http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/26/bill-clinton-says-wife-is-victim-of-a-‘cover-up’/ Link to the video (which I was unable to play): http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/05/26/sot.clinton.lose.without.cnn From CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand CNN (CNN) — Former President Bill Clinton said that Democrats were more likely to lose in November if his wife Hillary Clinton is not the party’s presidential nominee, and suggested some people were trying to “cover this up” and “push and pressure and bully” superdelegates to make up their minds prematurely. "I can’t believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out,” he said at a South Dakota campaign stop Sunday, in remarks first reported by ABC News. “'Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.'" The former president added that his wife had not been given the respect she deserved as a legitimate presidential candidate. "She is winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence,” he said. “And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running.” “Her only position was, ‘Look, if I lose I'll be a good team player. We will all try to win — but let's let everybody vote, and count every vote,’" he said. The former president suggested that if the New York senator ended the primary season with an edge in the popular vote, it would be a significant development. "If you vote for her and she does well in Montana and she does well in Puerto Rico, when this is over she will be ahead in the popular vote,” said Clinton. “And they're trying to get her to cry uncle before the Democratic Party has to decide what to do in Florida and Michigan” – which the party would need to do “unless we want to lose the election. " The current requirement to claim the Democratic presidential nomination is 2,026 delegates, a formula that does not take into account delegates from Florida and Michigan, whose contests were not sanctioned by the party – although if those votes were to be counted as cast, Hillary Clinton would still currently trail rival Barack Obama in the overall delegate count. The former president said Sunday that the media had unfairly attacked his wife since the Iowa caucuses, repeating an often-used charge that press coverage had made him feel as though he were living in a “fun house.” "If you notice, there hasn't been a lot of publicity on these polls I just told you about,” he said. “It is the first time you've heard it? Why do you think that is? Why do you think? Don't you think if the polls were the reverse and he was winning the Electoral College against Senator McCain and Hillary was losing it, it would be blasted on every television station?” He added, “You would know it wouldn't you? It wouldn't be a little secret. And there is another Electoral College poll that I saw yesterday had her over 300 electoral votes…. She will win the general election if you nominate her. They're just trying to make sure you don't."
Their entire campaign (and lives) seems to be about being a victim. Of the media. Of sexism. Of superdelegates. Of the party leaders (Dean, Pelosi). Apparently everything bad that ever happens to them is someone else's fault.
You don't think there is any truth to this?,...I mean, this is Bill Clinton,...one of the better Democratic Presidents in the 20th century speaking on this... (P.S. I'd put him only behind FDR, and Truman and about equal to Kennedy..granted it's relative, subjective, and I'm not an expert)
What Bill Clinton says during this campaign has nothing to do with his presidency. He's made a buffoon of himself this year for Hillary's sake but that doesn't subtract from 1993-2000. I think his credibility when commenting on Hillary's candidacy is close to zero. I mean, he said in Pennsylvania that Hillary would be a better president than he was. Give me break!
Anybody know if there is any truth to this idea that, I guess, individual polling state by state according to the electoral college shows her to be the stronger candidate? The most charitable posiibility I can put on this Clinton activity is that they really sincerely believe that Obama can't win. A couple of approximately 60 year old African American friends of mine who are pretty interested in politics and pretty liberal have told me that they believe Obama has no chance due to racism. I'm hoping that this is just their own personal experience speaking.
Yes, there is. Of course, a few weeks ago, it showed Obama as stronger. A few weeks before that, Clinton. Before that, Obama. etc. Those polls are completely worthless right now and they flip every few weeks.
Which part do you see truth in? I can pretty much counter everything he said - pick one and I'll be happy to.
How does she get the reputation as this tough fighter, that has the toughness, strength and political experience to take on the tough GOP political attack machine? She has faced Obama who has run a remarkably attack-free campaign, and yet she's the victim of the media, of sexism, of unfair attacks, etc. If she can't even handle this, how in the world is she supposed to be able to handle the GOP attack machine. It's ridiculous.
Mostly true but virtually every batch of polls is more a mixed bag than a clear signal. The latest shows Hillary doing way better in FL (where she beats McCain and Obama doesn't), somewhat better in OH and PA (where they both still beat McCain) and worse in VA, NM and (I think) CO. As they make electability arguments to SD's they're working from different maps. Once there's a nominee I believe either of them would be very competitive in traditional blue states, purple states and many red states as well, due to the favorable climate for Democrats and the historic nature of either of their campaigns. But Bill's latest spin is very much like his argument that she's "clearly" winning the popular vote. In that argument he requires that you count both FL and MI (where Obama wasn't on the ballot and the Clinton folks argue he should therefore get zero votes) but don't count any state where they held a caucus instead of a primary. In other words, they are "clearly" winning the nomination and would "clearly" win the general if the public would just agree to count every election or poll they want you to and disregard all the ones they don't. In other words, it depends on what the meaning of "winning" is. This is why people hate lawyers.
