Clinton Dismisses Weekend Losses - From CNN

Clinton Dismisses Weekend Losses

WHITE MARSH, Maryland (CNN) — Hillary Clinton on Monday explained away Barack Obama's clean sweep of the weekend's caucuses and primaries as a product of a caucus system that favors "activists" and, in the case of the Louisiana primary, an energized African-American community.

She told reporters who had gathered to watch her tour a General Motors plant here that "everybody knew, you all knew, what the likely outcome of these recent contests were."

"These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."

Clinton has publicly dismissed the caucus voting system since before Super Tuesday, seeking to lower expectations heading into a series of contests that played to Obama's advantage. His campaign features what many consider to be a stronger and more dedicated grassroots organization than Clinton's.

Noting that "my husband never did well in caucus states either," Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."

The New York senator went out of her way to say she was "absolutely" looking forward to the Ohio and Texas primaries in March, where she believes voters are more receptive to her bread-and-butter message.

She also downplayed many of Obama's Super Tuesday victories, describing them as states that Democrats should not expect to win in November.

"It is highly unlikely we will win Alaska or North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska," she said, naming several of Obama's red state wins. "But we have to win Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Michigan … And we've got to be competitive in places like Texas, Missouri and Oklahoma."

*****************************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
"Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."

Well, i'm glad to see that my friends & I - many who have never even voted before are now considered activists, and that the 68% of us who showed up and waited in lines for hours in Nebraska don't really represent the electorate.

Wow - could Hillary be ANY MORE INSULTING???

:thumbsdown:

Either way, I don't think he's discounted the people who HAVE voted for Hillary as activists out of touch with the "real" electorate - who obviously vote for her.

:sarcasm:

do the same thing everywhere on the same day is hard. Otherwise, we would have won, we know that. It's just the system isn't set up for a candidate to communicate with voters the way I like to communicate with voters, one-on-one, because, really, it is personal. I know that and the voters know that, it just seems like the people who set up the system don't know that. And, of course, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand, decided not to vote for me."

that is gonna take some time...


maybe she will be ready in 2012?

Cheers:toast:

she likes to have a system where she can "find her voice" and gush tears too.

But sadly, this is not that system, so that Obama cult won. :sarcasm:

:-) Guess they want to end this war or something? Guess they are tired of all the B.S. of the past eight years and want real change.

First time I have ever heard someone who participates in the election process called an activist.

They might just make a nuisance of themselves trying to get people to the polls, etc.

:-)

Can't have that!:sarcasm:

We would all appreciate your contribution, I'm sure; and then, perhaps a Hillary Supporter could do the same with Obama. BTW, my answer to the disdain of Obama supporters toward the mature, white-haired old ladies, is to call you "glitterbabies". We have been voting for a long time, we read a lot, and most are very knowledgeable about the issues. Where were all of you when elderly white women were protesting the war, some of them in their wheelchairs. We were begging young voters to help us. Where the hell were you then?

Young people are easily swayed and rarely well read. If you disagree, perhaps you would like to put up your reading list for the year. You're much too busy with your sex lives, video games, college, barhopping, careers, etc. to actually read a biography or a non-fiction book. I don't really expect a list. It is much too easy to lie on anonymous laptops.

I would like for you to consider your own inexperience and record of political activism? Is this your first time at the rodeo? Have you ever taken the advice of an elder, or do you consider yourself a pro-claimed political expert after your first primary. You see, this is what we Hillary supporters are very afraid of. A young, charismatic speaker, possibly with feet of clay, (only time will tell) with very little world experience, who for some reason thinks he can lead the free world? Give me a break. No, I do not want our President to have to depend on his cabinet for decisions only he or she should make. He/she should have the facts at their fingertips, just the way Hillary does. I'm afraid you're living in a dreamworld, glitterbabies.

Translation: The most liberal, pro-gay, pro-diversity, anti-war, pro-fair trade generation in history, and the only age demographic that voted majority for John Kerry, is a bunch of ignorant consumers. Prove me wrong by posting books you've read...



Translation: No, never mind, I've made up my mind before hearing what you have to say, and won't believe you anyway.

Last I checked, that was called "prejudice."



Possibly we realized that this isn't the 60s redux, and protests wouldn't make a bit of difference with the Bush gang. They're the laughingstocks of the nation now and they still do whatever they want, with 75% of America against them, and you think that young people's presence in protests would've mattered? It is to laugh. Have you considered that "elderly white women," retired from work, don't have QUITE as much to lose in this horrible economy as new graduates do, and young people judged that it was more (to use a favorite Hillary supporter term) pragmatic to acquire some independence and capital before amassing a movement?



I can't speak for the person you're replying to, but I'm in my mid-20s and I'm a former staffer for a national campaign. If this is degenerating into a "real-world political experience" penis contest, what've you got?

Obama excused any of his losses because it was "white haired ladies" voting.

I would add that someone who is truly mature - politically or otherwise, would not resort to namecalling, even if provoked. "Glitterbabies" - how patronizing of you.

dissed white haired ladies and I was just pointing out in a sarcastic way that this thread is about Hillary making excuses for her losses and that in contrast Obama hasn't blamed his losses on white haired ladies.

"Young people are easily swayed and rarely well read. If you disagree, perhaps you would like to put up your reading list for the year. You're much too busy with your sex lives, video games, college, barhopping, careers, etc. to actually read a biography or a non-fiction book. I don't really expect a list. It is much too easy to lie on anonymous laptops."

I realize this is directed at one poster in particular, but it obviously is a jab at young Obama supporters in general. Here's one 20yo Obama supporter who argues that we don't all fit the stereotype you present. As for a reading list, since this time last year I've read the following non-fiction,

The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas Friedman
The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins
The End of Education, Neil Postman
Democracy, Charles Tilly
Confessions of an Economic Hitman, John Perkins

Nothing all that earth shattering, but I'll bet it's a heck of a bit more than joe average, and it throws a wrench in the gears of your 'Obama supporters are naive illiterate kids' mantra.

Sometimes it takes getting riled to get somebody to post!

I'm 45, intermittently gray haired (remind me to do my roots) and I think it's brilliant that you younger voters are here and fired up! So glitter on!

And, by the way, since it is you and not us old-fogey who will be *fighting* the wars the old-farts dream up, be loud and proud. Your right to be heard is inviolate and shame on anyone who would silence you.

My non-fiction reading for the last 12 months:

The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson
1776 by David McCullough
John Adams by David McCullough
Truman by David McCullough
Gulag by Anne Applebaum
Lucrezia Borgia by Sarah Bradford
Inhuman Bondage by David Brion Davis
The Nazi Doctors by Robert Jay Lifton

There's more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head. I've also read plenty of fiction and memoirs as well. ;) I'm 27, and still bar hopping and enjoying my sex life as well as being well read. Not much into video games though. I did just get a promotion and raise though.

:hi:

They bought into his bullshit scare tactics.

Younger people went overwhelmingly for Kerry. They also have fewer problems voting for a black person and support gay marriage in larger numbers than any other group. Most also oppose the war and this is the least republican generation.

First you begrudge young people for being apathetic and self centered. So now that they're voting and enthusiastic you're irritated?

So please don't start with some generational self righteous BS. I don't recall Obama ever blaming his losses on "glitterbabies" (this is the first time I've heard that term).

Hate to break it to you, but depending soley on the post-menupausal white women vote is going to result on the dems getting their asses handed to them this fall. The choice is clearly Obama, but some of ya'l are content to piss away yet another election. I don't get it.

They are voters, Hillary. Their vote counts just as much as anyone's. This is divisive talk.

was doing what, pray tell? Gee, activists is a bad word? Check your dictionary, or online, whatever. Ask your mother?

But to assert "they (caucus participants) don't represent the electorate, we know that." is just downright stupid. Of course they represent the electorate - they are part of it. Are they REPRESENTATIVE of the whole electorate? No. But neither are primary participants. Are the delegates selected just as real as those chosen by the primary process? Yes. Someone needs to tell Hillary to stick to the issues and leave the excuses to someone else. It is unbecoming and it is hurting her.

She and Bill have screwed up big time, and they can't fix it by November, IMO. I've never seen a candidate openly disrespect the black community in the primary and get their active backing in the fall.

It's the down ballot races I'm most concerned about if Hillary gets the nomination. If the black vote in America is 10% lower than usual (and I think it will be down a lot more than that), we'll get wiped out in many major urban areas, losing races that black votes normally put us over the top against the pukes.

:sarcasm:

I am simply appalled at how badly the Clintons have handled this, how they have constantly gone to divisive, race based issues. I'm outraged, and consider their conduct repugnant to our party.

What is she going to say about that?!!!!!!

Only HILLARY voters represent the electorate, haven't we figured that out yet?

who have no substance, don't "find their voices", don't "know what they knew then, so they voted differently" and who don't cry....

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAH RUN FOR Y OUR LIVES!

:sarcasm:

What is she going to say about that?!!!!!!

She's right if she's talking about herself and her campaign.

She's lost in the delusions of a failed dream.

What a sore loser and she's only embarassing herself trying to race-bait. Shameless like usual.

Rather than provide a lengthy rationalization - she would have been better to say something like: It's a tough fight, and congrats to the Obama camp for the multiple victories.

Instead, her tap dancing not only makes her look less presidential, but like a sore loser as well.

GoBama!

Obama's supporters are the ones who always try to color her a racist. The Clintons have never been racist. Bill came to speak at a small AA owned restaurant here. Most supporters were for obama, but, they loved Bill Clinton. They are voting for Obama to have a black President, as many of you accuse women of doing when they vote for Hillary. It's ok for you, but not for us? Don't you think that's hypocritical?

The answer is yes, they will vote for a Clinton. They've done it before in droves. The Clintons have always stood up for black americans, and americans of all colors. Maya Angelo is supporting Hillary as are many, many, congressional black caucus members, and the list goes on.

said the Clintons are racist. It's obvious they aren't.

What some have argued, including myself, is that over the course of this campaign, the Clintons have been dismissive of many of Obama's victories due to his carrying the African American vote overwhelmingly.

This may be considered racially insensitive and insulting to all of Obama's supporters, but is definitely incredibly idiotic, and shortsighted.

Hillary need not have even mentioned the racial demographics of Louisiana. She could have simply said "congrats to Obama for a hard fought win over the weekend. It's clear we have work to do and we intend to do that before the following primaries and we intend to carry the delegate rich states of Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, as well as Virginia and Maryland".

Instead she comes off as a sore loser, basically writing off the states Obama won as unimportant. This is a losing strategy now, and the general election.

really I did.

Scary thing is, it's all tied in with the strong arming the superdelegates.

Unlike Hillary, Bill won in Washington, Nebraska, and Maine.

'They're bad, because they're dominated by people who are actually passionate about and involved in the political process. Why do they hate America?'

Can't we round up more sheeple and have them vote on diebold machines. That is much more Democratic.

To VIRGINIA!

Current Clinton strategy: Non-blue states don't count because we shouldn't try to win them anyway, caucuses don't count because we shouldn't listen to the people most motivated to get out and vote, and swing states like Virginia don't count because... well, we'll have to wait until after they vote tomorrow to find the rationale for that one.

Really, don't they recognize the inherent problem of the "blue states plus one" strategy? That's what lost us the last two elections.

she didn't speak out about them before she started losing them and why she didn't prepare her ground game to combat them.

I wonder why?

When has OK and TX ever been competitive for a Democrat? Ross Perot isn't running

Last I looked, Obama won Missouri. And Texas is still out there. It is not guaranteed that she will win it nor that she would be competitive there in November even if she did win it. I am not following her logic here.

This is my first post and need to vent a little. Since I can't create new topics this was the closest I could find.

I've always been the Liberal Independent and my sister a lifelong conservative Republican from New Jersey. Today on the phone she said all of her friends have such a high contempt for Hillary for reasons she doesn't know. She did however say she likes Obama. I was blown away!

I think everyone wants a change. We want the Bush/Clinton era to finally end. Enough is enough. Hillary and Bill had their time in the White House and I think those were good times. But that age is gone. It's time for a new era of inspiration.

