Anyone else see the use of Superdelegates , by either party, a potentially huge political shit storm?

Atm Obama is leading with delegates garnered from state delegates representing their various areas.

If I understand the situation correctly Clinton has a overwhelming number of SuperDelegates and is actually in position to win via this method.

SuperDelegates are party patrons...Bill Clinton being one for the Dems among others.

I think this is an incredibly bad idea and if the Dems give Clinton the nod because of this I think the Dems lose alot of respect from voters.

Thoughts?

The same thing happened with Hart and Mondale back in the 80's, and nothing changed as a result. I wouldn't be surprised if the Super Delegates screw Obama, and it's just business as usual again.

It's going to be funny to watch happen too, given the stink raised about the electoral college vs. popular vote in 2000.

Is this "But, but, Clinton......!" part deux?

No no no I wasn't pointing at Pres Clinton per se. Just saying he's a Superdelegate due to his past as a party leader.

I think this takes the power of representation out of the hands of the people and put it directly in the hands of the status quo.

Only reason I'm not pointing it out in the Republican race is because it's a nonfactor at this time ;P McCain is running away with it.

I agree with ya Fanny!!! HAHA. This would be a very bad thing for the Dems given the almost overwhelming popular support for Obama.

Back in '68 the candidate ended up as Humphrey and the dems lost, you're probably looking at '68 all over again. I think one sure way to demotivate the democratic voters would be to let the super delegates pick the candidate.

It's a big issue, and the Clinton campaign (especially pollster Mark Penn) isn't being too subtle in its approach to the superdelegate question.

I think the idea of superdelegates is as bad as our electoral college. It's sad to state this but I didn't even know what a superdelegate was until this year b/c I was too young to care about Mondale and Hart....except to remember Geraldine Ferraro who whatever her name was...

If this happens I predict a big uproar for a few days and possibly even some sort of stupid court crap like what happened with Gore and Bush. If the Dems do that though, it will be bad for them. They just need to suck it up and deal with it after the election, a distraction like this could lose them the White House.

So many people have become disenfranchised over the years. This will just make it worse if one candidate wins the public support, but doesn't get the nomination.

It's horrible to think that we could have spent all this time on primaries and such to just have it all end up to be a big waste of time because the old guard decides they want to protect their interests with the candidate they want instead of what the people want.

Not saying that's the case. Hilary could still win the popular delegate count. If she doesn't though, and still gets the nod, I'll vote for McCain just because the system will have failed.

So many people have become disenfranchised over the years. This will just make it worse if one candidate wins the public support, but doesn't get the nomination.

It's horrible to think that we could have spent all this time on primaries and such to just have it all end up to be a big waste of time because the old guard decides they want to protect their interests with the candidate they want instead of what the people want.

Not saying that's the case. Hilary could still win the popular delegate count. If she doesn't though, and still gets the nod, I'll vote for McCain just because the system will have failed.


Umm, seems we have been there and done that......the last going on eight years has been the result of the popular vote meaning nothing. The system is a failure.

Sorry Byl, I'm going to have to disagree with you, on that one.

In the past 232 years, there have only been 3 times where the Electoral College vote and the popular vote have diverged from one another, to elect a President. That hardly constitutes a failure.



While some might not consider John Quincy Adams one of the greatest Presidents, compared to Bush, he was far superior.



Benjamin Harrison could easily be considered one of the worst, although, once again compared to Bush, not so bad. It's interesting to note the similarities between the two's Presidencies, although Harrison only served for one term. History doomed to repeat itself?



I think a more accurate statement is: "When the system does fails, the person elected is rarely a successful President."

Obviously it's the Democrat primary/caucus at fault. Bush has never been that strong of a candidate. Gore was weak and Kerry even more inept. It was either of their races to lose and they managed to do just that.

This would be a very bad thing for the Dems given the almost overwhelming popular support for Obama.


So many people have become disenfranchised over the years. This will just make it worse if one candidate wins the public support, but doesn't get the nomination.

