After losing 8 primaries/caucuses in a row to Barack Obama, Clinton’s campaign is trying anything they can to slow down his momentum. They’re intensifying their fabrications of facts and financing more smear ads on television in hopes that voters will listen to their propaganda and lose the fire and inspiration that Obama has sparked in them. Today she has gone to a new low by trying to attack Obama’s strength, his words and speeches. Clinton’s campaign is accusing Obama of plagiarising his speech on Saturday night to a Wisconsin crowd by borrowing from a fellow supporter, and current governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick.
What Obama actually did was use the same famous sayings from former presidents, that Deval Patrick used in his own speech 2 years ago and made the same argument that powerful speeches aren’t just words. Not only that, but Deval Patrick had suggested Obama use these quotes and David Axelrod, who is currently running Obama’s campaign, ran Patrick’s campaign two years ago; therefore, Axelrod might’ve been the original influence behind the original use of these famous quotes. So the question is, when is plagiarism really plagiarism? I doubt using the same quotes that everyone knows and grasping the same universal meaning behind them counts.
Besides, Hillary Clinton is not only guilty of “stealing” speeches from her own husband but she also has taken slogans right out of Obama’s camp. Just another example of Clinton following the same old “Do as I say, not as I do” politics. She should really stop trying to point fingers of possible missteps that Obama may or may not have committed when she is guilty of the same transgressions.
One of Obama’s repeating slogans and Clinton’s plagiarism of it:
Everyone knows Obama’s “Yes We Can” slogan, well guess what:
Hillary Clinton really needs to look in the mirror.
With the exception of MSNBC (which still shows Obama up 838 to Clinton’s 834), it seems that the other websites now have new delegate counts. The NY Times originally showed the Associated Press’ delegate count on their homepage and their own delegate count. Now, the Associated Press’ numbers are nowhere to be found and their own count has spiked. Yesterday, they had Obama beating Clinton 34 to 21. Today, however, Clinton is now winning, with two sets of numbers. Her Feb. 5th numbers are up 667 to Obama’s 583 but now, it seems, they’re also using Super Delegates which balloons her lead to 892 over 716.
CNN originally had Clinton up 818 to 730 but now that has changed to 823 over 741. In case you weren’t confused enough, here are some other sites I forgot to mention before. Yahoo’s political dashboard shows Clinton at 830 delegates and Obama at 820. Fox News shows Clinton ahead 1,024 to Obama’s 933. Finally, Real Clear Politics, shows Clinton in the lead 1,060 to 981. I’m sure there are more numbers out there, but I don’t have the energy or the patience to delve into more baffling results.
So why is there still discrepancy to the delegate counts? Well, according to MSNBC, “Different news organizations make different delegate calls at different points along the process” and “some estimate what the candidates will get after the lengthy counting process has played itself out.”
However, the NY Times claim they use officially pledged numbers. If this is the case, how are their numbers higher than MSNBC, CNN and Yahoo? It made more sense yesterday when their numbers were drastically smaller. It doesn’t make sense that the other sites would keep official counts out of their estimated totals.
What is the lesson to all this? For me, it’s to vote for the person that best represents your cause and just be patient until the official candidate is delared at their respective Conventions.
So I’ve been trying my best to follow the political races and I’m getting confused beyond all reason. According to MSNBC, Obama has 838 delegates to Clinton’s 834. However when I jump over to CNN, Clinton is up with 818 while Obama is down with 730. The Associated Press (found on the homepage of NY Times website) shows that Clinton is leading Obama in the delegate count 1,000 to 902; whereas, the NY Times’ actual count is showing Obama winning 34 to Clinton’s 21. Now why are the NY Times numbers so drastically smaller than everyone else’s you might ask? Well the reason is that, “the New YorkTimes counts only delegates that have been officially selected and are bound by their preferences.”
So what does this all mean? Heck if I know. The only constant, no matter the numbers, is that the Democratic race is a close one. Now the Republican side is a different story. There are some discrepancies with the numbers for the Republican on the websites I mentioned above as well; however, they all show McCain with a large majority. This doesn’t hold true for the Democrats because some sites show Obama winning, others show Clinton in the lead.