I can't believe that someone could watch a speech by Hillary and then a speech by Mr. Obama and honestly think she would be a better leader in such a pivotal time.

I will go a step further and say that Hillary's negatives will draw conservatives out of the woodwork. The only chance Democrats have of losing this election is if Hillary is the nominee.

Thanks for reading.

n/t

And tell your sister hooray for being a soccer mom! :) I hope to be one too someday.. when my 2 year old is able to actually dribble a ball. ;)

I think I caught a whiff of "blame the black folks" talk in her statement. Maybe I'm wrong...hope I am actually, but it's what my gut tells me.

all? Seems to me she is still being somewhat dismissive by implying that the main reason Obama won LA is because he is supported by African Americans. I mean how else does one take such a reference. It is almost bizarre that Hillary thinks this is not the least bit offensive. I suppose when she loses Maryland tomorrow it will because of the African Americans in Prince George's County and Baltimore City - even though she is going to probably get thumped in Montgomery, Howard and Baltimore Counties as well.

and I can't exactly figure out how she spins that one. Ohhh yeah, we were a Caucus state, so we're just a bunch of activists.

Wow... what is she going to do for my state if she wins the GE. Piss all over it, because we didn't vote for her. Sheesh

as a Puerto Rican, I'm glad I voted Obama. Deep inside, I knew how this white DLC-elitist thought of MY vote and the vote of black people. We're cool when we're supporting THEM...we're NOT cool when we actually think there might a chance to vote one of us in. Then we're just voting "our race".

I don't think that was the role the dog actually played ;)

to the coronation..Obama wasn't out after Super Tues. On to plan B if they have one. hilary deserves to get her undemocratic ass kicked..remember the clintons were the ones who didn't want the Service Union in Nevada to be able to caucus at their job..

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/obama_clinton_backers_didnt_fi.php

Caucuses are not an accurate reflection of the will of the party members. They never have been. That's why the party has been steadily moving away from them.

This election cycle - 6% turnout in caucuses, 29% in primaries. Those numbers actually mean something.

Take away the southern state primaries and Obama's obvious advantage there and he hasn't actually done that well. I'll accept him as a legitimate threat to win the general election when he shows he can win some of the upcoming big primary states.

There is no getting around that. You can be sure that if the roles were reversed the caucus process would be the greatest thing since sliced bread and look how well I am doing in red states which is where we need to win if we are going to win the GE, etc. etc. (which is the truth by the way - we only win blue states in November and we lose.)

She's trying to win the nomination - and it is a valid point she's making.

I've never seen anything like this, myself - this huge difference between the caucus state numbers and the primary numbers. Especially when Obama's numbers in some of those caucuses don't remotely match any polling in those states or on a national level. 80-20? 70-30? Common sense tells one that those kind of numbers are out of line with what you would get if more people had participated (as in a primary).

Obama needs to show that he can put together a diverse enough coalition to win the big states, otherwise it bodes poorly for his chances in the GE.

She actually said, "I'll never forget you".

B.S., I say.

Just when I want to like her or feel any sympathy she says something like this.

LOL, pshhhh everyone knows that the states Obama won don't matter. They're full of black people...or wait, full of white people ...

Her sniding that the caucus vote is just a silly little exercise is proof again that she is so divisive within her own party that it is hard for her supporters to be strong in the ultimate democratic test. A caucus is just that. You need dedicated volunteers, a good ground game, and organization is "primarily dominated by activists".

Activists..bad! Grassroots...really bad! Having a "stronger and more dedicated grassroots organization"...BAD! BAD! BAD!

:boring:

The truth is that Hillary does not have same level of grassroots support that Obama has that makes the difference in caucus states. It is disingeneous to simply dismiss caucus states as somehow not mattering. Of course they matter. If she could have competed more effectively she sure would have. It is a form of sour grapes on her part and not very becoming, imo.

If I were a white person in those states, I'd be insulted.

As if she expects the white vote because, gosh almighty, she's a Clinton.

I'm SO glad I voted Obama, and I'm SO glad she's losing primaries...and I'm so glad she's re-arranging her campaign, and I'm so glad she's no longer the front-runner.