The super delegates should choose Hillary

Trust Hillary? Who would be more likely to win? Who would make a better president in 2008?

Racism and sexism are clouding two very important issues before Democrats today.
1 - The precarious situation of America in the world economically, diplomatically and militarily.
2 - The inexperience of our probable nominee.

In my opinion, we need a candidate who can win and who can help the country address our economic disaster, engage successfully with our allies and use the military with restraint and deftness. Because the race is close enough for the super delegates to make the call, they should do so and select Hillary Clinton as our nominee.

With an eye toward the future, Hillary should ask Barak Obama to be her vice-president. In 2016 he will have the experience and record to run successfully and be an effective president.

Just as Clinton supporters should put aside their issues with Obama and vote for him in Nov (when he is the nominee), if the super delegates decide in their wisdom to go with Hillary, Obama's supporters should rally behind her for the very same reasons they are now making about her supporters.

Win in November

PS
I have a little less than 300 posts, so maybe I should just shut up.

What is with the request to Rec a thread? For example, those who disagree with this cannot vote against, only comment.
Correct my ignorance if I am wrong, but isn't that sort of thing just chest pounding and flag waving? Or, some such thing.

That says it all.

1. Prattle about "Unity" and...somehow split the party into two equal sections in a matter of months.
Sounds impossible, doesn't it? That's the true meaning of "brilliant." If half the people leave the party, the party is unified. To hell with the GE.

2. Get those negatives up!
Think about this: it has taken only months for The Obameister to virtually match Hillary's negatives! He accomplished in months what it took Hillary over fifteen years to do—with the entire press corps and millions of tax dollars pitching in. The world "phenomenal" springs to mind...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6038904

1. I have not seen any splitting by the Obama camp - I have seen plenty from the Clinton camp.

2. Have Clinton's negatives been constant for fifteen years? If so, her ramp-up time was probably less than Obama's.

With the "logic" I have seen displayed in just these 2 items, I won't waste time reading the rest - because they would probably be as skewed and as irrational as these two.

By the way, Clinton was supposed to win by February 5. She had all the SD's in her pocket, but has received very few in recent months in comparison to Obama. Are they all fools?

the last thing I want to be able to do is tell you I told you so. I wouldn't do that, but if it turns out that way and McCain wins, what difference will there be between those of us who were right and those who were fools?

see you make a fool out of youself. Now go write a commercial for credit report .com, pirate boy.

...will also see all the responses to it where it gets ripped to tiny pieces. You realize that right?

Your entire list of rules is ridiculous. Half of them blame things on Obama that are purely Clinton's doing, the many of the others are you holding Obama responsible for run ins you've had with random people on internet discussion boards. The two points you just listed there are BOTH examples of the former.

.

!!

(P.S. the most recent OH poll was skewed 2:1 with Repub voters over Dems, so ignore it. The other polls have Clinton beating McCain and BO losing to McCain. The OH demographics are wrong for Obama, right for Hillary. Face it, BO can't win the general election. OH elects the President.)

and still failed?

Sorry, I'll take the one with the cash surplus, the brilliant campaign, the intellectual scholar, that's the one I'll take...

Debt? Campaigns cost money. I want a dogged advocate in the White House. Hillary qualifies.
Cash surplus? Not evidence of anything except having many enthusiastic supporters. Dollars do not a candidate make.
Brilliant campaign? Yes and no. Seems to be enough to win the primaries. The same strategy will not in the fall.
Intellectual scholar? I suspect Hillary is every bit as bright or more so and has a greater depth of knowledge on a much wider variety of issues.

What if more people voted for the other candidate?

by a narrow, over-motivated, caucus-centic coalition of kids, blacks and latte liberals.

So the OP is correct. Damn right the SuperDs should pick Hillary. This is what they were created for!

And they never will.

Especially since Obama is still ahead in the popular vote.

they should know their place. :sarcasm:

Geraldine is that you?

Never happened but I don't think they are bound to vote for a certain candidate.

college were specifically elected to represent a particular candidate.

The superdelegates are state politicians with freedom to choose for themselves. It's a left-over from the time when all candidates were chosen in "smoke-filled" rooms.

Super delegates haven't been in play like this before. New territory...

I'm talking generically.

It was asserted that supers should vote with the pledged delegates. I'm saying the pledged delegates dont necessarily reflect the will of the voters. Look at Texas, for example. More people voted for Clinton, but Obama gained more pledged delegates.

So, philosophically, why should we accept the pledged delegate count as the best reflection of the voters' will?

the argument was that pledged delegates best represent what the people have chosen. That isn't necessarily the case.

that is, when there is not an election underway with agreed rules.

costing us the general election by giving us the weaker candidate?

What do you do when the "agreed rules" are pointing your car over the edge of a cliff?

--------------


The whole point of this process is winning this November, something that should not be forgotten - if the process is flawed, I don't see sticking to the "agreed rules" as much of an excuse for failure.

something for the good of the party, not just themselves.

Pie in the sky, I know.

My favorite clip from the daily kos today -

Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:

You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;
You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and
You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.
In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.

In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it.

and it all depends, as you know, on what votes you count.

But regardless of this particular case, the assertion was that the pledged delegates represent the will of the people. There are obviously cases you can come up with where that is not true. So what should the supers do in that case?

You wrote, "and it all depends, as you know, on what votes you count."

So, you admit that you are cherry-picking voters. Such a hypocrite!

of the mish-mash we have of primaries and caucuses.

For example, in Washington we had both -- caucuses and a primary. Obama was far ahead in the caucuses -- which chose 100% of the delegates -- but Clinton was within a few points of him in the primary.

(In Washington voters approved an initiative for a primary because we wanted a primary -- but then the Democratic party (wanting to keep its power) decided not to allocate any delegates from it. So the only way to get your vote to count is to be willing to spend several hours at a caucus.)

Would it still be proper to nominate him?

an echo chamber?

I'm NOT saying that they SHOULD override the pledged delegates, but they most certainly do have that choice, according to the rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Personally, I think he will surely win.

If they want to lose again.

Most of the SDs are up for reelection themselves. They'd have to be really damn stupid to overturn the will of the people for a woman whose campaign broke. She can't help them downticket either and Republicans hate her so much they'd actually come out to vote for McSame who many of them can't stand either.

Yeah the SDs can give it to HRC but it would be the bonehead move of the year.

Regards

defeating McCain and putting a Democrat back in the White House. That's my understanding of their role, at any rate.

we differ on that point.

he lost the state. Another MA SD (congressman) is pledged for Obama against the vote of his district (but he is listed as a wobble - not sure why). Frankly the SDs can do whatever they like - I find the entire process to be extremely anti-democratic.

"Racism and sexism are clouding two very important issues before Democrats today."

"2 - The inexperience of our probable nominee."

Obama has more time in office than Clinton.

Why the double standard?

Hmm.

You mean as a state legislator? Where is his record of hard votes? His resume looks mighty thin, especially compared to McCain's.

so she looks even worse compared to McCain.

Of course, Clinton's relevant.

You either support Obama or McCain.

NT

That candidate is DESTINED to fail.

Obama on the other hand has over 1.5 million donors who have come no where close to the $2300 limit. And endless cash machine to take on the Repukes.

Usually a good indicator on how well a candidate would run the country if they are elected is how well they ran their campaign. On that score, Obama wins hands down. He has run a brilliant debt free campaign. Clinton has run an inept debt ridden campaign.

and that Obama is their choice. Clinton simply couldn't cut it. They saw that. It's over.

and her campaign.

Can't handle finances.
Doesn't plan.

Sorry don't need a President who has no idea how to manage finances and can't look 10 seconds ahead!

If you add up her itemized debts from the FEC statement, it comes to ~$9 million. Add on $10 million in loans (the total at the end of April) and you get $19m. The $31m figure floating about yesterday was based on a miscalculation.

i will max out on primary donations just in time to make my GE donations start
she will get nothing
she doesnt know the value of anything
never having had to earn anything

"Racism and sexism are clouding two very important issues before Democrats today."

Yes, and Hillary Clinton's the one pushing both of them and stirring the pot. We need a leader who will rise about that and heal these wounds.

Obama's campaign has been sneaky, nasty, dirty, and duplicitous---in other words, it has been everything the Obamites like to say about Hillary.

Please provide an example.

Otherwise, you'll just be looked upon for the troll you are.

I see many people every day post that exact same thing, and they never answer with any examples which support the statement. Rather they either run away (most often) or point to thinks that some people, completely unrelated to the Obama campaign, posted on the Internet.

Please help us out with some concrete examples, otherwise I am becoming convinced that this statement is just a fabrication created out of sour grapes.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think the press has been most responsible for the sexism, but Obama has had his hand in. I believe the Obama campaign raised the race issue, not the Clintons. Raising the race issue could only work to Obama's advantage, not Clintons.

For example, some have criticized West Virgina and Kentucky voters as ignorant rednecks and Clintons comments about the demographics of these states as racist. Bringing up the working class white vote is not a racist comment, it is a demographic that traditionally votes democratic and has not voted for Obama. This is significant for his chances in the fall. Will they rally to him? With Clinton's help.

by putting him out in public so voters could see that he is, in fact, black.

:eyes:

of how Obama had a "hand in" the sexism and "raised the race issue".

I am really starting to begin to believe that this is just a fabricated talking point because no one has given any concrete examples yet. Just more, "I think" and "I believe". If Obama had injected sex and race into the campaign, you should have some quotes by him or his campaign staff, right? Otherwise I am afraid you might just be believing something because people say it a lot. After 7+ years of Bush, we know that no matter how many times someone says something, it does not make it true.

Jesse Jackson had no problem with Bill's comments, but the idea that he was making a veiled racist appeal worked wonderfully for Obama. Hillary had no need or reason to alienate black voters. Look here...

http://www.pollster.com/08-SC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

...the black vote was with her for a long time.

Bill Clinton said that, and the media went nuts. Obama when asked, said that he did not believe that Bill is a racist and that he had no idea what he meant.

You cannot blame Barack Obama for things that the Clintons themselves said that caused an uproar - please tell me what Obama and his campaign have done to raise those issues.

Come on now. To paraphrase,

Obama ran a great campaign in S. Carolina. As good or better that Jesse Jackson ran in 88. Obama is running a fine campaign nationwide.

...no idea what he meant!
Acting confused is just like Hillary saying Obama is not a Muslim, as far as she knows.

This has been a tough battle, but the big picture is to win in November.

She can go straight to hell and take her "experience" with her as a suppository.

She made the most responsible decision possible. Obama himself even said that he might have voted for it given all the facts. We were misled and lied to. The person most responsible is G. W. Bush. Not Hillary Clinton.