Not picking on any one person in this thread, because pretty much everyone has round about stated the same thing. Taleran was the only person that actually equivicated his comments with "Clinton might win popular support still". But everyone seems to believe that Obama is far and away winning popular support, yet the truth is that out of almost 20 million votes cast, he has a 100,000 vote lead in popular support. If you add in the caucus states ( a little misleading since totals aren't popular votes but state delegates ), the lead increases to 300,000. That's rougly a .5% to 1.5% lead, hardly "overwhelming popular support".

For the record, at this point I'm pleasantly surprised at any of the choices I'll have come November. McCain, Clinton, and Obama all have qualities that will get me to look at them come election time. I'm just dismayed that with a third of the states left to go, Obama supporters are already fretting about getting screwed but semm to have no problems if the states that haven't had primaries yet get disenfranchised.

Obama supporters are already fretting about getting screwed but semm to have no problems if the states that haven't had primaries yet get disenfranchised.Your post is good, but I'm not sure where you're getting this. Where are Obama supporters having no problems with disenfranchisement of certain states?

Admittedly, that is more a general feeling from the various message boards I visit, not anything based on public record. I have seen many people express their wish that Clinton bow out.

That's certainly true, just as many who support Clinton wish the same for Obama or make claims about Obama's supporters that aren't really justified. The two sides are, often and regrettably, at each other's throats, but that's the way it is with politics.

But everyone seems to believe that Obama is far and away winning popular support, yet the truth is that out of almost 20 million votes cast, he has a 100,000 vote lead in popular support. If you add in the caucus states ( a little misleading since totals aren't popular votes but state delegates ), the lead increases to 300,000. That's rougly a .5% to 1.5% lead, hardly "overwhelming popular support".


While this is certainly true, it is dismissing the momentum that Obama seems to be gaining. A couple weeks ago, you couldn't say he had the popular vote by any margin. He didn't have the delegate count, even dismissing the superdelegates. He seems to be gaining momentum, which we won't see quite how much for another two weeks. Though I read this morning that Texas seems to be up for grabs, and both candidates are polling to within the margin of error right now. That wasn't the case a couple weeks ago when it appeared that Hillary had insurmountable leads in Texas and Ohio.

I think simply saying Obama has only 100,000 vote lead is short sighted to the big picture of the actuality of how the race has been shaping up over the last several weeks. That doesn't mean I am dismissing Clinton's chances, look at the comeback McCain had to get where he is now in the catbird seat. Things change, but there definitely looks to be momentum on Obama's side right now. The concern that Obama could win the delegate count, but lose because of superdelegates is a real and valid concern of many voters who want their voice to be heard.

Yes, the Clinton team cultivated the "inevitability" meme as best they could, and for awhile that seemed to be the case. But Giuliani looked (superficially) inevitable, too, once upon a time. Obama definitely has the momentum at present.

This may be a bit off-topic, but today's Der Spiegel had an interesting take on the whole Obama/Clinton philosophical split in appeal - they are speaking completely different languages and thus there are those who prefer the concrete and thus don't 'get' the whole Obama almost religious-inspired message, and those who prefer Obama's visionary appeal, and it seems the twain will never meet:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,536232,00.html

I agree that Obama has the momentum at present (although Clinton enjoys strong support here in San Antonio and our former mayor, Henry Cisneros, stumped for her yesterday here), and the two weeks between now and Texas/Ohio will be an eternity that makes or breaks the Clinton campaign - if she doesn't do something to stem the erosion of confidence (and not being nearly as charismatic or flashy as Obama, that'll be a tall order, although I think she's both brilliant and reasonably engaging), it will all be over for her, superdelegates or no.

