The Fallacy of Clinton's 1968 Analogy

Perot never helped Clinton at all in either election. Not only do the 1992 exit polls have Clinton and Bush both getting 38 percent of Perot's vote each without him in the race, it doesn't automatically mean that "Perot helping" was why Clinton wanted him in the debate, if thats even true. If that were true, it was likely to try to undercut perot, and win over his voter so he could win a bigger landslide than he already got.

Ag, you wrote: "(Sen. McCain) will honor the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy instead of easing the taxes of the middle class..."

You might want to do your homework instead of blindly believing the Liberal talking points. The 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts have actually eased the tax burden of the middle class. Not only were the bottom two tax rates of the federal income tax, 15% and 28%, lowered to 10% and 15%, respectively, but the per-child tax credit was doubled to $1,000.

And here is further proof. In 2000 the top 1% of the nations's wage earners accounted for 37% of the total income tax revenue; and the top 5% of the nation's wage earners accounted for 56% of the total income tax revenue. Yet by 2005 -- after the so called "tax cuts for the wealthy" -- the top 1% of the nation's wage earners accounted for 39% of the total income tax revenue; and the top 5% of the nation's wage earners accounted for 60% of the total income tax revenue. That is a 2% and 4% INCREASE, respectively, in their share of the total income tax revenue for those two groups. Incidentally also in 2005, the top 50% of the nation's wage earners accounted for 97% of the total income tax revenue. The lower 50% of the nation's wage earners were "burdened" with just 3% of the total income tax revenue.

It was already covered pretty extensivley in the Butler Report online.

I've never posted on a blog before in my life, but after the comments I've seen here I felt compelled to write. I'll put my bias out front: I am an Obama supporter. More than that, though, I am a Democrat who believes that we must do better.

Part of doing better means understanding the truth. There seem to be three misconceptions among the posters, two minor and one major.

1) Obama and the media are not one, nor are they always united. It was the media that whipped up this RFK frenzy; the Obama camp explicitly said that they, like many of his supporters, assumed the sinister reading of Hillary's remarks were unintended and forgave her. Also, we seem to have forgotten that it was just a few weeks ago that Obama was being skewered by this very same media for Reverend Wright and his "bitter" comments. I didn't notice many Hillary supporters complaining.

2) This bit about Obama "buying" the primary. Yes, Obama outspends Hillary, and yes, this gives him an advantage. However, the money he is spending is not money from lobbyists nor is it money from his own bank account (which is a good deal smaller than either Hillary's or McCain's). Obama's "money-making machine" is nothing more than people who believe in his message. Which brings us to the major misconception.

3) Hillary and McCain are not similar. Hillary and Obama are. Hillary and Obama both believe in ending the war in Iraq, fixing the health care and education systems, and improving the lives of the middle class. Unlike the Democratic candidates, John McCain will leave our troops in Iraq, will do nothing to fix our health care crisis, will honor the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy instead of easing the taxes of the middle class, and will probably appoint conservative Supreme Court judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Your call.

HRC is a sore looser and the GOP are a bunch of idiots with no voice. Just vote Libertarian.

It seems someone doesn't LIKE what I have to say considering my "contributions" are being deleted with regularity. (lol)

The fact is "Ed" isn't a Democrat at all. You can tell by the way he posts. He is clearly a professional blogger because ONLY THEY equate being taken to task for saying 2+2=5 with persecution. Well...at least SELLING the idea that it does.

All of these middle aged women need to get a life. I agree with one of the other comments about the judges. Do you want Rev. Hagee to be a part of the decision making process in selecting the next two judges? Quoting Obama, "None of us support abortion". Yet, if you chose McCain, that will set back women's rights about 50 years. So, think twice about taking out your sore loser attitude on a candidate who beat Hillary by taking the high road and following the rules. Bill and Hillary like to question all of the those people who want Hillary to get out. "No one asked Ted Kennedy to get out of the race in June ...", they like to say. Well Bill and Hillary, Ted didn't conduct a scorched earth political campaign to tear down the other democratic candidate (angling for a possible run in 2012). How does that bad hair band song from the 80's go, "[Hillary] Don't go away mad, just go away."?

HRC is a pathological liar - like her husband before her. She committed the ultimate Freudian slip and no amount of backtracking, vitriol, or media spin can change it.

Clinton lost the nomination because she ran a poorly organized campaign, was out-strategized, and out-funded.

It's time for people to stop making excuses for her deplorable behavior and Orwellian campaign tactics.

