Chicagoist: Hillary Wins West Virginia - Now What?

waitwhat

Thu, 15 May 2008 13:24:53 -0600

now what? Chicken butt. I mean, that's pretty much all that can be said to this insignificant victory. She's done. I think the Demotivators sign that says, "Quitters never win, winners never quit, but those who never win AND never quit are idiots." pretty much sums everything up.

BlueFairlane

Wed, 14 May 2008 22:30:22 -0600

Clinton's win in W.Va and her probable win in Kentucky are irrelevant. Anybody who thinks either West Virginia or Kentucky will go Democrat in November has never been to West Virginia or Kentucky. Obama's only move here is to act like he has it locked up. Why? Becuase he's got it locked up.

Spook

Wed, 14 May 2008 16:21:32 -0600

Generally in terms of discrimination, race trumps gender in America. But in this case clearly America is not ready for a Women President even if she is white! In every Presidential Election, Pennsylvania, Florida, West Virginia, and Ohio are crucial must win states! Hillary won all four of them! Yet instead of THIS being the story, the story is "what does she want?" Well, She wants to be President! The demo rats, opps I mean democrats are always pandering to white middle America by trying to be junior republicans and they always fail. Hillary Rodham Clinton comes along and (just like her husband) taps into and reaches them with their economic realities, only to be shunned, mocked! This is outrageous! Just wait till McCain wins. You fools will be to blame as much as the Demo-rats leading this short yellow school bus of a political party.

Dave!

Wed, 14 May 2008 14:19:32 -0600

I think there's a typo in your headline. Shouldn't it read, "Hillary Wins West Virginia - So What?"

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Wed, 14 May 2008 14:04:30 -0600

And what Hillary is doing by staying in the race is dragging out the inevitable and raising BOTH their negative ratings so that independents are defecting to McCain. What she is also doing is making sure that her ardent supporters don't feel like she was chased out of the race. If she stays in until she fizzles, they're less likely to remain, er, bitter and more likely to see it as her campaign's own failings.

Not_another_username

Wed, 14 May 2008 13:33:23 -0600

Yeah, there's nothing elitist about lending $11 million dollars to your failing campaign. That shows true working class values.

Spav1

Wed, 14 May 2008 13:15:53 -0600

Um, if you are a democrat, any democrat is better than McCain at this point. And what Hillary is doing by staying in the race is dragging out the inevitable and raising BOTH their negative ratings so that independents are defecting to McCain. For her to stay in at this point is both stupid (she is out of money) and selfish (she is wrecking the party).

widdlytinks

Wed, 14 May 2008 13:12:09 -0600

I think everyone who says Hillary should leave the race is a short term thinker. Even if you're 100% Obama (Which, may I ask, why? Because he's change? Why didn't you vote for a real change like Kucinich or Gravel?), you should realize that even if Hillary plays dirty, her digging up dirt now will spare Obama this dirt showing up late in the race in the general election. So how does it hurt? It doesn't. So WV doesn't mean much, but it's important for Hillary to stay in the race.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Wed, 14 May 2008 13:08:12 -0600

(the above should have read "brought down a Clinton candidacy...")

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Wed, 14 May 2008 13:06:07 -0600

I'm asking this cause I truly don't know the answer. What's the rationale of having primaries/caucuses on different days? Mostly tradition, but it does have several advantages. In most years, it significantly lowers the cost. Not this year, of course, after the expensive states moved their primaries up. There's quite a bit more free media coverage. In an all-at-once system, there's no reason at all to care about smaller states. Most importantly, IMO: It also helps the campaigns to weed out strategies and staffers that won't get traction/do good work in the general election. A Samantha Powers remark in the general could have been a disaster and Mark Penn could have brought a Clinton candidacy with misguided advise.

Spav1

Wed, 14 May 2008 12:39:49 -0600

@Mary: How can the candidates be expected to campaign in 50 states at ONCE? They would end up just campaigning in the biggest/most contested states and little states/rural areas would get no attention. It is basically for the same reasons we still have an electoral college.

Spook

Wed, 14 May 2008 12:26:31 -0600

Ya see this is why I, yer Spook, is really beginning to hate the demo rat ic party! Opps sorry, I meant to write democratic party! For the same reason how a long term Progressive Democratic Congressman was excluded from "Our" national debates! They’re doing all that they can to kill Hillary Clinton's Campaign and her voice! It’s not like she is continuing to lose! Just because the demo rat ic system is terribly flawed, -opps sorry, Chicago Public Schools education here- I meant to type democratic system is flawed, doesn’t mean Hillary should drop out of the race as long as she continues to win states! I guess “change” means a Red Eye Campaign with out issues for the elitist demo rat ic party, sorry I mean the elitist democratic party. Hillary Please continue to represent the voices of all working class and poor Americans! That's on every thang!

Mary_Sunshine

Wed, 14 May 2008 12:21:56 -0600

I'm asking this cause I truly don't know the answer. What's the rationale of having primaries/caucuses on different days? Being a former Indiana resident, I think it's awesome that they FINALLY were able to vote and actually feel like the decision hadn't already been made for them. Why doesn't the party just have one big election day? We'd know who won and who was conceding and could all move on to the bigger goal.

Rob Christopher

Wed, 14 May 2008 11:58:41 -0600

May 20th. Mark your calendars. It'll all be over.

jmagic

Wed, 14 May 2008 11:49:35 -0600

Hillary. Please. Go. AWAY!