Reply #229: I'm sorry, Apollo11, but on this topic ...

[NanceGreggs]

... we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm sure you are as familiar with Hill's quote re McCain and Obama as everyone else. She didn't compare herself to McCain; she compared herself and McCain as both being more qualified than her fellow Dem, Obama. You can spin this to death; she said it, and it was wrong.

I keep seeing posts here about "what she meant to say was" - this is a highly intelligent, politically savvy, exceptionally articulate woman. Why do her remarks need clarification, parsing, or explanations? She is more than capable of speaking for herself - and her words are her words.

Re FL and MI - Hillary pledged, along with the other candidates, to adhere to the rules with regard to these two states. She only "realized" how unfair those rules were after she decided that she needed those votes. If polls showed that were those two states counted or allowed a do-over, Obama would win both of them handily, do you honestly believe that she would be insisting they be counted? She even suggested that MI be counted as-is, knowing that Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Does that sound like someone who wants things to be done fairly?

As for her continuing to stay in the race, I personally wouldn't care if she kept campaigning into the next decade - if she were running a clean campaign. But she's not.

As for being unfair to her, I think I have been more than courteous in the OP. I didn't bring up the fact that she owes money all over the place, that she is stiffing small business operators while she continues to stay in four star hotels, that she has lied - not mis-spoke or mis-remembered, but lied - about her Bosnia trip, and her other claims to "experience" that have been grossly exaggerated or proven false altogether.

We can talk forever about the polls showing people trust Hillary more than Obama on any number of things. But that only begs the question: If more people want/like/need/trust Hillary than Obama, why is she losing?