After reading the idiocy and the hatred directed at Hillary Clinton for pointing out the obvious, that Bill Clinton didn't wrap up his nomination until mid-June and that Bobby Kennedy was campaigning in June when he was assassinated, it is no wonder that so many people fell for George W Bush and his "uniter" garbage, or Ronald Reagans baloney that he could cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1984.

I would love to think that it is just a bunch of otherwise sane folks getting a big head start on Memorial Day drinking, and that come Tuesday we will see folks sobering up and returning to the planet.

We can only hope.

The only way Clinton can win the popular vote is to count Florida and Michigan, two states where she had a brand name, no one campaigned in either state and Obama didn't even have his name on the ballot in Michigan. Believe me they won't count those votes, the delegates will be divided in parts and Obama will still have the deciding delgates. The bottom line is Clinton ran a bad campaign, Obama ran a good campaign, simple as that. The Clinton machine just wasn't what it was hyped to be, period.

Imagine picture: convention floor... vote for nominee... after Hillary won popular vote. Now, what all people who chanted in 2000 "every vote count" and "stolen election" could do? Vote Obama and get free pair of flip-flops (compliment of RNC)? Or is Barack angling for VP slot? You know, as a nominee he could loose GE. And after spending budget of small country to get nomination, he would end up as laughing stock. Or he just cannot work as hard as Hillary to get nominated?

What can I say about the Clintons in general, they are a decitful pair or politicians with no regard to class of ethics. All of you blogging on this site saying that you would never vote for Obama probably would not vote for Obama anyway, you are waisting good space. Of the women or men out there that are democrates I would give a little thought to a McCain presidency over Obama by one measure. One possibly two Supreme Court Justices will be picked by the next president. Do you really want more conservative justices on the court to overturn Roe vs Wade or many of the other long faught democratic issues. Think about that possibility before casting your vote.

You weren't there in '68 and you're wrong.

What I've truly found strange about this whole and continuing election process is the total disregard of what happened back in January, February, and March when the majority of states had their contests and Obama built his lead. Now the race after a see-saw April and May is at pretty much the same place it was two months ago with and here is the big point 3 and only 3 contests remaining. 51 of the 53 (just guessing) contests are done, tallied, and in the books. While the Clinton campaign wants to tell the American people something to the effect of "don't count your chickens before the eggs have hatched," isn't about time that we look and wonder what they possibly expect to happen when there are only three remaining unhatched eggs. I'm not looking to the future or the distant past I'm only looking at this year and thats where the nomination was won and lost.

Correct thing?? If you believe in your campaign and supporters its the only thing to do, Why dont we ask Kennedy about taking it to the convention in 1980, when he tryed to unseat the incumbent democratic president, i mean no offense to him as he is having health issues, but he tryed to rip apart the democratic party then and is doing so again by backing Obama early in this race... Ego tripping.. fits right in with Obama..

Hillary is having a tantrum and her idea
of how a Presidential candidate behaves
is very sad. I have heard people lie before but she takes the cake maybe the
whole bakery. She just can't face the
fact that people don't like her.
Her husband doesn't like her. If he did
he would not use her as a door mat.
She might make a good door mat but not
an adequate President not even close.
Get out and find a corner somewhere and
whine and whine and whine and take that bum with you.

Hillary Clinton will do and say anything to get elected. Just yesterday she promised Puerto Rico to amend the US constitution to allow them to vote in US Elections.

She's a phony through and through. She's not a New Yorker. She's not even a democrat.

I cannot wait until she loses her seat in the senate in 2012.

Bottom line - Kennedy and Clinton were still in the race in June '92 and '68, a race that had not been decided, and the general elections were in Nov.

So what is the real story here? More whiney pretend journalists trying to incite pressure for Hillary to drop out.

I wonder what these pseudo reporters will be saying after Puerto Rico when Hillary has won the popular vote of all the primarys, even when FL and MI are excluded from the totals.

The headlines will read "Hillary Wins Popular Vote Yet Still Won't Drop Out".

It's absolutely incredible to me how many people have said the same thing, over and over, for the last, oh, about three or four months now. There are slight variations on the theme, but almost to the letter it's some version of "Face it, Hillary. It's over."

There is no reason to get so incensed about the fact that Clinton is staying in the race unless you oppose her and are concerned that she will actually win. To hold her singlehandedly responsible for party division is ridiculous.

I believe that people sensing Obama's weakness want to have a fall guy (in this case, a fall gal) to blame when he loses the general. Then the shrill cries of blame will be that Hillary weakened him and showed the Republicans how to attack him.... Like the Republicans wouldn't have figured that out on their own. And the blamers, as usual, are our friends, the tolerant, inclusive liberals.

Stop blaming Hillary for everything and get on with your lives.

Hmm, De Troyes, are you saying Obama is now "inevitable"?