wihtout offering any proof or a shred of evidence. And she did win big in the PAPER TRAIL state of CA. But I am sure they will find a reason that doesn’t count. You just have to consider what you are delaing with. You know. Kind of brush it off your shoulders and scrape it off your shoes. Know what I mean?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 22, 2008 at 10:43 pm Link to this comment

Re: Lee

Are you POSITIVE it was a fair loss?  I certainly have questions.  You don’t…?  Please tell me you’re not a detective of any kind.  The clues…Lee.  The clues.  They kinda look suspect, don’t you think? 

It seems to me Lee that you are a tad one-sided.  I mean aren’t you the one who “claims” Obama and his pastor are “joined at the hip”?  Yet now.. you’re “claiming” there isn’t anything suspect about Clinton winning states known to have fraudulent elections and now one WITHOUT A PAPER TRAIL.

Lee, your imagination has certainly got the best of you.  Of course there’s reason to suspect this outcome.  Read the writing on the wall, Lee.  This is highly suspect.  Especially after all those stupid comments Clinton made.  Let’s not forget her “meeting” with Scaife, a known right-winger.  This was someone she herself called a part of the “vast right wing conspiracy”.  Or are you calling Clinton a liar?  Of course she did get fired for lying, that’s true.  I just see a foul ball here, Lee.

Report this

By Lee, April 22, 2008 at 10:14 pm Link to this comment

Obama supporters, including the New York Times have been nasty and condescending during the campaign, and now that Hillary won Pennsylvania by double digits, even after Obama out spent her 2 or 3 to one, the Obama supporters are sore losers, just as I expected they would be.

Report this

By KYJurisDoctor, April 22, 2008 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yea, BILLARY Clinton survives another day, but she is merely postponing her eventual political demise!

Report this

By Al Idrisi, April 22, 2008 at 9:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think this brown dude needs to go to hell and let this old cow bring it on to us Muslims. I wanna see a real showdown between Muslims and Jews/Christians and Obama is not the one who will bring it on for sure but the old cow is licking her chops to get into even a bigger and wider war with Muslims, come on bring it on like the dummy Bush says.

Report this

By Kent, April 22, 2008 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is an age and gender fight. 

Clinton’s just so transparent to me that I can’t even see her appeal.  It seems to me that people are choosing her to impossibly recreate what they thought her husband did for eight years, as if the economy was all his doing.  Doesn’t make sense, does it?  Exactly.

I think that Clinton’s either going to lose (as she’s doing even if it’s not discussed on TV) and destroy (as best she can) Obama, or she’s going to snow superdelegates and get the nomination and destroy (as best she can) Obama in the process.  She can always come back in four years and bitch and moan about how unfair life has been to her and add that Obama was too weak to beat McCain.  You watch.  Clinton just channels Karl Rove. 

I won’t vote in November is she’s the nominee and I’ll actively wish for a McCain victory.  Why?  The Clintons need out of our political landscape…and this comes from someone who voted for Bill twice and who’s views would be seen as “liberal.”  Why?  This country needs to grow up (hello youth vote) and see past this crap that passes as politics these days (read:  absolute rhetoric w/o substance).

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 22, 2008 at 8:30 pm Link to this comment

Hillary was supposed to have a 22 percent advantage on Obama two weeks ago, so depending on how it works out, we will see what happens.  If it is below 10 percent I will be happy.  Guess we are doomed to see Hillary and her charming personality for the rest of time.

Sorry I just cannot stand her or her or her ” I never had sex with that women” hubby. 

Seems the debate may have been helpful in bringing Clintons numbers up, but we can second guess until the cows come home, it will not make any difference anyway. 

Dang, I am looking at a photo of Hillary while I type this, is there no end to this nightmare, this is like groundhog day all over again.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 22, 2008 at 7:47 pm Link to this comment

I’m with you on that Louise.  Remember, she won the voter fraud states of Ohio and Texas.  Remember too, how she kept on spewing the “we’ll see what happens in Ohio mantra”. 

I’m not saying she couldn’t get ANY votes, there’s a sucker born every minute…right?

Again, as “luck” would have it, she wins the NO PAPER TRAIL state of Pennsylvania.  Of course, PA was ALSO a make or break state for Clinton.  Now, don’t that beat all.

It’s just too transparent…..I call foul.

Report this

By Jim Yell, April 22, 2008 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I will say again that Hillary is not an honest person and neither is Bill. She feels somehow that the elected office is her entitlement, for what reason—-Being married to Bill? I don’t know, but I do know she shows as much disregard for the voter as Joe Lieberman, a politician that has clearly made it clear that once elected he believes he has the office for life, even if he sells himself to the Republicans to get it.

I would vote for a woman candidate, but this is the wrong candidate and the wrong woman politician.

I have some optimism in Obama and must point out it would be just as extraordinary for a Black man to get elected as it would for a woman. Clinton has been very dishonest in using the gender card in hopes of gaining advantage. In doing this she only proves that she thinks she is owed the office. I don’t think so.

Report this

By Louise, April 22, 2008 at 4:41 pm Link to this comment

Not knowing what the outcome will be, I’ll not comment on that.

Oh what the heck ... yes I will!

Since we’ve been bombarded with daily reports telling us Hillary is ahead in Pennsylvania, it’s pretty clear someone knows something the crystal ball gazers don’t know. And the only someone who could know that would be the guy who sets the electronic vote counters.

Oh no really? Yes, really.

So instead of getting all prophetic, I’ll wait and see. But I do have to note the last couple of day’s campaign stops for Obama have been remarkable! 

I don’t recall ever in my life seeing such huge crowds ... filled a Stadium last night ... turn out for a primary candidate the day before a vote!

It was impressive!

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook