I hate to ask this question of HRC supporters, but it might be almost time...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3975819

She has just publicly acknowledged that her campaign may be in serious trouble. Perhaps inadvertently, perhaps only to let her supporters know that she intends to make some changes and keep fighting. But for those willing to answer the question: If she did decide to bow out,

Would you move towards Obama's camp or Edwards'?

She will fight tooth and nail for the nomination, and destroy anybody who gets in her way.

but how could we expect her to let go of something she has been planning for so long?

I don't see Edwards lasting long after coming in 3rd in NH (assuming nothing changes). I would like to know where Edwards supporters will go when he is forced to bow out?

He has nothing to lose. If he doesn't get the nod his political career is over. Clinton may be pressured to leave the race at some point because she still has a political career to consider. Such pressures won't work on Edwards, who has no Congressional office to return to.

what else can he say. And if he comes in third, in NH, his political career is over anyway.

As an Edwards supporter, I would enthusiastically support
Kucinich (my earlier choice) or Bill Richardson (or,
given a miracle, Gore).

I would vote for (but in no other way support) Obama.

And if the nominee is Clinton, I will vote somewhere
to the left of Hillary come the General Election.

Tesha

Sorry.

Edwards supporters are much kinder, but I like Obama overall much more than Edwards.

Some of us have fussed a little..

...some of us have stayed good pals through thick and thin ..

...and then you're right.. sometimes some of us have gone overboard.

No matter what happens in the end..

I hope that you'll always still be friends with EVERYONE here!

Clinton is far, far, far more viable than Edwards is at this point. Clinton has a shot at recapturing the lead, if she can refocus her message and hammer Obama's inexperience. Edwards is done.

In my opinion she'll do well in N.Y., N.J. Ma. - and more big states. I"M not giving up on her.

I don't even keep that in consideration, since while they're pledged to her, they can change.

BTW, while she's not my candidate of choice, don't give up on her, you'd be ridiculous to. One state does not a primary season make. ;)

The whole idea of super-delegates is anti-democratic anyway. Why the fuck do we allow the party to do this?

But I think if Hillary continues on doings things like that false abortion mailer about Obama, she'll kill herself. (Since she forced Planned Parenthood to come out and smack her down.)

Both Edwards and Clinton are on an uphill battle. If she can't get her campaign under control, and soon, she's out. Edwards is trying to align with Obama and ride Obama's momentum for a little bit, and that could possibly work.

Right now, I still expect it to be Obama, Edwards, Clinton in NH.

but it won't do a thing towards helping him win Super Tuesday. If he's looking to capture second place and a VP nod, he's got the right strategy...but I can't imagine any Democrat bringing Edwards aboard for a second go, and I have a hard time picturing Edwards agreeing to a second bid in someone else's shadow.

But then, I don't see him overtaking Obama. :shrug: What he would really be hoping for is an outrageous scandal or gaffe by Obama and I don't see that happening either.

But who knows? :shrug:

By that point, the nominee will be decided. I think he's setting himself to be the primary challenger to Clinton should Obama happen to implode. I don't find that extraordinarily unrealistic; shit happens in politics. For all we know, someone tomorrow will step forward with rape allegations and witnesses. Unlikely, but anything's possible.

She better retool and become something more than an administrator of policy. People want to be inspired. She's got to give people something to believe in.

but she needs to start drawing some sharp (and favorable) distinctions to swing the momentum back around. Pure negative won't work (as she found out in Iowa), but there's something to be said for "where's the beef?" Clinton can't and won't ever be the "inspirational" candidate. I think her best bet is focusing on her credentials on healthcare and the economy, and explaining how she can actually bring change instead of talking about it.

Someone who works in low income communities, works at a civil rights law firm, organizes voter drives, changes Illinois politics -- that's beef. Hillary better figure out how to get inspired. She doesn't have any credentials, she hasn't done anything. She cannot take credit for the White House. She sounds like a fool when she tries. She hasn't gotten anything done in DC and won't take any stands. Barbara Boxer is doing that. She better figure out how to get inspirational, that's her only hope.

About Obama's voting record on abortion and getting smacked down by Planned Parenthood isn't a smart move.

"works in low income communities, works at a civil rights law firm, organizes voter drives?"

