Hillary might try to steal the nomination if she can't win

[Betsy]

Let the record show that Doug says Hillary is not in control of how her campaign is run.

[Doug]

Let the record show that Doug says Hillary is not in control of how her campaign is run.

DOUG
A. I said she was in control of who is her manager.
B. Maybe you want to tell us your interpretation of what a campaign manager does, and why all the candidates have them.

I have said: "Hillary is in control of her campaign, hence the recently replaced campaign manager."

I have also said: "She is in control of who manages her campaign, but she is not the campaign manager."

I don't think either of those statements entail that I believe that Hillary is not in control of her campaign. But I would say that if her campaign is poorly run, MOST of the blame should go to the one who manages the campaign, the campaign manager.

[Betsy]

What the Texas senator should have said was "I don't know off the top of my head because the legislature hasn't been able to get much of anything done because there is too much divisiveness, which is something Obama can repair."

Keith Olberman then asked Chris Matthews to name one accomplishment the legislature had made and Matthews couldn't answer that, either.

p.s. let the record show that Doug has said that Hillary is not in control of her campaign.

[Dardedar]

p.s. let the record show that Doug has said that Hillary is not in control of her campaign.

DAR (records keeper, splitter of hairs)
I checked the record and the record shows Doug saying:

"Hillary is in control of her campaign"

and then referring to the same quote again:

"Hillary is in control of her campaign"

The record does not show Doug saying: "Hillary is not in control of her campaign." So why should the record show him saying something he didn't say?

BETSY
What the Texas senator should have said was "I don't know off the top of my head because the legislature hasn't been able to get much of anything done because there is too much divisiveness, which is something Obama can repair."

DAR
He wasn't able to repair the divisiveness while in the senate but he will be able to repair it if he leaves?

Yes we can!

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I've been visiting Daily Kos lately - a very pro-Obama site - but one of their posters actually went to sources - I wish I could remember the names, one of them is the source used by projectvotesmart - indicating who had done what and compared their records. Only for the 3 years Obama has been in the Senate, so totally discounting Hillary's first 4 years. The results showed Hillary a hair more progressive than Obama in her voting record. They came out about equal in sponsoring legislation, and they often co-sponsor each other's legislation. As far as who's most progressive - Hillary wins by a statistically insignificant 2 percentage points. Look at their plans and see which one you like best, but the "Hillary is conservative, Obama is progressive" meme doesn't fly.

Tony - the Clintons didn't become conservative after the 1994 election, they were stuck with a rabid Republican-controlled congress. They did what they could under the circumstances. And a couple of things Bill did, Hillary had recommended against (NAFTA, Welfare Reform), but while Bill respects her judgement, he doesn't always take her advice. He's been known to regret that.

Hillary is not stupid. Nor is she incompetent. My personal take on the "nerf bat" hits like plagerism is that she's told her people to treat Obama with kid gloves. She doesn't want to tear up the party - this election is too important. Sure she wants to win, if she can legally do so, she's worked long and hard for this. She's not giving up til the last vote is counted - but she's not going to take the party and the country down with her, if she can't make it, for all the Hillary Haters insisting that she's doing so. What's doing so is the partisanship of the extremists in both camps - the "if ___ wins, I'm not voting/voting green/writing myself in" people.

[Betsy]

re: doug's statements - Twice I asked him directly whether Hillary has control of what goes on in her campaign, and he would not answer state that she does, instead passing off responsibility to her campaign manager. It was clear that he didn't want to answer my question directly. You guys can't have it both ways, you know.

I like Hillary and think she would make a great president. I like Barack Obama better for a number of reasons and think he would be a better one. I don't know why this has to get nasty toward each other's supporters. Let's just be glad a Democrat is going to be president next time. Their positions on the issues are practically the same. Whichever one gets the nomination, we're going to get an exceptionally intelligent new president. Dragging it all down in the mire of stupid accusations (i.e., plagiarism) is silly and just undermining the democratic side.

Which is why the superdelegates won't turn the tables on the voters, because we need to keep a united party.

[Doug]

re: doug's statements - Twice I asked him directly whether Hillary has control of what goes on in her campaign, and he would not answer state that she does, instead passing off responsibility to her campaign manager. It was clear that he didn't want to answer my question directly.

I answered clearly. Perhaps "control of her campaign" has subtle meanings ("she runs everything" vs. "she controls which person runs everything" v. "she runs some of the main activities and the campaign manager runs the rest," etc.) and the answer is not as simple as you would like because "control" can mean different things.

You guys can't have it both ways, you know.

I stated the "ways" in which Hillary controls her campaign. So what "way" do you disagree with?

I have said: "Hillary is in control of her campaign, hence the recently replaced campaign manager."

I have also said: "She is in control of who manages her campaign, but she is not the campaign manager."