Regards,
Nydia

I think Howard Dean and many other senior leaders in the DNC are well aware of and quite conserned with the super delegate question. we are seeing a larger interest in the political process this go around and that is indeed benifiting the Dems to a much larger degree. a brokered convention in wich the Clintons use political favors and backdoor deals to wrest the nomination away is indeed a danger to DNC the as a whole.
Like him or not I don't see Dean as a fool. It's not political capital the dems are gaining here it's people capital.
Anyone also not liking Clintons statement that Obamas wins so far dont matter because they all came in smaller states? what an insult to anyone not living in NY,Ohio,Florida,Cali and Texas. Fuck you Hilliary IMHO!

Vel, don't get too worked up! She may well have meant smaller in terms of delegate total, which is what the election is all about, after all, since we have this screwed up system.

Ahha but while that may well be true welcome to the game of politics you seem so eager to engage in young missy! where one slight misstep, one innocous comment no matter the innocent intent bites you firmly on your middle aged well experianced media annointed ass!
Sorry but the Clintonista's are really pissing me off. it's become apparent that what was supposed to be less a campaign and more of a coronational parade for Hilly's undesputed march to the big house. they simply cant handle it! now yor seeing the Clintons in all thier ugly glory! thier getting thier asses kicked in the arena of public opinion( and thats us folks. me , you and well even Akipt and Jedd).
The more i see of them unable to run a clean campaing, the more they resort to dirty politics and well frankly lies. the more i see someone who's complete lust for power trumps all. the more i see a pretty ugly group people.

Ahha but while that may well be true welcome to the game of politics you seem so eager to engage in young missy! where one slight misstep, one innocous comment no matter the innocent intent bites you firmly on your middle aged well experianced media annointed ass!
Sorry but the Clintonista's are really pissing me off. it's become apparent that what was supposed to be less a campaign and more of a coronational parade for Hilly's undesputed march to the big house. they simply cant handle it! now yor seeing the Clintons in all thier ugly glory! thier getting thier asses kicked in the arena of public opinion( and thats us folks. me , you and well even Akipt and Jedd).
The more i see of them unable to run a clean campaing, the more they resort to dirty politics and well frankly lies. the more i see someone who's complete lust for power trumps all. the more i see a pretty ugly group people.

/agree to the 500th fucking power

The more i see of them unable to run a clean campaing, the more they resort to dirty politics and well frankly lies. the more i see someone who's complete lust for power trumps all.Some of us have been hyperventilating themselves into disarray over the Clintons' egostistic power trips and lies for years. Glad someone else finally noticed.

I went to both get togethers when they came to town. I really like Obama because he is educated and a good speaker. Something about his voice and the content of his speeches were soothing. Clinton on the other hand came off as an angry woman her voice just hurts my ears. All she did was attack attack attack and I was not impressed with her at all. If Obama gets the nod it will be a hard choice for me in November as I feel that on one hand we have a politician in the Republican party, and in the Democrat we have a man with big idea's, a calming nature, but no idea how he is going to get his policy across. But none of this matters as the Presidency is already picked by the New World Order, and we are just going to have to accept it.

Clintons'

dont lump Bill in with Hilary :p

Also the irony of Bush supporters screaming about this stuff :P

dont lump Bill in with Hilary She was the one who tied herself to his coattails.

And there is no irony. Any honest comparison would see this.

Some of us have been hyperventilating themselves into disarray over the Clintons' egostistic power trips and lies for years. Glad someone else finally noticed.

And at the same time ignoring the same tactics when they come from the Republican party...

Funny, I don't think I knew about Hillary, till Bill made it to the White House....

I also didn't know about G.W. till after his father was out of the Presidency, and he was making his own bid for it....

Similar tactics? Not sure how you can make that comparison....

Apparently you didn't pay attention to the mudslinging/lying campaign from the Republican side in 2004. What Hillary's campaign is attempting to do to divert attention from her with lies and obfuscation was exactly what the Republican campaign did towards Kerry in 2004.

Both sides are equally abhorrable, it's just comical for the people that spread the lies in 04 comment on Hillary now.

Don't get me wrong Kerry was a horrible candidate, but the mudslinging from the other side of the aisle was even worse.

The Clinton's are what they are.

They play small ball politics and triangulate issues. Bill is a phenomenally gifted politician. Hillary.. not so much.

Neither are idealists and both reinforce the status quo. They, like the Bushes, draw hard lines and make enemies.

I, for one, am glad to see the end of this era. Time for something else.

Whether Obama is ready for the most important job on the planet or not, his wife definitely has no business in the White House as First Lady. Looking at her age, and the world events that this country has been party to while she has been "an adult", it is extremely insulting to only feel proud of her country now that she and her husband have a realistic shot at getting a new address.

I think the negative words she spoke were taken out of context...if i think I know what you are eluding to?

the most important job on the planet

I dunno about that one ...

I heard the entire clip of what she said today and yes it's getting spin doctored quite a bit. while it was a sound bite Faux pas for sure when you hear it's entirity you can see where she was meaning on what Obama's campaing is bringing about in the American political arena.

Whats worse are the audio clips bieng distributed by the right that edit out the part where she say's "Really proud of my country".

I also saw the entire clip, and she seemed quite sincere. So, I am wondering why she never felt pride in her country before.

Whats worse are the audio clips bieng distributed by the right that edit out the part where she say's "Really proud of my country".There were two segments where she made a similar statement, one with and one without the word "really."

People are reading far too much into this comment. She obliquely references the matter here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40S4JAfb00w). Bill O'Reilly is kindly holding off on the "lynching party" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001) until he gets more facts. Stay tuned!

when you hear it's entirity you can see where she was meaning on what Obama's campaing is bringing about in the American political arena.You're stretching. Shouldn't she have been proud of her country's politics when Obama won his landslide victory for his Senate race?

The square peg fits in the square hole.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/anthem.jpg (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp)

Bill O'Reilly is kindly holding off on the "lynching party" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001) until he gets more facts.I eagerly await my marching orders... http://ayonae.ro/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Secondly, it's also telling that Clinton chose the lame plagerism attack instead of this one.

Secondly, it's also telling that Clinton chose the lame plagerism attack instead of this one.

Not so sure about that, remember this is politics and things can backfire in ways you hadn't expected. If Hillary attacks Michelle, I can see the giggling in the blogosphere, "Cat Fight!". No-win situation for Hillary potentially alienating women voters.

I think we're all closer to a "no-win for Hillary" anyway.

Considering Hillary's age, wouldn't it be more of a "Cougar fight"?

My goodness, all this hubbub over the word "really".

Jeesh, it must be an election year....

True Story here...

Bill Clinton was sitting with a friend telling him about a time when he and his wife were driving the Chicago visiting her family. He had just been elected president and they pulled into a gas station. The gas station owner turned out to be a former boy friend of Mrs. Clinton and they talked for a bit. Bill turned to his wife and said see if you would have married him you would be the wife of the gas station owner, and she said no if I would have married him I would still be married to the President of The United States.

I have the luxury of working with a retired secret service agent that has been on whitehouse duty since the end of the Johnson era. Before that he was the last agent that was assigned to Truman before his death, and has had a life of fun experiences. I get to hear all sorts of fun trivia and stories of past presidents, dignitaries, and other people. I love looking at his credenza behind his desk and seeing all the pictures of him and the Presidents and other world leaders.

Every time someone posts or copies something that says "True story," I want to go to snopes.

It was in the play My buddy Bill

Artistic License.....?

I wouldn't be suprised if it were true, because you could take it 1 of several ways: She was gonna inspire whomever she married to become President; She wouldn't have stayed long with the gas station guy, and would have dumped him for whomever was going to be President....

She does strike me as an ambitious person, and I really don't mean that in a bad way....

So Hillary is complaining still about Michigan and Florida, saying that she deserves the delegates from those states to not leave out voters, and everyone is aware that the other candidates did not campaign in those states as they were told not to by the Democratic Party.

Is it possible for her to get those delegates? and if they remain uncounted, wouldn't the super delegates she got from those states then also be null and void?

DNC needs to convince MI and FL Dem groups to just hold caucases/primaries. I don't think she can just get those delegates (no idea about the supers), but it's a pretty arcane system.

My mother is an Obama supporter, but she made an interesting point. The vast majority of the people interviewed exiting the polls cite Obama's charisma as what is drawing them to him, as much as the need for a "change". Mom reminded me that it was charisma and a need for change that drew people to David Koresh and Jim Jones as well, and she was wishing that there was more to Obama than that. But, she still prefers him over the other two.

I liked what I heard from McCain the other day, in terms of using vocabulary; it was something to the effect of "eloquence and empty promises".

No matter who the nominees are we have already raised the bar somewhat with this campaign, because people are listening to some impressive orators; we had none of that with Kerry or Bush, or even Gore and Bush. Both Obama and Hillary can give a good speech, and McCain not as much but still better than the last two campaigns' offerings.

Mom reminded me that it was charisma and a need for change that drew people to David Koresh and Jim Jones as well, and she was wishing that there was more to Obama than that. But, she still prefers him over the other two.


Now come on, comparing him to criminal psycho religious leaders is not even remotely fair.

McCain likes war...Hitler liked war...

Yeah, not fair at all, and Obama has a substantive body of actual policy work.

"Yeah, not fair at all, and Obama has a substantive body of actual policy work."

You're right and his "substantive body" is what draws his supporters to him --

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RmLfE30-kZw&feature=related

My mother is an Obama supporter, but she made an interesting point. The vast majority of the people interviewed exiting the polls cite Obama's charisma as what is drawing them to him, as much as the need for a "change". Mom reminded me that it was charisma and a need for change that drew people to David Koresh and Jim Jones as well, and she was wishing that there was more to Obama than that. But, she still prefers him over the other two.

I liked what I heard from McCain the other day, in terms of using vocabulary; it was something to the effect of "eloquence and empty promises".

No matter who the nominees are we have already raised the bar somewhat with this campaign, because people are listening to some impressive orators; we had none of that with Kerry or Bush, or even Gore and Bush. Both Obama and Hillary can give a good speech, and McCain not as much but still better than the last two campaigns' offerings.

He said "Eloquent yet empty call for change"

Then he went on to talk about how McCain himself offers change and will build trust that was lost in the last administration... Good work Genius, the President in the white house right now is a republican, and McCain is flip flopping towards Bush's views as to capture the conservative base. In essence what he just did was a "Non Eloquent and 100% empty call for change"

Apparently the secret service doesn't like Obama?


Police concerned about order to stop weapons screening at Obama rally

By JACK DOUGLAS Jr.
Star-Telegram Staff Writer


http://media.star-telegram.com/smedia/2008/02/21/05/108-324450-268988.embedded.prod_affiliate.58.jpg (http://media.star-telegram.com/smedia/2008/02/21/05/416-324450-268988.standalone.prod_affiliate.58.jpg)
STAR-TELEGRAM/RODGER MALLISON

Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.

The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service -- was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on.

"Sure," said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a "friendly crowd."

The Secret Service did not return a call from the Star-Telegram seeking comment.

Doors opened to the public at 10 a.m., and for the first hour security officers scanned each person who came in and checked their belongings in a process that kept movement of the long lines at a crawl. Then, about 11 a.m., an order came down to allow the people in without being checked.

Several Dallas police officers said it worried them that the arena was packed with people who got in without even a cursory inspection.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because, they said, the order was made by federal officials who were in charge of security at the event.

"How can you not be concerned in this day and age," said one policeman.

http://www.star-telegram.com/dallas_news/story/486413.html

Or maybe someone complained? Since no one wants to be accused of being a racist, and it would seem he draws a large crowd of minorities.....

interesting comment was made about republicans wanting Barack to win, as a scapegoat for the fallout from the last 8 years of Bush. Making the GOP a easy win for next election citing how horrible Obama has done. Think I heard Mike Rove say it

Or maybe someone complained? Since no one wants to be accused of being a racist, and it would seem he draws a large crowd of minorities.....

Highly unbelievable, he is the frontrunner for President of the United States of America.

interesting comment was made about republicans wanting Barack to win, as a scapegoat for the fallout from the last 8 years of Bush. Making the GOP a easy win for next election citing how horrible Obama has done. Think I heard Mike Rove say it

That is pretty dangerous... There is the possibility that he will do an Amazing job, (anything is amazing next to the current administration) and gain more support for the Democratic party in future elections.

More likely, the Republican minority in the Senate will block every initiative offered, continuing their record breaking run of filibusters, and then use Obama/Clinton's "lack of success in working for America" as a platform.

You Obama favorites are about to marry him after one or two dates. Republicans have a nominee they know all too much about, and Democrats have a nominee I suspect they don't know quite enough about. It may or may not work out quite how you're projecting.

More likely, the Republican minority in the Senate will block every initiative offered, continuing their record breaking run of filibusters, and then use Obama/Clinton's "lack of success in working for America" as a platform.Pretty lame excuse since he's running on the I can bring us all together platform.

You Obama favorites are about to marry him after one or two dates. Republicans have a nominee they know all too much about, and Democrats have a nominee I suspect they don't know quite enough about. It may or may not work out quite how you're projecting.

Pretty lame excuse since he's running on the I can bring us all together platform.

It was love at first sight Akipt...

What a minority it will be though. Normally you'd like some balances (a Republican president and Democrat congress or vice versa) but the first term Obama could really use the Congressional support to clean up the mess.

Senate now: 49 Repub, 49 Dem, 2 Independants (both caucus w/ Democrats)
Senate re-elections: 23 Republican, 12 Democrat seats to defend
Virginia will probably shift R to D, and New Mexico may follow. Some suggest that Minnesota, New Hampshire and Colorado might also go Democrat, but those are really too close to call. Its fairly safe to say none of the Democrat seats will be lost, except maybe Louisiana.

House now: 232 Democrat, 198 Republican, 5 vacancies
House re-elections: 48 Replubicans, 35 Democrat seats to defend
Many of these will probably stay the same, vacancies split in half between Democrat and Republican. Might see minor shifts, but nothing drastic.

Governors:
11 states have their election in 2008. 6 seats are held by Democrats, 5 by Republicans
Missouri is the only likely change, from Republican to Democrat.

This Democratic led Congress has been pathetically impotent. I don't see any reason to think that's going to change dramatically, just because a smooth talker's in office.

If anything a Democratic win faces more division than Republican, since the Democrats are currently divided in half.

A lot of the programs that Congress pushed forward that I would have liked to seen were vetoed. Stem Cell Research, Childrens Health Insurance, and the Health and Human Services flu vaccine issue (look at the flu outbreaks now, let alone the number of autism cases still on the rise). Its much like the Republican congress during the end of Clinton's term - its tough to do anything with all the good stuff getting vetoed.

It was love at first sight Akipt...And a week later you have a rash you can't seem to get rid of, her little brother breaks your xbox, and her cat shits on your laptop.

And a week later you have a rash you can't seem to get rid of, her little brother breaks your xbox, and her cat shits on your laptop.

Well, then I kill her cat, and break her little brothers knee caps, and take her for my own.

how did obama turn into a woman all of a sudden?!

Now come on, comparing him to criminal psycho religious leaders is not even remotely fair.

She was not making that comparison, but the "cult of personality" issue was her focus. People becoming such ardent supporters of someone so quickly, with only a few speeches to go on, was surprising to her. And, she said that was just how the two she mentioned got their start.

And I am noting how vehemently folks want to defend him from charges that are not even being made, which does remind me a lot of that "personality cult" stuff. People are so desparate for change that they are grasping at the only "new" face and elevating him to iconic status.

We have some interesting times ahead of us, between now and November.

