Clinton Says Ignore the Media, "They Have Jobs and Healthcare"

By: Ryan Corsaro
Topics: Hillary Clinton

(CBS)

From CBS News' Ryan Corsaro:

LORETTO, KY. -- Hillary Clinton visited a bourbon distillery here today, where she asked Marion County voters for support and told them to ignore members of the media "who have jobs" that say she cannot win against Senator Barack Obama. She also spoke briefly on the hospitalization of her colleague, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who was hospitalized this morning in Boston after suffering from two seizures.

"Speaking of health care," Clinton told a crowd of around a thousand, "we had word this morning that my good friend and a great champion of working people, Sen. Ted Kennedy was rushed to the hospital with symptoms of a stroke, and our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family, because he has been a champion for health care."

"Nobody has fought harder to make sure everybody got good health care. And I know that we all join together in wishing him well. But what Sen. Kennedy believes and what I believe and what many others believe is that every American should be entitled to the same health care as your member of Congress is entitled to. "

Clinton made the remarks after she visited the Maker's Mark bourbon distillery today, where she hand-dipped a bottle in the brand's trademark red wax.

She spoke for over a half hour, adamantly telling the crowd that she had the ability to beat the Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, in November.

She also maintained that she still holds a lead in the popular vote, telling voters not to be dissuaded by pundits who predict she is unlikely to surpass Obama's momentum and delegate count at this point in the race. "Right now, if you add up the states that I have won, it totals 300 electoral votes," said Clinton.

"You have to have 270 electoral votes to win. Now there are some states I've won that maybe won't go for Democrats like Texas and Oklahoma, but I still have a comfortable margin. My opponent has won states totaling 217 electoral votes and lots of states like Alaska and Idaho and Utah that haven't voted Democrat in a long time. So if you look at the states we have to win, if you look at the big states and look at the swing states, I am the stronger candidate."

She also attacked members of the media directly. "All those people on TV who are telling you and everybody else that this race is over and I should just be graceful and say 'Oh, it's over' even though I've won more votes – those are all people who have a job," she said. "Those are all people who have healthcare. Those are all people who can afford to send their kids to college. Those are all people who can pay whatever is charged at the gas pump. They're not the people I'm running to be a champion for –
I'm running to be a champion for all of you and your children and your grandchildren."

Clinton continues to campaign in Kentucky through Tuesday's primary.

36 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 36 Comments


by mvymvy May 20, 2008 11:36 PM EDT: The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn%u2019t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. Every vote should be equal.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The major shortcoming of the current system is that candidates have no reason to worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, because the winner-take-all rule awards all of a state%u2019s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved in legislative chambers in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont, and enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com; Reply to this comment


by mvymvy May 20, 2008 11:03 PM EDT: The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn%u2019t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. Every vote should be equal.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The major shortcoming of the current system is that candidates have no reason to worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, because the winner-take-all rule awards all of a state%u2019s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved in legislative chambers in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont, and enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com; Reply to this comment


by mvymvy May 20, 2008 7:02 PM EDT: The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn%u2019t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. Every vote should be equal.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The major shortcoming of the current system is that candidates have no reason to worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, because the winner-take-all rule awards all of a state%u2019s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved in legislative chambers in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont, and enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com; Reply to this comment


by mvymvy May 20, 2008 6:14 PM EDT: The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn%u2019t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. Every vote should be equal.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The major shortcoming of the current system is that candidates have no reason to worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, because the winner-take-all rule awards all of a state%u2019s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved in legislative chambers in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont, and enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com; Reply to this comment


by mvymvy May 20, 2008 5:43 PM EDT: The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn%u2019t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. Every vote should be equal.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The major shortcoming of the current system is that candidates have no reason to worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, because the winner-take-all rule awards all of a state%u2019s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved in legislative chambers in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont, and enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com; Reply to this comment


by mvymvy May 20, 2008 5:00 PM EDT: The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn%u2019t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. Every vote should be equal.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The major shortcoming of the current system is that candidates have no reason to worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, because the winner-take-all rule awards all of a state%u2019s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved in legislative chambers in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont, and enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com; Reply to this comment


by mvymvy May 20, 2008 4:50 PM EDT: The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn%u2019t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. Every vote should be equal.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The major shortcoming of the current system is that candidates have no reason to worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, because the winner-take-all rule awards all of a state%u2019s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved in legislative chambers in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont, and enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com; Reply to this comment


by mvymvy May 20, 2008 4:38 PM EDT: The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn%u2019t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. Every vote should be equal.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The major shortcoming of the current system is that candidates have no reason to worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, because the winner-take-all rule awards all of a state%u2019s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved in legislative chambers in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont, and enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com; Reply to this comment


by mvymvy May 20, 2008 4:35 PM EDT: The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn%u2019t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. Every vote should be equal.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The major shortcoming of the current system is that candidates have no reason to worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, because the winner-take-all rule awards all of a state%u2019s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved in legislative chambers in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont, and enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com; Reply to this comment


by mvymvy May 20, 2008 4:30 PM EDT: The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn%u2019t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. Every vote should be equal.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The major shortcoming of the current system is that candidates have no reason to worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, because the winner-take-all rule awards all of a state%u2019s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved in legislative chambers in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont, and enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com; Reply to this comment