Really, that describes thousands of people. It's a compelling case for Representative, not for President. And while Obama's work in the state senate was certainly principled, it did not at all carry with it the same breadth, depth, or urgency of responsibilities as those a Senator or Governor faces, to say nothing of those a President would have to face.

While I agree Hillary does not have much actual experience, polling indicates that Americans think she does. Any hope that it will remain an impotent issue is misguided. If Clinton doesn't use it against Obama, the Republicans gladly will; for that reason I hope Hillary brings that argument out against us so we might defeat it and, in doing so, be inoculated against it.

32 offices in 17 states. He's hired people who organized with Ceasar Chavez. He's hired the former national organizer for AFSCME. He knows how to do it because he's done it. It also goes to his character. It tells people who have given up that he is someone who truly knows them and has already proven he cares about their lives.

Then he went on to make change over 8 years in Illinois, as the previous graphic shows.

Have you read his Iraq speech? It said so much more than it just being a dumb war. He got everything right, from Wolfowitz and Perle, to it being shoved down our throats, to ending policy that favors Exxon and Mobil, to pressuring the Saudis and other ME countries to increase democracy. It's all there.

He gets it. He's got everything we need.

It's certainly one of the main forces behind his exceptional rise.

And with his Iraq speech he demonstrated how he can fight the "experience" argument. I humbly suggest something like the following: "I've spent decades serving the public. And you say a President has to live in the Beltway so long they forget the real world before they're qualified to be President? You have to be live in and be used to that house of mirrors--that place where all the self-congratulating "experienced men" sat down and decided that Iraqis would greet us with flowers and chocolates--before you can suggest replacing those mirrors with windows? It's that old-boys-club thinking that's given Washington the problems it has now, and it's that type of thinking that I'm running against."

That's what he means when he says they want him to be in Washington so long the "hope is boiled out of him". He says it with humor, so it sinks in and sticks. But his wife really makes the case when she says he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and could have written his ticket and made millions - and chose to fight for the people instead. That says everything that needs to be said.

The real problem we're going to have is on a foreign policy platform itself. He's going to have to fight the DLC centrists and the southern blue dogs in order to forge ahead with what he really believes we should be doing. If he has McCain arguing to continue with the occupation, and half the Dem Party flip-flopping around, and the left attacking him as just like the Republicans, he could end up in just as crappy a place as John Kerry did. That's the real problem I see. Hillary won't have that problem because she'll conform to the centrists, shit on the left, and try to win on either the economy or throw the bums out.

Good grief....the ignorance around DU regarding selecting the Democratic Nominee is stunning.



IOWA'S LEGACY

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080104/NATION/486712640/1002/NATION&template=nextpage

Iowa's caucus winners have not always gone on to win the party nomination. Here are some notable examples over the past three decades:



• 1980: George H.W. Bush narrowly won the Iowa Republican caucuses over former California Gov. Ronald Reagan by 32 percent to 30 percent, but Mr. Reagan went on the capture the Republican nomination.



Mr. Bush was his vice-presidential running mate.



• 1988: Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, helped by his strong Midwest roots, won Iowa's Democratic contest with 31 percent, followed by Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois with 27 percent and Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis with 22 percent.



Mr. Dukakis went on to win the nomination, only to lose the election to George H.W. Bush.



• 1992: Iowa Democrats delivered the lion's share of their caucus vote (76 percent) to favorite son Sen. Tom Harkin, and the rest of the field essentially bypassed the contest.



Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, who got 3 percent of the vote, went on to win the nomination and the presidency, defeating President George H.W. Bush.


Source: The Washington Times

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

I would not support Barack.

But if that time should come, I would do whatever I could to prevent the nomination of that charlatan John Edwards.

but I'd vote for Obama. I'd vote for any Democrat over Edwards.

There isn't a snowballs chance in hell I would EVER support John Edwards...under any but the most dire of circumstances...

It is almost as important to me to keep Edwards out of the White House as it is to have Hillary in the White House...

:hi:

I agree...she will stay in through Super Tuesday

Candidates drop out when they are damned good and ready. There is NO REASON, there is NO EXCUSE, for slicing into supporters' hearts with a cruel question like this.

My primary is Feb. 5th. After that, if she doesn't make it, I'll watch the parade go by until November.

what am I saying...I love kicking this.:evilgrin: