I'm sure that scolding and lecturing by a pair of washed-up gorgons will remedy Hillary's deficit amongst younger women. Nothing can possibly go wrong with this strategy.

Because we all know young women really like being told that they vote their vaginas, and they do so for the candidate selected by their feminist elders, or else. Truly, an appealing message.

For someone that's usually pretty in tune with saying **** she needs to say to get elected... this was remarkably tone deaf of her.

I know right. For someone that's usually pretty in tune with saying **** she needs to say to get elected... this was remarkably tone deaf of her.

In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders.

In Bill's defense, chubby girls need lovin', too.

They're there because of the girls that are there because of the boys.

Ehh, that's true. You'd think she would have discussed the language before hand. Talking points, etc.

Its all a sham anyway though. <snip link>

I'm not saying Lewinski's not a perfectly valid mistress for someone else, but Bill was the President of the goddamn United **** States of America. JFK got it on with Marilyn Munroe. When you're the PotgUmfS, you get your pick of mistresses!

A very astute observation!



The thing here is that this represents a control over the nomination the party bosses almost don't dare use, because they can really only use it once.

There's a number of reasons:

A) There has not been a brokered convention since 1952. De facto control of the nomination has been in the hands of the voters because there wasn't much reason not to go along with it over the last 60 years. In a year when the insurgent candidate is running against Establishment corruption, suddenly yanking that control back via the superdelegates is likely to really piss off the voters.

B) If either party were to outright override a clear popular winner with superdelegates, the other party could really make hay of it in a general election - assuming they didn't do the same thing.

C) Specific to the Democrats, they're more vulnerable because of the smaller candidate field and larger number of superdelegates. The Republicans might be able to obfuscate this if they have more than 2 candidates remaining viable at the time of the convention, especially since unlike the Democrats where the Establishment frontrunner is trying to hold off a mounting challenge, the Republicans have 2 clear front runners, both of whom are very different from each other. There's a lot more room for horse-trading - and in fact, it might actually be necessary to establish a clear winner. The Republicans have a possibility of being thrown into a situation where the party bosses not only get to choose the nominee, but don't have any choice because otherwise there isn't a clear winner.

It seems like this was a "LOL, you Bernie people think you're *winning*? Hahuh! Hillary's already 300 delegates ahead! You're such losers. You should give up."

And I think its likely to backfire.

That happened in an era where the press and one's political opponents were far more reluctant to publicize such things. Richard Nixon expressly forbade his staff from using Kennedy's philandering against him.

And, let's be realistic, Bill's no JFK. It's been 20 years, so I don't really remember who would have been the Marilyn Monroe-analog in 1995; famous, widely desired, grievous emotional issues, but Bill probably could not have successfully clandestinely had an affair with her for longer than about 3 days. So he kept it closer to home. He'd have got away with it, too, if she hadn't used her mouth for talking.

Yeah, to get away with it these days you have to ...

...ignore it, not give a **** who knows, and tell the media/political opponents to stay the hell out of your personal life which has nothing to do with politics.

Yeah, to get away with it these days you have to go after people whose livelihoods are dependent on your continued patronage. That's why Clinton got away with it for so long, if you can fire them at any time they're less likely to gossip. If you just go for a hot chick you end up like Eliot Spitzer.

She's a little eccentric, but never struck me as having emotional issues.

The problem with this is that they're under no obligation to do so - especially since the other person involved gets to say "hell no, I want this to be public!" Politicians can't command the public to disregard anything. It gets worse when its not just a matter of messing around on your spouse, but also involves allegations of harassment or assault as Clinton's did.

I don't know. In the 70's, Canadian PM Pierre Trudeau replied to media accusations of adultery with such phrases as "**** off," and "Stay the **** out of my bedroom" and then refused to even recognize further anyone who brought it up. They could talk about it in the media all they wanted -- he just ignored them, and correctly and succinctly pointed out it had nothing to do with politics and was therefore off limits as far as interview topics are concerned. Seemed to work. The problems simply went away. It's hard to create a scandal when the subject of the scandal merely flips you off when you try and seems to continue unaffected by it.