I and many others have come around 180. We have to do the best with today.

We should also have a government in office that is working full time to defuse the resentment toward us, not make it worse. As far as killing terrorists and their supporters - we should do it in a way that does not generate more, in a way that makes us safer.

the aluminum tubes story DEBUNKED before the invasion
the yellow cake from Niger DEBUNKED before the invasion - revealed quickly to be a poor forgery.
the British Dossier DEBUNKED before the invasion as a flimsy plagiarism of some graduate student's work of collating magazine articles - hardly the first hand research of MI6, as it was misrepresented.
Al Qaeda links to Saddam DEBUNKED before the invasion
"reconstituted nuclear program" DEBUNKED by the IAEA before the invasion
(Cheney denied POINT BLANK ever having said this phrase "reconsituted nuclear program" even though he was on tape saying it to Tim Russert on a nationally broadcast TV interview)

When someone lies to you this many times - hell, HALF this many times - on a subject of life and death importance then YOU KNOW YOU'RE BEING LIED TO.

If Hillary Clinton was SO STUPID as to believe George Bush and Colin "My Lai" Powell on Iraq then she has no business holding office above mayor of a small town.

She is not stupid, though, she is just completely without scruples.

I know it can be hard and unpleasant to believe that there can be such people in the world but believe me they do exist. You need only search the White House to find a perfect example.

don't remember when though. How many other Senators voted for the IWR?

Also, wasn't the idea to give Bush the leverage over Saddam to get the inspectors back in...I blame W for betraying all of us.

And why do think that Hillary would be best at that?

Let me remind you of just one thing: "“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” she said after being asked what she would do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel. “In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3793047.ece

Also, there is the Iraq vote, which the world was enthusiastically against.

As far as I can see, there is a global excitement about Obama, not Clinton. I believe that with this openness of the world to accept him, his stand on negotiations and ability to get to the heart of the matter rather than getting caught up in saber-rattling or gotcha tactics, he is in the best possible position to improve world opinion about the US.

an unambiguous statement of fact identical to Kennedy's statement that an attack by Cuban nukes on any country in the Western Hemisphere would be considered an attack on the United States by the Soviet Union requiring a full retaliatory response.

In this case, what would we do? Let Isreal handle it. They could and would. Take out the leadership? Take out their military? Take out their oil fields? A combination of any of these to some degree? That would be quite a judgment.

As much as I am against the war in Iran, there is a time to act. And a time to kill if necessary. Hopefully Obama (or Clinton) will engage in the kind of diplomacy that will make this kind of action unnecessary.

What we would do in that situation and what we should say in the name of diplomacy.

Statement of fact? No, it is debatable. But regardless, making the statement IS saber-rattling, whether it is true or not. It does nothing to help our nation or improve our image. But then, Obama has a good image abroad, and with Clinton out of the race, we have a good chance to improve our standing.

preferred even.

This is the definition I was thinking about...
saber rattling
n.
A flamboyant display of military power.

I did not see it as flamboyant, but I guess in the diplomatic sense it was definately out there.

In any case, we need Obama to be everything he can be and more with what we will face during the next two terms.

obliterate a country would be a flamboyant display of military power.

I think that nuclear weapons are a crime against humanity. ALL humanity.

the facts AT THE TIME and he said it was all garbage. I'm sure he told Clinton and the rest of the democratic senators. He said everything he could to everyone he could without spilling "secrets" - trying to expose the lies. I can only assume that Democrats who didn't listen to him were trying to cover their asses trying to appear tough. Of course Graham could not come out and say out loud what he knew (secret and all), but he sure made as much stink about it as he could.

SHE VOTED FOR WAR AND WE WILL NOT FORGET

Hillary was one of the most vocal democrats pushing for the IWR. In her infamous speech she proved that not only did she know she was voting for war, but she even laid out the blueprints on how to use force the same way her husband did.

NO AMOUNT OF DENIAL OR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AMONGST HER SUPPORTERS WILL EVER CHANGE THESE FACTS.






AND NEVER FORGET THAT SHE DOES NOT CARE IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT SHE VOTED FOR WAR:






She even went so far as to interrupt Senator Byrd's ANTI-WAR speech and take away his floor time in order to cram the IWR down our throats. The same woman who voted for Kyl-Lieberman and NO on banning cluster bombs. The same who told Iran we could OBLITERATE them.

Hillary Clinton is a WarHawk.

The consequences are obvious regardless of her ability to accept responsibility for her votes and her actions. Hence the impending demise of her political career.

real possibility that force will be used - carelessly, excessively, as intended as the stick behind the carrot.

Given what she knew then I agree with her vote.
Given the "right" circumstances I agree with attacking Iran in a small way or a big way, whatever is necessary.
There are times for war and times to kill, to think otherwise is nice(and dangerous), but operating in a world other than this one.

Someone who votes to authorize war as during the First Gulf War would have been second guessed if we had been misled into that war or if it had gone badly.

The blame for our current situation goes entirely to GW Bush and his crew of warmongers. They wanted it. They planned for it even before 911. They took the first chance they had to take their eye off the ball in Afganistan and move against Iraq.

Someone who votes present 180 times is avoiding responsibility, Hillary did not avoid hers.

You support warmongering, good for you. You're candidate lost, good for us.

If someone comes into my house and threatens my family I might feel bad later about what I have to do, but I would not hesitate to take them out. Join the real world.

On the world stage when this is necessary we need to kill the bee, not whack the bees nest.

You join the real world.

Are you gonna start shouting 9/11 9/11 9/11? All you are doing is pushing republican talking points. I wonder why.

I would have too. Today, I would regret that vote. The culprit though is GW Bush, not Clinton or any other person who voted for it.

Bush has used the war on terror cynically and waged it incompetently.

I am not shouting anything. I am just saying we have real enemies and they need to be dealt with effectively, whatever that entails.

Whatever that entails does not mean an invasion of the wrong country for the wrong reasons and making the problem worse. Sometimes a bunt is more likely to win the game.

Have a nice day :)

that parrot his war on terror? The assurance that there was no doubt that there were WMD's? That Iraq was an imminent danger to the U.S. - terra terra terra. Sit down Senator Byrd the Goddess of Peace is here to save the day. Maybe she thought Bush would just go over and kill people for 72 hours the way her husband did and it would all be over, but that's about the most leeway I'll give her in this situation and it still does not change the fact that she supported killing people who were no danger to our citizens in any way shape or form and SHE KNEW IT. HER HUSBAND KNEW IT. AND YET THEY BOTH PUSHED FOR THIS WAR.



Of course it's more politically advantageous for them to be against it once it all became a clusterfuck.

:puke:

Reading over my comment I would fill it out by saying that war should be avoided, diplomacy given every chance and actions taken to undermine support for those who would do us harm. What we are doing now is training and generating more of them. Bad decision, bad policy.

However, there are folks who will do us harm if they can. If killing them is necessary to protect ourselves or our allies, what is illogical about that?

Because she had access to more information than I had and I had enough sense to oppose this war from the beginning.

I think Senator Clinton voted for the war out of political expediency. She thought that voting against the war would be detrimental to her Presidential hopes.

I love irony. Don't you?

Regards

There it is... how the hell can Hillary ask obama any damn thing..he's leading in every category...

the majority of pledged delegates, are disenfranchised. But I bet you're all in a knot over adding Florida and Michigan to Hillary's total. This is an election, not a coronation.

Given that, the most electable candidate and the one who will be the best president should be chosen.

does that mean it is over...

if Hillary has the grace to bow out (like every other obviously losing candidate before her). If she wants to continue to rip the party apart, she can stretch this out until the convention, in order to see the foregone conclusion actually take place.

Look, the SDs are flowing steadily to Obama these days, not Clinton. And the SDs will never revolt en masse against the outcome of the election as it was according to the agreed-upon rules. It is conceivable that a handful may in any primary, but this race is far beyond being saved by a few votes.

Yours is a pipe dream, and your candidate is not going to miraculously take the nomination. It is over. The only reason the media is not laying it out that flat is because this crap is money in the bank for them.

Do not worry about some imaginary scenarios by illogically figure-twisting apples and comparing them to oranges, there is NOTHING based on fact or reality to indicate that Hillary Clinton is more likely to win the GE than Obama. And it is a long way to November - we have an obvious nominee, and need your help in supporting him to defeat McCain!

continue to divide the party over an impossibility or allow us to unite.

That is under the technical definition of "nominee" at least - we all know who the nominee is.

This seems to rest on a lot of personal inclinations as opposed to measurable facts. The facts are that Obama is beating McCain in national tracking polls, has won a lot more states than Clinton, is leading her by a wide margin in campaign donations (and has far less debt), has more pledged and super delegates, etc.

What measurable metric are you using to suggest that she's a "better" candidate? Your own gut? Tea leaves? Divining rod? What?

http://hominidviews.com/

and this...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

And the fact that I think he is a light-weight on the world stage, imo.

I will say that we need a Dem victory in November whoever the nominee is. I think Clinton is the better choice.

His assessment of Iraq was the correct one. Hillary voted to give Bush authorization to go to war when there were inspectors on the ground in Iraq, and while Bush's claims of aluminum tubes and yellow cake had been proven false.

Obama did not vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, as Hillary DID, thus opening another door for Bush to get America involved in yet ANOTHER catastrophic war.

Obama did not make the ill-advised remark about "obliterating" Iran, as did Hillary. Everyone KNOWS the US has nuclear weapons. Making statements like Hillary did, only further perpetuates the current image of the US as the belligerent bully.

Obama is either currently tied with McCain or losing by a single point in Florida (according to these polls), and that he's winning a red state in Colorado, is within the margin of error in Missouri (a state Obama won in the primary), and is currently within the margin of error on Rasmussen's latest Virginia poll, all of that somehow means Clinton is better? You're going to base your opinion on states he's either also winning or where he's within the margin of error?

I'll disregard the last parts wherein you admit it's simply "your opinion" and stuff "you think" to be true. You know, like him being "a lightweight" on the world stage to what I guess must be Mrs. Clinton's Winston Churchill; all those trips to Tuzla no doubt shoring up her position as such.

