The purpose is to confuse voters. Plant seeds of doubt and triangulate an outcome. Party unity be damned!
Just FYI, several other states aren't included in the popular vote total either. Iowa, Maine, Washington, and Nevada don't release popular vote totals - that would swing Obama up a bit more.
I just learned it this weekend. I have no idea why you wouldn't release your popular vote totals. I had heard about during Iowa, but I never thought about it in regards to other states or when discussing the popular vote totals nationwide.
Have you considered that the reason this might hurt Obama and not Clinton or McCain is that Obama doesn't have as much expereince as those two? The argument that Clinton shouldn't challenge Obama on his experience because it will hurt him in the general seems odd if you are expecting this was an issue that McCain wasn't aware of. If you think is going to hurt your candidate then you are aware that it is a weakness of your candidate that needs to be addressed and it is better he addresses this now than later.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Sudw4ghVe8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Sudw4ghVe8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Judoka: Hillary should not have made statements that appear to praise McCain at Obama's expense. It's one thing to tout herself -- but quite different to elevate the GOP nominee over an issue you've being saying is very important. I feel the same way about Obama's references that Democrats who support him would not vote for her.
The thing is that using her criteria is that it would hurt as well in a general election. Like Obama says if the only experience that matters is how long a person has been in Washington, she loses to McCain as well. It's a stupid strategy for her, but the only way she feels she can beat Obama. I'm not against her comparing her experience to Obama's. That's fine, and would be a smart political move. But there is no reason to bring McCain into the situation. Furthermore if she really wants to tout her First Lady time as foreign policy experience then why is she not releasing any records about what she did. Again, comparing Hillary to Obama is fine and fair game. Bringing in John McCain and elevating him above Obama is underhanded, stupid and shows yet another instance of poor judgement on her part.
Hillary praising McCain is incredibly hypocritical considering how she had such a royal fit about Obama's comments on Reagan. She will say ANYTHING to get elected, which is just another reason I could never vote for her.
That is certainly a possibility but what happens in the general won't matter if she doesn't make it out of the nomination. There's actually two reasons for doing it. The first is the obvious one as an attack on Obama the second is that it helps her advance the idea that she and McCain are meant to face off in the general. I would say that it is borderline underhand but part of the argument for winning the nomination is to make the argument that you will be a better oponent against the nominee of the other party. In a way I would say it wasn't that much different than when Bill Bradley and John McCain pledged in 2000 that if they made it to the general election they wouldn't take special interest money. That could've been considered an underhanded slight at their Al Gore and GW Bush respectively for taking so much special interests money. I wouldn't necessarily call it stupid but it is very risky and could dangerously backfire on her. As far as Obama demanding Clinton release her records as First Lady I'm all for it and I think it is the right move. I may be cynical in this regard but I consider that in an election you do should challenge your opponent's record rather than just depend on charisma and vague messages. The problem though in the case of Obama is that he has talked about looking towards the future rather than looking at the past and about being a uniter but now realizes that to close the deal this campaign has to be more than that. Like it or not he actually has to defeat the Clinton the campaign. Personally I think that will make him a stronger candidate if he makes it to the general because if you think Clinton's attacks on him are harsh and underhanded I predict they will pale to what you see in the general election.
Read this for #1 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=144076 For #2, he said if McCain accepts public financing, he will follow suit: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-finance3mar03,1,5382351.story
I read it and any of the attacks Obama makes are all issues related. He isn't calling her Ken Star or anything like that. Again number 2 had a number of proposals that he's talked about since the beginning. But I think your right that it is mostly spin to say that Obama didn't indicate that he would accept public financing.
<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/23601329#23601329" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
LOL, I watched that whole thing, and I couldn't stop thinking back to the beginning where Olby said he was not endorsing Obama.
Never ever ever ever never. If she steals the nom, I'll proudly vote Nader and encourage all my Dem friends to do the same.
