Make no mistake: A vote for Hllary Clinton is a vote for John McCain.

The American people our sick of politics as usual, that's why both McCain and Obama have the momentum. Both candidates represent a change from politics as usual. A politics that asks not what is best for my Party, but what is best for my country.

McCain will not be defeated by an overly partisan, divisive candidate with a lot of baggage. He can be defeated by a candidate who has qualities that match McCain's strongest advantage, which is his maverick-like, independent, free-thinking image. He calls it "straight talk," and straight talk is what the American people want.

Obama will deliver straight talk. He'll tell the American people not what they want to hear, but what they need to hear. We need a candidate who opposed the war from the start. We don't need Hilary's militaristic speech on the floor of the senate before the war vote being played in McCain T.V. spots.

Politicians in the "red" and "purple" states understand this. That's why they overwhelmingly support Obama. These red-state Democrats know what it takes to win a mandate from the American people.

And, Obama comes with an added bonus: he'll bring more new voters into the process than any other candidate. He already has.

Make no mistake: A vote for Hillary Clinton in our Primary is a vote for John McCain.

Choose wisely, all ye Democrats.

support?!? All I need to know about Obama is how he wants to come together with Rethugs and not demonize them. I mean, really, the right couldn't ask for a better candidate.

That's gonna leave a mark.:-)

He isn't what he used to be, and it's obvious if you see him now.

He doesn't even believe what he says anymore.

Cain ain't no straight talk.

"He doesn't even believe what he says anymore.

Cain ain't no straight talk."

I've been surprised by McCain's recent turn. He really is lying a lot, and I have always seen him as a straight shooter and the closest thing we had to a real ally on the Republican side. But maybe conservatives were right about him all along. It's just disappointing.

Oh, grow up. This "she's the same as a Republican" horseshit has got to stop. You seem to have been dead through the entire 1990s, to know what she has gone through because of the Republicans. The Republicans themselves don't seem to think she's the same as them. How many Republicans have fought for national health care? How many Republicans have fought for acceptance of gay people in the military?

That's what I thought. I should know better than to expect more than this snotty shit, however. DU has gone to shit in the past two years.

I'm sitting here trying to get my brain wrapped around those two thoughts. um... um... um... Still speechless. :rofl:

idiotic posts like this make me want to puke.

It's a lose-lose situation.

to vote against any Democrat.

It's only those in the middle who might consider voting for a Dem.

You should have paid attention to crossover turnout.

Remember, we need to attract only 13 million independents. IF EVERY REPUBLICAN TURNS OUT TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN, THEY STILL NEED 30 million independents. We need 13. They need 30. 13. 30.

We don't need a single Republican to vote for us. Not one.

The claim concerned "the right."

Maybe you didn't intend to respond to me?

meh

that I know a lot of republicans (unfortunately...) and all those I've talked to have said that they love Obama & would vote for him, because they see him as the best choice for president from either party. And every one of them said that if HRC is the Dem candidate, they will vote against her & for whoever the republican candidate is.

:rofl:

you are right on the money.

beats Obama or Clinton, and that is BEFORE the media begins the hatchet job on our candidate. Obama supporters are delusional if they think his Let's all Sing by the Firelight and Hold Hands (but only if you're Christian) campaign will win in November. Might, but not likely.


I've said for months that McCain would be their nominee, and I've also posited that Huckabee will be on the ticket to keep the fundies in line. We're screwed, but hey, we made history with our nominee...

Lowest growth in five year. Fed in panicking. McCain knows little about economics. It's Hillary's strong suit.

you're hopelessly ignorant.

Six pages of exit polls from Florida. Interesting, if not too surprising. Tells the tale of the general election if Obama were nominated.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#FLDEM

sounds like the current guy to me.

I think not :-)

I think both of them have weaknesses and advantages against McCain, and against Romney. It can be framed in many different ways. If I felt like one-upping you, I would say that Hillary is the ONLY Dem who can go head-to-head with John McCain on defense and national security issues. Obama's on record being against the war from the beginning, and McCain would poach him like an egg as well as suck his independents away from him.

However, what point does this kind of debate serve? We MUST unify behind whoever our nominee is. Sulking will not be permitted this time around. Every single Bush appointment needs to be swept out of Washington, his executive orders reversed, and his classified dealings investigated. Will John McCain do this?

Hillary and Obama can BOTH beat McCain, if we stay united.

reverse anything. He wouldn't know how if he wanted to

Hyperbole much?

:sarcasm:

I am sure you make your candidate so proud.

You are right.

But not in the way you think. I despise these stupid "a vote for X is a vote for z because it takes away potential votes from y" I hated that illogic when it was applied to the Nader factor and I hate it now. I don't care if it is undermining one of the Democratic candidates I am less happy with.

The fact of the matter is that Hillary and Obama are really not that essentially different. They have some of the same race care logos on them in terms of who supports them and they really don't say anything that sounds substantively different in terms of policy, but this is the maximum range that the DLC and the corporate media is allowing us to choose from in terms of candidates.

I daresay they didn't limit the range of lunatic flavors of republican insanity people were allowed, but for some reason the M$M thought it essential to pare down the list of Democratic candidates to two as quickly as they could. And now where are we?

Fine, A vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain, but so is a vote for Obama. And the reason why is that they are really just a vote for more of the friggin same.

"Vote for my candidate, OR ELSE"

You're transparent.

I'm not ready to vote for charisma, cult of personality and and pie in the sky just yet. When I actually have some idea what his agenda is maybe I'll reconsider, but I need more than vacuous slogans to get my vote and the noisy hectoring of his devoted followers. I guess I just don't make a good disciple.

The slogans and hectoring will work just as well as the last two times.

*sigh*

Oh well...

doing that? After the next "hope" revival meeting?

Shit on your delusional post.

Obama wouldn't know straight talk if it hit him in the face.

And now he's sending out attack flyers because he's dedicated to changing "politics as usual." :eyes:

That is what bothers me. Obama says one thing, and when he finds out that it is a new world in the White House, the GOP eats him alive.

I don't know what to tell you. Hillary has been there done that; she has already been in there, made the mistakes, so she knows what to expect.

Obama is still young and wet behind the ears.

If I have to I will vote for him if he makes the General Election.

McCain is going to have his troubles with the conservative vote--wait and see.

First off, your love in with John McCain is nauseating.
He has moved to the front largely because the republikkan candidates are so incredibly weak.
To compare the Democratic candidates to the republikkan field is like comparing the Patriots and Giants to the best three or four high school teams in the country.

It's a joke.

As to Clinton's baggage being too great and Obama being the straight talk guy. I will remind you what I reminded another DUer.

I worked with Cranston campaign in 86 when he ran against Ed Zschau. Ed Zschau was an intelligent, socially moderate, economically conservative congressman. I had met Ed on several occassions during the campaign and he was typical of Californians at the time.

However, he was fairly unknown -- a clean slate if you will, to most Californians.

A slate clean enough for the Cranston team to take full advantage of. By the time election day came, we had pretty much taught Californians all they needed to know about Zschau. He lost. Not badly. But, he lost nonetheless.

Obama is still fairly unknown to most Americans. Don't think for two seconds that the republikkans won't seize that advantage.

In politics there are actually huge advantages to being well known, even if they carry the heavy negatives.
People who like you, will like you no matter what.
People who don't like you, won't like you.
People in the middle are well informed about you, so unless you have a basement somewhere where you're torturing people that is uncovered, there's nothing really new for the opposition to take hold of.

Carry on.

McCain, she will beat him todeath. Don't fro one minute believe that John Edwards suupport will go to Obama,

Or the smarts.

I can't wait 'til Hillary wins (I dislike her, but revile Obama much more) this Tuesday to see this forum devoid of silly threads from you, cali and prosense.

:evilgrin: Funny thing, for some reason I feel the same as you. I dislike Hillary but Obama turns my stomach.

uhm, okay.

thanks?

:shrug:

RL

candidate gets the nod McCain will win...NOW HIS SUPPORTERS ARE STEALING THE QUOTES. And saying a vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain...isn't is really really getting pathetic....now they have to fabricate.

By Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare’s Sister blog
posted at:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/30/i-have-questions-for-barack-obama/

Responding to the SOTU address, Senator Obama concluded his remarks with the following:

Each year, as we watch the State of the Union, we see half the chamber rise to applaud the President and half the chamber stay in their seats. We see half the country tune in to watch, but know that much of the country has stopped even listening. Imagine if next year was different. Imagine if next year, the entire nation had a president they could believe in. A president who rallied all Americans around a common purpose. That’s the kind of President we need in this country. And with your help in the coming days and weeks, that’s the kind of President I will be.

That sounds awesome—truly, it does. But I’ve got a few questions.


1. Why will the Republican members of Congress rise to applaud you, and the conservative half of the nation tune in to support you, unless you pursue an agenda that appeals to them? How do you pursue an agenda that appeals to conservatives, but is also progressive?

2. What is the common purpose around which you envision the country rallying? Do you regard “transcending partisanship” an end in itself, and do you foresee the GOP rallying around this goal? If so, how and why do you imagine that will happen?

3. Assume for a moment that you are nominated and subsequently elected, and, despite being “the kind of president” in whom Americans can believe, the profound partisan rancor that currently plagues the nation doesn’t evaporate, that Americans fail to rally around a common purpose. What is Plan B? Do you move ever rightward trying to find support among those who refuse to rally, or do you say “Screw ‘em,” and go leftward to honor those who voted for you?

4. Noting that the most bitter partisan divides on domestic policy regard issues of basic rights, such as reproductive rights and marriage rights, and noting further that the two sides of these issues are unlikely to come to spontaneous agreement, those subjects are likely to continue to play a divisive role in American politics. How do you plan to prevent such bedrock divisions from undermining the national unity you imagine? Do those of us on the progressive side of these issues have reason to worry that you will not be a vociferous advocate for any controversial or ideologically discordant issues?

5. This last question regards not your possible presidency itself, but the general election campaign for the presidency, should you get the Democratic nomination and run in the general election against the GOP nominee: In 2004, John Kerry tried to stay above the fray and combat conservatives’ scorched-earth campaign policy by refusing to dignify the Swiftboaters with a response. In 2000, Al Gore largely did the same, as conservatives and the media promulgated a cavalcade of half-truths and lies against him. They both lost. Their respective refusals to engage partisan attacks, rooted in the erroneous belief that ignoring mudslinging means you don’t get covered in mud, has been oft-cited as contributing to their losses. In what way does your philosophy of a new politics accommodate those lessons?

... more

No one knows what the election will hold.

with either Obama or Clinton. From what I've been reading at other groups online, people don't like either one. I haven't heard ANYTHING about any of the GOP candidates yet-but it is troubling that there is such negativity over our candidates.

You didn't proofread. :)

I wonder how this will all be viewed here at DU after election day? Will there be an "I told you so" section?

It isn't going to work. I'm not voting for your guy.

Democrats don't need. I would never say the same of Obama because he might be our nominee and I don't want to send a negative signal to people that might encourage them not to vote for Obama in the GE. Same consideration should be given to Hillary.