But since you're relying so heavily on polls, here's a few more:

Wisconsin: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/wisconsin.html
Obama up in two polls, down in one but within the MOE

Pennsylvania: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pennsylvania.html
Obama up in 3, down in one that's a month old

Minnesota: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/minnesota.html
Obama up in all 3

Michigan: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/michigan.html
Obama up in 2 of 3 (although within the MOE); Clinton tied in 2 and losing in 1 (but also w/in the MOE)

Washington State: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/washington.html
Obama up by 10 points on average; Clinton up by 1.6 on average (w/in the MOE)

Look, we can cherry pick which polls we like all day long. But polls taken during a primary are very are too volatile and non-representative to extrapolate into the general. The argument you're making is that it's your opinion Clinton is a better candidate, but all you've got to back that up is your opinion and some primary polls. And you didn't check out the other polls which show Obama winning the big blue states (just like Clinton), winning a few red ones (unlike her), and keeping some of the purple ones in play. But those polls can't predict how voters will respond when one candidate from the primary is no longer in the race; you're argument relies on these polls holding where they are after Clinton exits the race. It's a grand assumption, but one I see you're willing to take.

a lot more often. Glad to meet you. :hi:

I try to but work is soaking up all my damn time! Glad to meet you as well.

Yes they will change and at times in the polls Clinton has appeared to be the better candidate against McCain and at other times Obama has been that candidate.

You have obviously been following politics for longer than the duration of this race. You make a good argument against my opinion. Isn't that what many voters will do though? Vote based on their opinion, their perception of everything they have heard and read and discussed about McCain and our nominee. It will not be based on any single data point, but a collective judgment that has swayed them over time in one direction or another. That is, those who would vote for a Republican or Democrat.

Two important questions in my judgment:
Which candidate can win?
Which candidate can govern effectively?

At this point we can make any data based argument and still not know the answers to these questions. So, I agree with you that either way this goes, Obama/Clinton, we and the party are making a grand assumption.

Oh, by the way you might be interested in this if you have not seen it...for future reference.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Cheers

The person who is a heart beat away from the Presidency should be prepared to take the job from Day One. I find this argument from Clinton supporters, that the VP spot would serve as some kind of on-the-job training for Obama, to be ludicrous.

Obama has earned it. There are political considerations.

I would actually prefer Al Gore or John Edwards for President, but...

they are also nebulus. As in, no one knows what issues a president will face. Would the country have gone with bush if we had known a 911 was coming? I am much more comfortable with Clinton.

shes been one for 13 years
does that make me qualified to deliver?
unless you mean pizza hell no
hillary has NO experience in politics outside the gimmee senate seat she has
everything else is a lie
being first lady doesnt make you qualified
wheres president lady bird?
wheres president jackie O?
you dont get experience by injection unless you work at the chicken ranch in nevada
she has no qualifications
for god sake man the empress has NO CLOTHES!!

"With an eye toward the future, Hillary should ask Barak Obama to be her vice-president. "

You aren't serious, are you? Would *you* want to be VP if you were about to win the nomination?

Clinton get it, I think she should ask Obama to run with her.

The most important thing is a huge dem win in November on all fronts!

that an Obama ticket will help them tremendously (trickle down voternomics)

effective as possible.

She started this process with more advantages than any prospective nominee in history. Over 16 months she has squandered every oppurtunity she ever had. She started with a lead in every state and the only place she's been able to fully hold those leads are in Appalachia. The more she campaigns the lower her numbers go. With the way she handled the primaries John McCain will trounce her by at least 10 points and we'll lose all of congress because she's also selfish and will eat all the money the democrats have while losing.

She is the worse politian I have ever seen. She makes Bob dole look potent.

are you not worried about his chances in the fall? More of his states will go to the Republicans in the fall and Hillary has gotten stronger the longer the campaign has gone on.

She never said she had a lock on the nomination. That was all hype in the press.

in every state that she won with the exception of WV and KY. She gained no ground in NC and barely won IN which she was winning by 6 points a week earlier. She's awful on the trail and overplays hands. She has no consistent message. She manages money poorly and her strategy has been awful since this started.

We've won 4 states.
TX, VT, NC, and Oregon

Hillary has won PA, OH, IN, WV, and KY.

So its 5-4.

...in regard to dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia.

:sarcasm:

She is the one who said this will be over on Super Tuesday.

What does that have to do with anything?

Where she did not seriously compete, her mistake.

Those are some big primaries, all three states bigger than WV and KY COMBINED.

Wisconsin is even full of those pesky "working white" folk.

But, we may still be headed towards disaster looking at the continuing destruction raining down upon us still.

we need a big dem victory in the fall on all fronts.

Bush Despiser too!

NT!

Obama is the presumptive nominee.

to tell the truth - particularly about SIMPLE things.

Or about her "inexperience" at delivering all those things she cares so much about to the public?

McCain's "experience" ain't gonna help him - it's gonna hurt him. Just like Clinton's many scandals over the years is going to hurt her candidacy. Doesn't America deserve something a little less tarnished?

Obama and Rezko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8

always has been, always will be

and some of her own doing. Though not nearly enough of her own doing to justify the numbers. There are many people who perceive that she is perceived negatively and go along with that. This primary season has shown her connection with many and shown that once folks get to know her a little better, those negatives come down.

And if you think Obama is so unqualified, why would you want him to run as her VP? He would be "only a heartbeat away" from being President.

And to position a popular vice-president for 2016. And, to bring the party together. And to be more effective with the new congress, ie the new congress will be more diverse along the conservative to liberal democratic spectrum and we need an administration that can hold it together and bring it along on the issues important to us. I am sure there is more.

They are our winning team.

Not once have I heard anyone say they support Obama... and he won our state in a caucus... the day before Hillary was ahead by 7% in the polls...

I don't trust caucuses and don't feel they represent the true voters...

I too believe Hillary is the most electable...

People think Obama is better because he did not vote for the war.. I didn't either... because both of us were not in the Senate to do so...

