Lanny Davis’ Last Gasp for Hillary

posted at 10:29 am on May 31, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

With Democrats meeting today to attempt a compromise on seating delegations from Florida and Michigan at the national convention in Denver, Hillary Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis tries making an eleventh-hour plea to superdelegates on behalf of his candidate. The former Clinton administration official gives a lengthy treatise on how Hillary will make a more formidable opponent to John McCain than Barack Obama and argues that the primaries have produced a dead heat, not an Obama victory.

Let’s take this one step at a time:

Chances are Sens. Obama and Clinton will virtually split the more than 4,400 delegates – including Florida and Michigan – elected by more than 34 million people over the past five months.

Sen. Clinton has already won the most votes, but there is controversy over including the over 300,000 votes from Michigan, since Sen. Obama was not on the ballot (by his own choice).

George Bush and John Kerry “virtually split” the popular vote and the Electoral College in 2004, too. That doesn’t mean that Bush didn’t win the election. A victory remains a victory if it comes by one vote or 100,000 votes. In Michigan, Obama and John Edwards removed their names from the ballot to play by the DNC’s rules; saying that he decided unilaterally to withdraw from Michigan for the hell of it is beneath even a Clinton toady.

Worst case, she could come out with a 2% deficit in elected pledged delegates.

Which in most cases is considered a loss, although thanks to the Democratic National Committee’s absurd superdelegate rules, it leaves Hillary alive.

But that gap can be made up, if most of the remaining 200 or so unpledged superdelegates decide to support Sen. Clinton as the strongest candidate against John McCain – or if others committed to Sen. Obama decide to change their minds for the same reason.

I’ve always been a little curious about this argument. If she can’t beat Obama in the primaries, how does that make her the stronger candidate?

Sen. Clinton is more experienced and qualified to be president than is Sen. Obama. This is not to say Sen. Obama cannot be a good, even great, president. I believe he can. But Sen. Clinton spent eight years in the White House. She was not a traditional first lady. She was involved in policy and debate on virtually every major domestic and foreign policy decision of the Clinton presidency, both “in” and “outside” the room with her husband.

And yet, she has never established any evidence of this on the campaign trail. She has tried claiming foreign-policy experience, and wound up being revealed as nothing more than a “cheerleader” in Northern Ireland and stumbling into the Tuzla Dash in Bosnia. The only policy for which she has evidence of leadership is the Health Care Task Force, where she tried nationalizing the American health-care industry, a debacle that she has chosen to treat with singular amnesia in 2008.

With no disrespect or criticism intended, Sen. Obama has been an Illinois state senator for eight years and a U.S. senator for just four years.

With no disrespect or criticism, Obama has been in the Senate for three years — January 2005 to present day, and half of that he has spent running for President. Maybe Davis can take some math after the convention.

He has, understandably, fewer legislative accomplishments than Sen. Clinton.

No, they have the same number of legislative accomplishments, which could be counted on the thumb of one hand. Unless Davis considers generating over two billion dollars in pork a legislative “accomplishment” or trying to send a million dollars to the Woodstock Museum a resume-builder, the two junior Senators have similarly undistinguished records as legislators. Try putting either record, or even both combined, against that of John McCain and both Democrats will look extremely anemic.

Second, Sen. Clinton’s position on health care gives her an advantage over Sen. McCain.

Health care is the #2 reason she’s better than Obama? Davis is more desperate than I thought. Both proposals approach the Hillary HCTF position of nationalization. Any daylight between the two plans exists primarily in Davis’ imagination. Once implemented, both would necessarily transform into single-payer by default.

Third and finally, there is recent hard data showing that, at least at the present time, Sen. Clinton is a significantly stronger candidate against Sen. McCain among the general electorate (as distinguished from the more liberal Democratic primary and caucus electorate).

Lanny, as I recall, in 2007 there was “hard data” showing that Barack Obama couldn’t possibly beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination. Most people figured he was running for the #2 slot. And anyone who calls general-election polling in May “hard data” deserves to be sentenced to reading the entire federal budget for 2009 from beginning to end — 100 times.

I know that Operation Chaos needs Hillary to hang on by her fingernails to the convention, but this idiocy cannot go unremarked.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

As has been noted.. The Democrats don’t have rules, just traditions. Note very nice traditions, but traditions.

Cinematicfilm on May 31, 2008 at 10:36 AM

Lanny Davis, like all Clintonista clowns, long ago suspended any reality, mental acuity, intelligence, honor, integrity, honesty, truthfullness, reality, ethics, morals, etc., in order to slavishly support the most corrupt politicians (the Clinton’s) America has ever seen…

Dale in Atlanta on May 31, 2008 at 10:40 AM

The bigger they are,………

RobCon on May 31, 2008 at 10:40 AM

Off topic, but my wife ran across an article and wants to know it anyone can shed some light on its validity, being that it’s from the Army Times, long touted as a powerful rumor mill.

DoD asks to transfer $9.7 billion to Army

If lawmakers do not take action on a new wartime supplemental spending request by June 9, the Pentagon said the Army, bearing the lion’s share of war burdens, will run out of money to pay its soldiers by June 15.

And even if the $9.7 billion reprogramming request is granted, the Pentagon said the money will fund only another few weeks of overall operations. Failure to pass the entire $108.1 billion supplemental request by mid-July, officials said, will exhaust all remaining military personnel and operations funding by late July and leave the department unable to meet both military and civilian payroll.

Service members and certain “essential” civilian personnel, including those serving in the war zones, would continue to serve without pay. Nonessential civilian employees would be laid off per applicable personnel rules, the Pentagon said.

One influential member of Congress, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, has said there is no threat to military paychecks and that the Pentagon’s stance is an unnecessary scare tactic.

Specifically, the Pentagon has asked for authority to transfer $5.7 billion from the military personnel accounts of the Navy and Air Force to the Army’s personnel accounts; and, separately, $4 billion from the Navy and Air Force operations and maintenance accounts and the Department of Defense Working Capital Fund, to the Army and U.S. Special Operations Command operations and maintenance accounts.

The personnel and O&M accounts, and the Working Capital Fund, were funded in the regular annual defense budget for fiscal 2008, which contained no money to pay for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. When the war funds had not been approved by late November, officials warned that, with only limited budget transfer authority, it would be forced to take draconian measures, including the layoffs of tens of thousands of civilian employees.

Congress subsequently approved a $70 billion “bridge” fund, forestalling the potential crisis.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now cost an average of $11.5 billion a month, according to the Pentagon.

Spc Steve on May 31, 2008 at 10:43 AM

Is it me? or is the Clinton administration still
going on,with the likes of Lanny Davis,still
willing to take a bullit for HilRod!

canopfor on May 31, 2008 at 10:45 AM

I’ve always been a little curious about this argument. If she can’t beat Obama in the primaries, how does that make her the stronger candidate?

Independents. Disaffected Dems. Jews. Working class whites. Hillary gets her share of them. Can she win without half the blacks? Not sure.

IMO, Hillary is a far more formidable opponent to McCain in the general election. It wasn’t always so, but Obama has self-destructed.

JiangxiDad on May 31, 2008 at 10:45 AM

I think Hillary has two reasonable arguments — one is that the popular vote is going to end up tied. And Hillary won in swing states, while Obama won in safe states which are sure to either go Democratic or Republican.

The second is that if you count the electoral votes of states where each won the popular vote, Hillary has won.

Obviously this is a re-trade and will not happen, but I think that both of these arguments.

levi from queens on May 31, 2008 at 10:45 AM

These people want to run the country???

dalec on May 31, 2008 at 10:45 AM

I agree with your point on the hard data. Operation Chaos represents more than just sport. Hillary, gulp, is within her right, according to the rules, to stay in this election. Their rules don’t say as close to that magic number, they specifically call for the candidate to reach the magic number. The Democrats talk about that big open tent, power to the people, and make every vote count, but the way their primary/caucus system is set up, it is anything but that. This election has shown me that the Democrats don’t care about all the votes, MI and FL, just enough of the votes to satisfy their immediate need.

Pam on May 31, 2008 at 10:47 AM

The Democrats talk about “every vote must count”, but they don’t trust the people, even their own people. That is why they set-up the super delegate system, so the bosses can overrule the people.

Cinematicfilm on May 31, 2008 at 10:56 AM

I’ve always been a little curious about this argument. If she can’t beat Obama in the primaries, how does that make her the stronger candidate?

Hasn’t she won 5 out of the last 7 primary states (or something like that)? Once Obama started getting vetted a little in this process he started losing contests. I think that is the least idiotic argument made by this guy.

krabbas on May 31, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Howard Dean, the Intellectual Giant™ of the DNC – the DNC that created rules in violation of it’s own charter, has the audacity to call 5 Justices of the Supreme Court “Intellectually Bankrupt” in their 2000 decision to let the Forida Supreme Court’s ruling stand.

Decorum

franksalterego on May 31, 2008 at 10:59 AM

He forgot the part about her ability to dodge sniper fire…

D2Boston on May 31, 2008 at 10:59 AM

Obama was the stronger Democrat when he had voters believing he was the next John Kennedy. But now that he looks (with the help of his friends) more like the next John Conyers, Hillary has become the stronger candidate.

But since we’re dealing with Democrats, Obama will still get the nomination. After debates, and after more people learn that Iraq has turned itself around, the only advantage Obama might have left is bringing out new younger (gullible) voters. And of course the grumpy conservatives who stay home, or vote third party, could give Obama the margin he needs as well. It’ll be close, whoever comes out ahead.

RBMN on May 31, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Bill Nelson says, it was REPUBLICANS who prevented Florida votes from being counted.

Who the hell was it, that disenfrancised all the MILITARY ABSENTEE ballots, due to their being held up by the Postal Service?

franksalterego on May 31, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Ed, they rigged this system to avoid another McGovern. They created Super-Delegates to usurp the will of their voters and chose a candidate who can beat a Republican based upon a set of criteria not enumerated but clearly based upon ability to win electoral votes in the fall. The Super-Delegates can change their votes up until they finally cast them at the Convention. Hilary Clinton not only has a compelling electoral argument to make, she has a compelling popular vote to make. In terms of the variable and stop/loss of the Super-Delegate system. She can even make the flimsy but still compelling argument that she would have easily won if this was a heads up fight without proportionanality. Barack Obama is the walking wounded. If you cast aside the media narratives and look at the numbers. Why should she leave?

AYNBLAND on May 31, 2008 at 11:08 AM

The simple fact is that the Democratic primary is not going to be decided by the voters but by superdelegates. Neither will win without them.

terryannonline on May 31, 2008 at 11:10 AM

franksalterego on May 31, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Did you hear Howard Dean say the 2000 election was decided by five “intellectually bankrupted Supreme Court justices.” That Howard Dean is one classy guy.

terryannonline on May 31, 2008 at 11:13 AM

I’m not dead, yet! I feel happy!
/hillary

andycanuck on May 31, 2008 at 11:14 AM

Why should she leave?

FOR PARTY UNITY! Because she is the one tearing the Party. It’s not there stupid primary rules.

/sarc off

terryannonline on May 31, 2008 at 11:16 AM

There is NO PARTY UNITY! Half of them voted for HER and more of them voted for her in States they have to win in the fall. Let’s be honest here. If he wasn’t African American, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. They simply can’t utilize the Super-Delegates as envisioned for that reason.

AYNBLAND on May 31, 2008 at 11:26 AM

My crystal ball says, Prepare for the Storm…There is no practical solution.

In their eagerness to manipulate the electorate, they’ve created their own snake pit.

Pass the Popcorn

franksalterego on May 31, 2008 at 11:30 AM

You would think, after listening to these fools, that Republicans wrote the DNC rules.

heh,heh,heh

franksalterego on May 31, 2008 at 11:34 AM

The Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision was 7 to 2 I believe.

RBMN on May 31, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Did you hear Howard Dean say the 2000 election was decided by five “intellectually bankrupted Supreme Court justices.” That Howard Dean is one classy guy.

terryannonline on May 31, 2008 at 11:13 AM

I can’t remember any DNC chairman ever so brazenly putting hate (and misinformation) in the service of ‘energizing the base’. Dean makes MacAuliffe look like a choir boy.

petefrt on May 31, 2008 at 11:36 AM

This is not to say Sen. Obama cannot be a good, even great, president. I believe he can.

These niceties were/are a major problem with her campaign. She should have went negative on Obama long ago and forced him to take positions, be specific, answer to contradictions, etc… She would have lost some votes by going negative (exposing Obama), and would have exposed her own flaws, but Obama would have lost much more.

Almost anyone can beat Obama in the general, even McCain. Only 10% of Obama’s baggage, gaffes, stupidity, etc.. has been exposed. And Obama will get his a*s handed to him in debates.

On another note, if one was to really stretch conpiracies, the MM has worked to get Obama the nom knowing all along he’s unelectable. So then the MM has McCain to beat up on for the next 4-8 yrs.

nottakingsides on May 31, 2008 at 11:38 AM

And Obama will get his a*s handed to him in debates.

I’m not sure about that. After watching the Republican debates I thought McCain was a weak debater. He kept repeating himself and was clearly sticking on his talking points.

terryannonline on May 31, 2008 at 11:43 AM

terryannonline on May 31, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Note my 10:59 comment

franksalterego on May 31, 2008 at 11:52 AM

franksalterego on May 31, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Yeah, I saw that afterwards. I apologize:)

terryannonline on May 31, 2008 at 11:53 AM

I’ve always been a little curious about this argument. If she can’t beat Obama in the primaries, how does that make her the stronger candidate?

You don’t understand how people could think that Hill is the stronger candidate now? That all of the information we’ve learned about Obama would have sunk him if it had been revealed earlier?

misterpeasea on May 31, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Will either of them make it out of Denver? This race is so screwy, Billy might come out on top by the time the moonbat medieval siege of Denver is over.

Hening on May 31, 2008 at 12:32 PM

Yes,

I am now, thoroughly convinced, that the Republicans are responsible for the Donks Dilemma…That Republicans were responsible for writing the rules – rules contrary to the charter, to disenfrancise voters if their state moved their election forward.

Shame on Republicans

BUWAHAHAHHA !!!

Liberals…No Responsibility…No Accountability

franksalterego on May 31, 2008 at 12:32 PM

Is anyone curious, as to why Republicans don’t have a rule to disenfranchise their own electorate?

heh,heh,heh

franksalterego on May 31, 2008 at 12:42 PM

I am beginning to think Democrats want this black man to be defeated this year. IT is a much better marketing tool for their brand of grievance governance than him wining.

They (THE PARTY) cannot survive Obama being defeated in the primary but the party will milk him losing “at the hands of the Republicans” for all its worth.

EJDolbow on May 31, 2008 at 12:48 PM

I know that Operation Chaos needs Hillary to hang on by her fingernails to the convention, but this idiocy cannot go unremarked.

I think the most powerful argument in favor of Hillary is that caucus-based primaries are less legitimate because they’re more susceptible to capture by groups of highly-motivated Obama supporters. Obama’s ahead by 200 delegates for two reasons: (1) proportionality rules, which severely limited Hillary’s colossal big-state advantage; and (2) “bumps” given by caucus states. Why won’t they make that argument? “Yeah, he’s ahead by a few hundred delegates because of quirks in our voting process, and it’s the responsibility of superdelegates, as Dem leaders, to step in to correct any unfair results from quirks.”

I admit it’s a bit of a goofy argument, but it’s better-articulated than what Lanny was spewing.

Outlander on May 31, 2008 at 12:51 PM

And yet, the argument that Hilary is the stronger candidate against McCain still holds water. In fact, I think it is absolutely true. Hilary has the advantage in the states that matter most for the November election. Not sure why Lanny Davis isn’t making that point (or perhaps she does elsewhere). But chinks in the armor of “The One” are becoming more apparent and more numerous.

If McCain plays his cards right, I think he will beat Obama more easily than many of us believe right now. And choosing Mitt Romney is NOT what I would consider playing the right card. There is much more to be gained with a centrist VP choice, such as Palin or Pawlenty.

I respect Obama as a man (much more than either Kerry or Gore), but I can’t bear to think of an Obamanation at this point.

connertown on May 31, 2008 at 12:59 PM

EJDolbow on May 31, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Grin. Well maybe not want him to lose, but can live with it :)

JiangxiDad on May 31, 2008 at 1:00 PM

I am beginning to think Democrats want this black man to be defeated this year. IT is a much better marketing tool for their brand of grievance governance than him wining.

They (THE PARTY) cannot survive Obama being defeated in the primary but the party will milk him losing “at the hands of the Republicans” for all its worth.

EJDolbow on May 31, 2008 at 12:48 PM

DAMN GOOD POINT, EJ.
I want to give that one some more thought. Of course you are not saying that all Dems are thinking like that, but I don’t think it is out of the question at all for some strategists.

connertown on May 31, 2008 at 1:01 PM

I am beginning to think Democrats want this black man to be defeated this year. IT is a much better marketing tool for their brand of grievance governance than him wining.
EJDolbow on May 31, 2008 at 12:48 PM

I disagree. The Dems have the chance this year to completely erase all Republican gains from 1994 and maybe get a Democrat president, a filibuster-proof Senate majority, and a strong House majority, just in time to make sure that the tax cuts fall off (i.e. taxes automatically go up) and that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg can retire, comfortable in the knowledge that liberal activist justices will take their places. Obama’s their man and they want him to win–rest assured.

Hillary, on the other hand, may well want him to lose so she can rise from the ashes like a phoenix and run again in 2012.

Outlander on May 31, 2008 at 1:01 PM

I re-he-hee-heeee-lee want to know how many of HRC’s votes were the result of Operation Chaos. I know that it was a factor only in open elections, but it’s always in my mind when Her Majesty and her ‘men’ brag about having more people vote for Her.
Lanny needs a new gig…every time i hear his voice I lose more hair.

Christine on May 31, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Did I get that right?….

To top it all off, Ben Jonson of the committee ADMITS, the structure and timing was formulated along RACIAL lines?

I wouldn’t vote for a Democrat if you held a gun to my head.

franksalterego on May 31, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Let’s be honest here, the powers that be in the Democrat Party have decided their best chance for winning is yelling “racist”, not “sexist”.

fogw on May 31, 2008 at 1:59 PM

HRC is thanking her lucky stars that Obama has has more scrutiny; that sweet $,$$$,$$$ deal with Dubai is not very flattering for the Clintoons–for instance. They are truly a font of scandals and by the time she runs in 2012, there will be a whole bunch more. Maybe by then she really WILL be over.
Come to think of it, the Mayan calendar ends in 2012, along with the World as we know it, so we won’t have to worry about another ‘Presidential’ election. ;-)

Christine on May 31, 2008 at 1:59 PM

Only the democrats would have the problem of a loser saying she’s actually the winner…

SouthernGent on May 31, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Everyone pay attention:

NO MORE NEGATIVE ARTICLES ABOUT HILDEBEAST!

The reason why Hussein Ubama is winning is because we did such a great job of destroying Hillary!

Remember earlier whenever negative articles about hillary were promoted throughout the news..Ubama’s numbers would go up and when negative articles about Usama were widespread Hillary’s numbers would go up..

Now it is almost too late, but where the real chaos will kick in is when hillary wins the popular vote but Usama wins the delegates.

We have to go positive about Hillary.

Everyone thought we’ll wait until Usama wins the nomination and then we’ll release the REAL DIRT on him(hussein Ubama’s cousin Raila Odinga and his plan to islamicize 85% Christian kenya etc. etc.,) but the fact is Hussein’s followers are so insane that they would not care if he was Usama bin Laden’s cousin and helped plan 9/11…

The fact is Hussein Ubama would be the worst U.S. president ever…I don’t think we would be able to recover from an Ubama presidency.

We have to stop him in the primaries.

SaintOlaf on May 31, 2008 at 2:30 PM

SaintOlaf on May 31, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Hell, if I were Hillary, and this goes against me, I’d run as an Independant.

“Screw you sexist pigs !!!”

franksalterego on May 31, 2008 at 3:20 PM

Ed, what Lanny Davis is saying in code words is that there are more shoes to drop on Obama.

It is quite likely, after screaming Rev. Eminem at Trinity, that the rumors of Michelle Obama screaming about Whitey(tm) on video at Trinity are true and will show up. There are probably other shoes ready to drop as well.

Obama is a not very bright, machine pol from South Side Chicago who engaged in various anti-white pandering to his Black supporters. This is what Davis is saying, in so many words.

Hugh Hewitt observed that while Clinton had bimbo erruptions, Obama has racist/anti-American erruptions. That latter is more serious since White voters are the absolute majority and working class white men the biggest demo slice at roughly 25% of all voters. Obama’s risk is not just defeat for the Presidency but a racial polarizing campaign that brings defeat to many Dems in Statewide elections as the Party is defined as Obama and Wright and Eminem and Ayers and Michelle and more all screaming about “Whitey”(tm).

whiskey_199 on May 31, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Like the final scene of Thelma and Louise.

Hang on, Lanny!!

normsrevenge on May 31, 2008 at 3:41 PM

The Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision was 7 to 2 I believe.

RBMN on May 31, 2008 at 11:34 AM

That is correct, but on Dean’s planet, that decision never happened. Only the second SCOTUS ruling that day happened, the 5-4 one.

Of course, if Gore had prevailed, he would have been the only President in US history to be “appointed” by TWO Supreme Courts. Of course, if that had happened it wouldn’t have been a “stolen election”, but “landmark legal rulings”.

As for poor old Lanny Davis, my guess is that Hillary has a video of him having sex with a donkey or something. He’s definitely being blackmailed.told to be a good little soldier.

Del Dolemonte on May 31, 2008 at 4:06 PM

But Sen. Clinton spent eight years in the White House. She was not a traditional first lady. She was involved in policy and debate on virtually every major domestic and foreign policy decision of the Clinton presidency, both “in” and “outside” the room with her husband.

Heh. Hillary thinks she ran the Presidency for eight years and now is running for her third term.

I’m convinced that Hillary got Obama his speaking slot at the 2004 Democrat Convention, and helped him win his Senate seat. He was supposed to be the “rising star” who would be her VP for eight years and then run for the Presidency in 2016. Hillary is mad as hell that the man she hand-picked to be her VP is on the verge of “stealing” “her” nomination.

“Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned,”

spoken by Perez in Act 3, Scene 2 of William Congreve’s The Mourning Bride (1697)

Red Pill on May 31, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Hillary is mad as hell that the man she hand-picked to be her VP is on the verge of “stealing” “her” nomination.
Red Pill on May 31, 2008 at 4:12 PM

You mean, that Hillary was screaming “WHAT? I’m white! I’m entitled! Who is this black man stealing my show????” Took the words right out of the Right Rev Pfleger’s mouth!

Outlander on May 31, 2008 at 4:21 PM

I re-he-hee-heeee-lee want to know how many of HRC’s votes were the result of Operation Chaos.

Christine on May 31, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Indeed. It’s pretty weak to argue that you won the popular vote when a significant number of those votes (estimated to be as much as 10% in some states) were from voters of the other party who have no intention of voting for you in November.

Red Pill on May 31, 2008 at 4:32 PM

Outlander on May 31, 2008 at 4:21 PM

You’ve got that wrong. I’m no Rev. Pfleger and no racist. I believe that all human beings belong to a single human race.

Hillary didn’t expect the nomination to be hers because she is light-skinned (“white” is you prefer, but light-skinned people aren’t “white” and dark-skinned people aren’t “black”).

Hillary expected the nomination to be hers because she is running for her third term and she was the “inevitable candidate” with the most “experience”.

Hillary expect to play both the gender card and the race card on the Republicans, but was blindsided when Obama played the race card on her. And it appears that the race card trumps the gender card.

Have you read my take on Hillary’s 2008 Presidential Game Plan?

Red Pill on May 31, 2008 at 4:48 PM

Lanny Davis hasn’t really changed. He never will. He simply hasn’t realized that the circus he’s promoting has already moved on to the next town. Akin to Dr. Kervorkian’s lawyer still singing the reaper’s tune after Dr. Death was already behind bars. As long as his paychecks keep clearing the parrot continues to squawk.

Lanny Davis is, and always will be, the dude willing to share his Nigerian millions with anyone who will answer his emails with private information and financial support.

viking01 on May 31, 2008 at 5:21 PM

I’ve always been a little curious about this argument. If she can’t beat Obama in the primaries, how does that make her the stronger candidate?

Are you serious? She is by far the stronger candidate in a general election. The reasons have been listed many times…Obama won the early caucus elections because his supporters behaved abusively towards other voters and intimidated people. The race card was played to great effect, and would work well in a democrat primary as a further method of intimidation/suppression of the vote, especially in caucuses. Obama’s wins also came in states that McCain should carry pretty easily in November.

Hillary doesn’t have a Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, Dohrn, and Rezco problem. Her Hsu problem is minor by comparison, or at least would be in a general election. The Tuzla Dash story will be easy for her people and the MSM to portray is petty sniping (uh) in a general election.

funky chicken on May 31, 2008 at 5:39 PM

Obama is a not very bright, machine pol from South Side Chicago who engaged in various anti-white pandering to his Black supporters. This is what Davis is saying, in so many words.

Hugh Hewitt observed that while Clinton had bimbo erruptions, Obama has racist/anti-American erruptions. That latter is more serious since White voters are the absolute majority and working class white men the biggest demo slice at roughly 25% of all voters. Obama’s risk is not just defeat for the Presidency but a racial polarizing campaign that brings defeat to many Dems in Statewide elections as the Party is defined as Obama and Wright and Eminem and Ayers and Michelle and more all screaming about “Whitey”(tm).

whiskey_199 on May 31, 2008 at 3:31 PM

There ya go.

funky chicken on May 31, 2008 at 5:42 PM

Are you serious? She is by far the stronger candidate in a general election. ***
funky chicken on May 31, 2008 at 5:39 PM

It is only by a stroke of dumb luck that the Democrats’ piss-poor nomination rules have resulted in the weaker of their two candidates actually winning. But Hillary allowed it to happen by being arrogant and assuming she would be coronated, not nominated. She never should have agreed to discount MI and FL. And she never should have allowed Obama to out-maneuver her in the caucus states.

Now we must pray that McCain will play David to Obama’s Goliath and will pull off an all-but-improbable win in the general. McCain did it in the GOP race; he was totally written off with no money or advisers, and won the whole thing in a 90 day period starting with NH.

Outlander on May 31, 2008 at 5:52 PM

Outlander on May 31, 2008 at 5:52 PM

1) The Dem nomination is not over until Hillary says its over. She wouldn’t still be in it if she didn’t have a plan to win it. The nomination is now, for all intents and purposes, all about winning the superdelegates. That race doesn’t end until enough superdelegates have publicly declared their intentions that it gives one of them the win. Even then, since superdelegates aren’t bound to that, they could change their mind at any time up until they actually vote at the convention.

2) Hillary agreed to discount MI and FL because that was part of her game plan. She needed voters in MI and FL to vote in the Republican Primary to help McCain win over Romney. (That plan failed in MI but succeeded in FL).

3) Hillary planned for Obama to be her VP. She was blindsided when he turned on her.

4) Hillary expected that both she and McCain would have commanding leads in their respective primaries by Super Tuesday (February 5th). From the Iowa Caucuses (January 3rd) to Super Tuesday was a 33 day Blitzkrieg, complete with two stalking horses (Fred Thompson to help McCain win South Carolina and Rudy Giuliani to help McCain win Florida).

5) The same MSM that is saying it is “mathematically impossible” for Hillary to win the Dem nomination was saying as early as January that McCain was the “presumptive nominee” and that it was “mathematically impossible” for anyone else to win the Republican nomination. Neither Romney nor Huckabee had to get to 1191. They just had to collectively keep McCain from reaching 1191 and it would have forced a brokered convention. It’s really surprising that Romney quit February 7th.

Red Pill on May 31, 2008 at 6:40 PM

I’m watching this crazy fem nazis standing up for Hillary, they look like old cougars, old biddies and Code Pink types.

They are interrupting, yelling, disrupting, they are disgusting as is she.

AprilOrit on May 31, 2008 at 6:58 PM

Who the hell wants these old dolls voting for McCain, they’re more trouble than they’re worth, rule breaking freaks.

AprilOrit on May 31, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Hillary and her crew of angry feminist seperatists want to steal the whole show and they are the most common bunch of females this side of the loons in Code Pink.

And Ickes is just plain icky as usual.

AprilOrit on May 31, 2008 at 7:07 PM

If I understand all this, the FL & MI delegates will be fully SEATED at the convention, but each one only gets 1/2 a vote. This will be an amusing spectacle.

I’d wear a button saying, “Promote me to 3/5 of a person and I’ll call you massah.”

Pythagoras on June 1, 2008 at 12:54 AM

In Michigan, Obama and John Edwards removed their names from the ballot to play by the DNC’s rules

Actually the DNC rules only said they couldn’t campaign in Michigan. Edwards and Obama took the extra measure of voluntarily removing their names from the ballot-knowing Hillary was going to give them a whipping.
If the Michigan Democrats wanted to make their point that their primary had validity-Hillary should get her delegates and the rest go the convention uncommited.

Goodale on June 1, 2008 at 2:29 AM