Face it - Hillary has already won

I hate Hillary's pro-war, pro-imperialist nonsense as much as anyone but she has already won the Democratic nomination.

Obama knows if he won the nomination by some fluke, he can not be elected president. He is not attacking Hillary because he wants the VP slot.

Edwards is appealing to poor and working class people, and probably has the highest support of a Democrat from rural, working class whites. Which is why he will never win the nomination - the DLC New Democrats who control the party are frightened to death of a mobilized working class, especially with significant white working class support.

You people are going to be blabbing about this for a year, when it's clear she's already won. None of the other candidates has a serious campaign organization.

In 2000, Bill Bradley ran to Gore's left. There was one person, not a whole field, for all the people left of Gore to get behind. Did he win? Of course not. With support scattered among so many candidates, there is even less of a chance of anyone winning over Hillary. And by less I mean none.

I don't mind someone supporting Gravel and Kucinich on principle, even though they know they're going to lose. But a lot of people here are deluded that anyone but Hillary can actually win the nomination. Which is completely impossible, unless her plane crashes or something. Your lack of understanding of how politics works is what is pushing the progressive cause back.

As I said, Hillary is an imperialist owned by big business, and supporting anyone else on principle is fine. But people who think someone else can actually win the nomination, or that Bush can actually be impeached and so forth are completely deluded. It is not the principled, but futile gesture which disturbs me, but that political ignorance is such that people think someone other than her can win the nomination. You seem to think her big corporate donors and DLC heads of the party actually give a hoot what the base of the party wants.

Never Give Up.

not US!!!

its no where near over.

The party elites certainly didn't want McGovern....

But , yeah, other than that the party elites were comfortable with the candidates on both sides of the aisle...

that was a very different time. People were mobilized and organizing, inside and outside of the party. There is nothing like that nowadays. I also think McGovern didn't do enough to appeal to working class support, which caused him to lose badly, but that is another story...

For the simple fact the demographic nature of the nation is so different than it was in 1972...

I think any Dem who's not ridiculous gets 45% of the vote just for being on the ballot...

In order to smooth the wounds McGovern, like Dean, won concessions for the future structure of primaries. Dean stayed the road for party reform. McGovern used the new rules to obtain the nomination. Ever since then the party has fled from the McGovern reforms in ways such as to prevent one of his ilk from ever dominating or winning.

Despite the injection of stupid chaos in the date race stampede what exactly is the primary structure today and who benefits? There are reforms to lend credibility to the 'democratic" people's choice aspect. In everything else it is about stability, speed, conservation of money, elimination of division and stamping out of enthusiastic core interests. Frontrunner's look so mushy because they must epitomize this ideal or they wouldn't be leading in such a race.

The comment that the left has never made a difference except for the McGovern disaster has indeed never been overcome. Finding a hero or uniting behind an agenda without a hero is hard to find making the whole notion, unfortunately of a populist progressive or liberal base totally irrelevant to the "leadership" while moronic fanatics on either side totally and brain dead united by a common wind get attention and response. the current DFA poll is an example of this thoughtful ineffectiveness. As far as thought and judgment goes, something very wrong in the common sense category. There we simply join the lemming crowd of the entire nation rushing to disaster by lack of critical choice. No one would even listen to the left is they were demonstrably proved right and offered the best alternatives given this political self castration.

:sarcasm:

Just lettin' ya know. :)

:hi:

especially that Clark2008 character, support Edwards. Besides, I think your hatred of Edwards is already pretty well-known around here. :-)

As you say, Hillary has already won, thank god. She is not pro-war (even though she now says she is) nor pro-imperialistic. She is simply saying what she has to say to get elected. Then, when she reaches the White House, she can implement her real plans. The rich don't think they can afford all of her ideas, but just wait........they will finally pay what they should have been paying all along!!!

Could it be you hillaryous? Oh and I guess the way she votes over her entire terms in office as a senator are not her real self either? I put this forth as a matter of fact and not bashing. I personally don't like hillary as a candidate, but I am as a matter of fact really confused who had bashed her.
As to the hillary has already won stuff, well I guess nobody needs to go to the polls to vote for her then. Sorry, but unofficial polls don't determine winners, the voters on election day do. I don't ride tides that are artificially made to sway votes unduly either.
Have a nice day and welcome to DU.

When the mood of the nation is anti-war, you say she now says she's pro-war but is lying about it. Except, in reality, she is SAYING she is anti-war while voting pro-war. so you've got it bass-ackward, even while admitting she is a liar.

She's not going to turn on the corporations after taking so many donations from them. She is an economic imperialist who will continue the neo-lib track we are on, increasing the power of the corporations while destroying the middle-class, and locking a third of the population in poverty. IOW, she will change nothing.

rather than having to interpret and wait for what she'll say after the primaries. If she can't tell the truth, I can't vote for her.

Anything could happen between now and then.

Right now it looks likely that Hillary could win the nomination.

But you don't stop watching a football game at half-time just because your team is 10 points behind.

Having said that, those of us who don't think Hillary is the best candidate (in most cases because she is too "centrist"), are hopelessly divided right now.

Let's see what happens in Iowa. I predict that the male candidate who does best in Iowa (either by winning or by coming a close second behind Hillary) will become the national "not Hillary" candidate.

it being halftime as the game didn't even start and the score is made from a poll on a game that hasn't begun. This I'm afraid is all pregame hype.
editted to correct my bad spelling. sorry.

And lets just see what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire

Based on polls, in ordinary times things would be decided. But so many things could change in just the next couple of months. New issues that cause a candidate other than Hillary to win could happen. For example, the situation in Pakistan could blow up or the economy could really fall apart. Depending on what happens in the next couple of months, one of the candidates other than Hillary could suddenly make sense and go way up in the polls. Edwards, Biden and Dodd are the three candidates who could actually take the nomination away from Hillary. Obama is kind of laid back in his presentation and unlikely to grab a crisis and run with it. But any of the three I named are just waiting for the right moment. Biden's crisis would be one in the area of foreign policy. Dodd is staking out human rights and the Constitution. Edwards has claimed the economy. The right moment for one of them may or may not come. I'm betting on Edwards myself. The Fed is in a real squeeze and is not going to be able to continue to fool Americans much longer. But right now which of these crises might occur before the nomination cannot be predicted.

Also, Hillary has a lot of problems as a candidate, and her campaign, although extremely professional, could crumble. She is in the glare of the spotlights where you see every blemish. It is a tough spot for her to be in. She is a bit brittle and nervous. We will see how it turns out. I do not think she is our best candidate. In fact, of our candidates, I think she is the most likely to lose in the November 2008 election.

I'm the guy that called her campaign "flawless" and was jeered resoundingly for doing so.

She's still the one to beat, but her debate performance --- which she herself said wasn't her best --- hurt her some. Barack Obama is climbing in the polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire. New Hampshire is the wild card because of the Independent Voter factor and the polls I have seen lately show movement to Obama there. And John Edwards has a hell of an organization in Iowa, too. No one has worked that state like him.

The next 8 weeks will be very, very interesting to watch as Iowa and New Hampshire gear up to vote. Everyone always says they don't matter, but then these two states vote and guess what: they matter.

She's in a good place. My guess is she's someone who's acceptable to the powers that be--which may preclude the sort of coordinated campeign that helped bring down Dean, but we don't know that for sure.

A great deal can happen in a few weeks.

No thanks.

Nobody's won yet, the election has yet to be held.

Prognostication and fortune-telling is a fun hobby, but usually doesn't mirror the eventual reality.

But I wouldn't be surprised if we are yet to see new contenders step into the ring ~ the country is as ripe as it's ever been for a viable third party, and imo both parties deserve to be knocked on their collective asses!

but until the votes start being counted, I don't count anyone out.

She's faltering, she's blowing it as we speak.

sucks to be us, but sucks to be the GOP even more. Corporations continued to be catered to.