Obama is likely to get us in a new war with his inexperience as we will be attacked because they see him as weak... I do...


Obama 2004: I can't see running for president
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gexyfVpFMU

Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-jCBk4IAFM

Let's give her the keys to the White House!

:shrug:

:scared:

rival what the Clinton's had to endure. Let's just hope that Michelle does not have to endure the attacks that Hillary has had to defend against.

she cannot guarantee to them that she will be able to convince Obama supporters to forgive what they will most definitely perceive as a slight, and fall in line behind her. That's a DEFINITE loss. It has reached the point that even if they see Obama as a "gamble" it is the only reasonable one to take.

They're elected officials too, they're not stupid when it comes to politics. The only reason it's dragging out this slowly is because they're trying to not agitate her fragile supporters who lost fair and square but can't seem to admit it, primarily because she won't let them and keeps giving them false hope. It's coming.

Beat me to it. You're smarter than your post shows.

I was stating in my post.

The "news" (Olbermann, not really news) said that the only real group that she's holding on to in big numbers are white women over 50. That's fine- that's her group - but you can't win an election on that.

Is it because they are voting for Obama because he is black?

They got to know him and now prefer him. After the comments her husband has made (Jesse Jackson) and the underlying racism (hard working, white Americans) why should they vote for Clinton?

blue collar, white americans are a demographic that Obama has not captured. To say this is NOT racist. To say they are not needed to win is stupid. This will not work in the general election. Americans will turn against and will turn out against Obama if they believe he is trying to use race to win. If the republicans are smart they will use the same tactic and claim that Obama and/or his supporters believe that a vote for McCain is a racist vote because if you vote that way you must not be voting for Obama because he is black. If this happens, we will face '72 all over again.

Hillary is not a racist and is better on the issues. They should vote for her if she is the nominee.

Everyone, except her most ardent supporters, knew exactly what she meant when she made the claim that Obama's weak support among hard working Americans, "white Americans". Apparently, these tactics only work in Appalachia. Obama's doing just fine with that demographic elsewhere.

I don't think any of us believe that Hillary is a racist, but I think most of us DO believe that she is not above "using race" to gain political advantage. Bill Clinton did it all through the 90's, and it worked to his advantage, even being dubbed by Toni Morrison as the "first black president". And as far as Hillary being "better on the issues", I think most of us strongly disagree with your "personal" assessment. No more warmongers, and no one who is closely aligned with Geraldine Ferraro. Geraldine has done more to set back race relations than Hillary ever could.

"They should vote for her if she is the nominee"? Tell that to Geraldine. That totally depends on how Hillary wins the nomination "fair & square", at this point.

Do you think his record supports your view? It is a guessing game at this point...I believe Al Gore would have been a much better president than Bush.

Do you think a white state senator with a brief US Senate career would be taken as seriously as Obama? Geraldine was right. So? If being black worked to his advantage in this situation, so what? Good for him. He has been able to run successfully. Being a black candidate for president would not be enough if he did not also have the ability to wage a successful campaign, which he has. The fact that his race worked to his advantage is only one small part of the equation. It certainly does not disqualify him from being president. In the end he will have to be the president for all Americans. I hope he is up to it.

answer your question? What Geraldine failed to mention in her demented diatribe is that Hillary wouldn't have been given a second look had she not slept with Bill once or twice. She has no more legislative experience than Obama, and just because she knows where the White House bathrooms are, doesn't make her "Ready On Day One".

you undermine your case when you misspell Barack Obama's name.

second, Clinton's experience is less than what you say Obama will have in 2016 when you think he would be qualified, in other words, she was not vice president for 8 years.

third, how do i judge Hillary's experience? when she was first lady, apart from the Health Care effort in 1994, I don't know what decisions she spearheaded, what her advice was, what her judgement was, etc. if i knew those, it would be easier to count her experience as first lady --but we don't really know that.

she is not as experienced as you would have us believe.

In the GE she would be forced to answer for all Bill's baggage. Fox News and Rush and all have been preparing to toast her in a GE election for 10 years, that is why they are pushing so hard to get her nominated.

Gore barely won the popular vote in 2000 when he should have won 60/40 due to the state of the economy still running high on the dot.com bubble and hi-tech boom. Yet Clinton fatigue and "bring decency and dignity back to the Whitehouse" cost him 20 points despite trying to insulate himself from Bill's indiscretions.

and so should we today. Every politician has baggage. We should not buy into the Rep version of events - the 90's were the nightmare years! Holy Toledo, what a crock.

1 - The precarious situation of America in the world economically, diplomatically and militarily.

That is exactly why Obama is the better choice. He brings a fresh perspective free of old-world, Washington insider politics. And certainly he's exercised better judgment that Clinton on a number of topics, from the war on Iraq to how to run a presidential campaign.


2 - The inexperience of our probable nominee.

Uh, no. Obama and Clinton are pretty much tied when it comes to experience.

Just as Clinton supporters should put aside their issues with Obama and vote for him in Nov (when he is the nominee), if the super delegates decide in their wisdom to go with Hillary, Obama's supporters should rally behind her for the very same reasons they are now making about her supporters.

LOL, this is hilarious. Clinton supporters should back Obama because he is the LEADER in this race. He's ahead in pledged delegates, states won, and yes, popular vote (unless you're one of those Hillary supporters who thinks Obama should get zero percent of the vote in Michigan, which, BTW, was a bogus election.) If the superdelegates should overturn the will of the people, no Obama supporter should feel compelled to vote for Hillary under those circumstances, and they sure as hell shouldn't "rally behind" that sleazy lying criminal.