I would like to point out that Hillary Clinton is now being accused of stealing lines she used in the Debate from John Edwards and Bill Clinton... LOL She just got made into a fool

I would like to point out that Hillary Clinton is now being accused of stealing lines she used in the Debate from John Edwards and Bill Clinton... LOL She just got made into a fool

No, you just made yourself look foolish.

That someone accuses someone does not equate to guilt.....that must be proven first.

When someone shows some factual proof that she lifted parts of her speech from someone else than go ahead and do your "nyah nyah" dance, but until then it only makes you look bad to jump on the bash-bandwagon.

No, you just made yourself look foolish.

That someone accuses someone does not equate to guilt.....that must be proven first.

When someone shows some factual proof that she lifted parts of her speech from someone else than go ahead and do your "nyah nyah" dance, but until then it only makes you look bad to jump on the bash-bandwagon.

Uh... Proof was shown on CNN. Oh and she has also stole lines from Obama... You heard the "Yes we can" he always likes to mention? She stole that line as well in one of her rallies.

Clinton faces claims of borrowed language (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/22/clinton-faces-claims-of-borrowed-language/)
Posted: 02:32 PM ET
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/02/22/art.billcopy0222.gi.jpg Since her campaign leveled allegations of copying at Sen. Obama, observers have pointed out similarity between some of Sen. Clinton's language and that of her husband.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

(CNN) – Hillary Clinton – whose campaign has spent the past several days pointing to instances of borrowed language in the speeches of rival Barack Obama – is being accused of lifting words from one very familiar politician: her own husband, former President Bill Clinton.

During Thursday night’s CNN Democratic debate, Clinton looked to highlight occasions when lines used by Obama have resembled those delivered by his friend and adviser, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

Clinton’s closing answer, which brought the audience to its feet, highlighted her personal struggles and the difficulties facing ordinary Americans: "You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

Shortly after she delivered her closing remark, a reader of Joshua Micah Marshall’s Talking Points Memo Web site noted (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179614.php) that the line seemed to bear a resemblance to one her husband was quoted as delivering during his 1992 campaign.

"The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time," her husband was quoted as saying in an article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7DF1E3CF937A35752C1A9649582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print) by Anna Quindlen in the New York Times in that November of that year.

Last night, Hillary Clinton also said: “You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about.”

The Obama campaign immediately began circulating a similar comment delivered by former presidential candidate John Edwards. “What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine,” Edwards said during a December debate in Iowa.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/22/clinton-faces-claims-of-borrowed-language/

I saw the videos comparing her bits to Edwards'. IMO, she completely owned herself last night.

It was ridiculously catty of her to take it to that level to begin with. They all have speech writers, Hilary included. Does anyone really think they speak exclusively their own words and phrases?

I have to give him props for mostly blowing it off and not arguing with her about it, instead of acting like she did when she acted like a twelve-year-old about the differences in their health care ideas.

I have to give him props for mostly blowing it off and not arguing with her about it, instead of acting like she did when she acted like a twelve-year-old about the differences in their health care ideas.

He is smarter than her, and instead had his campaign staff circluate the paper afterwards showing the Edwards line.

As far as it being ridiculous going catty, some of her advisors had been pleading for an even more aggressive attack, which never happened.

Yep, she has most likely assured losses in the rest of the run-up to the convention now, with that hypocrisy. Unless, of course, the media starts digging into Obama like they do the rest and finds something. Of course, he may be that rarity with little to hide.

Unless, of course, the media starts digging into Obama like they do the rest and finds something.

I promise you, they are digging plenty. They just haven't found much.

I promise you, they are digging plenty. They just haven't found much.

Agreed, so far he has done a good job of letting his own dirt show, through his book and even his ability to make you accept him even as he tells you he used to be a junkie as a child. We all agree, regardless of whether or not you like his policies or him as a person, he is indeed a very smart man.

They just haven't found much.Seems be the primary issue for Obama... nothing there.

The entire plagiarism gambit was, as Sanchek said, moronic to begin with.
Seems be the primary issue for Obama... nothing there.
Speaking of which...