Knowing where the f'ing bathrooms are (among other things, such as how to get things done) in the white house count as experience. After Bush, we need to get things done.

You're just trying to justify settling for the 2nd best.

...but I respectfully disagree with you. :)

What I was asking was about asking for recs. How many of you think, whatever. There is no opportunity for any opinion other than to agree. Seems like a vanity thing to me. Maybe I don't "get it" though so I asked for someone to point out how this was a really good thing.

I have my opinions, but on this it does not feel right to ask for pats on the back on an obviously popular idea.

its a real breath of fresh air to see some genuine discussion in this forum for a change. pity i can't say the same for 99% of the responses to this post.


imo, the SD's (who could have 'decided' this race ages ago) are delaying for this very reason, they know hillary is far more likely to win the GE than obama.

to win in November, bring the war to an end, rehabilitate our economy and standing in the world...each side in this race has issues with the other, but as severe as some of them are the point is to end Republican rule.

I don't see much coming out of her mouth that qualifies as "wisdom" these days. I think the superdelegates should finish this up by announcing for Obama by the end of the month. He has the experience he needs to do the job, and he has the integrity and character that she utterly lacks.

Except for a group of democrats who want a dem president in the fall, we have solid Obama and Clinton supporters at this point. Each side sees the other through the lens of their own side.

I think the best solution is for the two to join forces. One of them to accept the second spot and the other one to be big enough to embrace that person and make the case to their own supporters why we are better off with both of them.

The 99.9% nominee will be Obama so it is up to him to unify the party and bring Hillary's supporters over or to continue to alienate them. Given 180 present votes I do not expect him to do the difficult but best and right thing.

It will infuriate a lot of people. You don't get to be vice president by doing what she's done.

And by being magnanomous in victory he can offer his hand not just to Clinton, but her supporters.

Look at it this way. I supported Edwards before Clinton. However, I do not think he would be the best choice in a running mate. A large enough portion of the party is not behind him.

Do you remember when Bill chose Gore to be his running mate? There was something about it that clicked. At least for me. I sense that same possibility with Obama and Clinton. What unifies us is so much more than what divides us...

but they are also political realists.

she's not going to be the president.

there is NO way for her to do that now. sorry. win 100% of every vote, and its still not going to happen. the race is over. obama is the nominee.

I am used to picking losing candidates with only a few winners. Get over it has the ring of 2000 in it. I am not saying that Obama supporters should now like Clinton now that she has lost. Nor am I saying that Clinton supporters should suddenly like Obama.

The point of the post was to lay out an alternative view. At this point the most unlikely scenerio. There is no getting over it to do. What there is is winning in November. This post made my case for doing that.

The precarious situation of America in the world today is a direct result of old-school, Cold War thinking. America is governed by politicians who are stuck in the 20th century, and not up to the challenges of dealing with the 21st century. It's a very different world. Old policies and politics aren't going to suffice anymore.

Hillary is the old school. Obama is the new school - and that makes him the better nominee.

Reshaping America's place in the world, which is an absolute necessity if we want to prosper, is not a job for a woman who is a classic old school Democrat and a Centrist who is not going to undertake major policy reforms. We need someone who can think out of the box, who will take chances, and pioneer what the 21st century America is going to be.

Hillary can't do that, which is why I will never vote for her. If we're going to be mired in the politics of the 20th century, I'd rather vote for someone with military experience who can better chart a course through the conflicts we're doomed to fight if we don't make a move into the 21st century.

John McCain is much, much more qualified to lead our military efforts than Hillary, and if she won the election nothing would change in Iraq. McCain can at least prosecute the war well...and I don't trust Hillary not to go to war with Iran, either. Again, I'd rather have McCain in the Commander-In-Chief seat in such an eventuality.

Whereas if Obama takes office, I'm confident that the war in Iraq will end and a war with Iran will never be.

I think there is no such thing as a "new politics." There are new realities to be faced, sure...no Cold War. But as much as we would wish all of our leaders would do what they do for pure reasons - it is just not going to happen...never has...never will.

I find these phrases politically useful, but empty of meaning when dealing with real world issue outside the campaign.

Old school - new school
Old politics
Old school democrat
Politics of the 20th Century
Hillary can't think out of the box or take chances

As for McCain...both he and Clinton will be respected more by our adversaries. Obama's inexperience on the world stage invites Iran, China, N. Korea to test him to a greater degree. Look at Kruschev's attempts to test Kennedy.

No offense - but to suggest that...

1) America attempting to maintain its position as a military superpower
2) America attempting to maintain its position as an economic superpower
2) America attempting to maintain centrist to conservative political policies
3) America refusing to enact meaningful social reform

...in an era when...

1) Conventional warfare is quickly becoming a thing of the past, and other nations (China) will overwhelm us in conventional arms in a few decades
2) Corporations are globalized and hence have no inherent loyalty to America or our economic status so long as they can just move somewhere else
3) The rest of the Western, industrialized world is moving in a socialist direction and their economies are adapting likewise- and they are ALL in better shape than we are, last time I checked
4) Gay marriage rights and the triumph of secular wisdom over religious zealotry are also becoming the norm in the rest of the Western industrialized world

...is just an exercise in holding one's head in the sand.

Every single one of those phrases you dismiss out of hand are intensely imbued with meaning, but the old school doesn't want to recognize it. To do so is to effectively repudiate all our politics of the last two decades and admit that we've fucked up, we've gone down the wrong path, and that now we have some catching up to do.

The myth of American superiority makes that a very bitter and difficult pill to swallow - but 21st-century, progressive American political ideology not only swallows that pill whole, but is ready to address these problems and make systemic changes to our way of life.

Hillary represents that old way of life. Bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporate interests, mired in the centrist politics of her husband which promise nothing more than malaise and a continuation down precisely the same path we're on, only at a slower pace (i.e. "Republican Lite"), Hillary is not a voice for the new world. She's a holdover from the 20th century. It's rampant in her thinking, in her politics, and in her policies and voting record.

Obama owes nothing to anyone, is willing to take us down different foreign policy paths, and I am confident that his creative thinking will lead to economic solutions, as well. He is a man who can rechart our progress and set us on a markedly different path than any other candidate.

Considering America is fucking up left and right in every major arena: socially, economically, and militarily, I think that a consideration of the "old" way of thinking versus the possibility of a "new" way of thinking is THE most important political issue of our time.

We, Americans, need to have the courage to abandon the beaten path which just DOES NOT SERVE US anymore.

If we don't, everything is only going to get much worse. Do you want it to get much worse?

I don't. So I'm rooting for Obama.


P.S. I would retire that Khrushchev/Kennedy example, because it doesn't serve your argument. Kennedy not only won that confrontation, but scored a major victory in the entire Cold War and for our national security in the process. Obama could only hope to perform as admirably as JFK did. :)

where to start. Very thoughtful and thought provoking.

I think you are right about change coming and our need to deal with it. We will either manage it as best we can or be its victim, but it is coming nonetheless. Agreed. Currently we are on the path of disaster. Agreed. I don't want it to get worse. Agreed. Kennedy did do well, but the point was that he was more likely to be challenged because of his youth and inexperience.

What I fear is that with "new thinking" and "new solutions" we are going to get what we see in the education field (my area) all the time. Ignorance of what is good about what we currently have and are currently doing in favor of the "new idea." No Child Left Behind is a perfect example - Ted Kennedy was even in on it.

I have to respect your notion that Obama will handle these challenges better. I also enjoyed reading your reply. I'll have to ponder it a bit more.

Thanks for commenting.

And I also worked in education for a number of years. I still work in academia but not education-programs specifically.

I'm not sure how Obama would handle education...but he might be more open to the wisdom that EDUCATORS should be making those decisions. Hopefully, anyway...

After the way she's conducted her campaign? Trust her? Are you kidding me?

No, just have my Clinton lens on.

I remember during some of the early debates when they were nice to each other and wondering when that would end and how bad it might get. I guess we found out.

More Delusional tripe! Hillary ran a bad campaign, she is in debt, and she comes with a suitcase that won't stay zipped, (bill).

You Clinton supporters better warm up to the idea that she is way less electable than Barack. Then you have to factor in the
loonies that followed Rushs sabatage campaign. The repubs remember her rant about a so called conspiracy smear campaign against
Bill and his pet cigar.

I think the repubs fear Barack a hell of a lot more than Hillary. And if she is planning a 2012 run - good luck - because the
crap she has stirred up in this years primary will carry over into 2012 where her campaign will die before it gets started.

I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A CLINTON. In 2008 nor 2012! How bout you!?

better to defeat Obama than have McCain do it.

She did not run the best campaign, but it could have been worse. She really should have planned on competing in the caucuses and assumed that she would have a serious challenger even before she had one.

I see it differently on the electabliity issue, but when he is the nominee I hope you are right. We need a dem victory in Nov.

I'll vote for a Dem over any Rep. You?

but please don't stop posting because of your posting count

The only thing that upsets most of the Obama supporters is not that people continue to support Hillary but that they use arguments that are untrue and damaging to the GE. You do neither and I welcome your opinion.

The main question I have for Clinton supporters who argue that she will do well in the GE is the fact that for the last 8 months her campaign has the same level of support.

If she cannot persuade a few Democrats to vote for her how is she going to persuade Independents and Republicans to vote for her.

How is it possible that someone who fails in a primary campaign is going to be more successful in a General Election campaign?


This is the issue that Super Delegates are looking at and which you must convince them of.

like it or not we are in this boat together and the real enemy is Bush, McCain and their policies. You make a good point and it could be argued that as Clinton "lost" her support did not fall.

I would love to have an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket. If we are really all about winning in November we have to remember where the real battle is. Imagine that Clinton and Obama actually got along and came to value each others abilities. Imagine what that would do for their supporters - they get along great, I guess we can too. Imagine Bill as a goodwill ambassador or supreme court justice...ok I know I am imagining a lot, but if Obama really want to realize the hope he has generated, we need to do this together.

The candidate who can win would be the candidate that has already won the first round?

And they could.

I didn't! WTF? KNR!!!!! great post! thx. YOu should NEVAH shut up...like medicine! lol!

the post was about asking for recs, then I changed it and renamed it since the rec portion came later. Thanks for trying, twice!

to hell with the truth. I'm going to twist and turn just like the Clintons and then see how you like it

There is room in the party for all of us to win, for surely we are all losing now with Bush in charge.

A candidate doesn't throw murder on the table if there is any way of winning.