NationStates Jolt Archive

Everyone on here already knows that I ferociously back Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. Her string of victories last night demonstrate that she is not yet out of this race.

As it stands right now, it appears unlikely that either Clinton or Obama will muster the necessary 2,025 delegates for nomination. Both candidates are strong. Both candidates are popular. Both candidates have lots of supporters.

Some of the conversation in the past few days between the two camps has been very hostile, especially on here. It will likely become hostile again as we gear up for Pennsylvania's primaries. This said, I feel it is important that we not lose sight of the bigger picture.

John McCain went to the White House today to receive the mark of primogeniture from the man who stomped him in the 2000 elections and later went on to win the Presidency. McCain may claim to be something else in the coming days, but his hearty handshake with the President might as well be a promissory note for four more years of Bush-Cheney failures.

I hope deep in my heart that the Democratic Party finds a way to bring Obama and Clinton together in a unity ticket. As one of Clinton's backers, I of course would prefer that she be the President...but if Obama ended up on top with her as the Vice-Presidential candidate, I would endorse the whole ticket with great enthusiasm as well.

The Republicans are preparing their attacks and their excuses for the miserable failures of the past eight years. When this comes down to the convention floor in Denver, I pray that the Party will not just choose the black man or the woman. I want them to choose BOTH the black man and the woman. The defeat of the GOP in November is paramount.

I was actually thinking of starting a thread on this...

I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would b pretty goo, I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks of that...

BTW, this thread needs a poll

i just dont see the american public signing on to another 4 years of the failed policies of george bush. and i dont see either obama or clinton getting too sulky to campaign for the other if they dont get the nomination.

Everyone on here already knows that I ferociously back Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. Her string of victories last night demonstrate that she is not yet out of this race.

As it stands right now, it appears unlikely that either Clinton or Obama will muster the necessary 2,025 delegates for nomination. Both candidates are strong. Both candidates are popular. Both candidates have lots of supporters.

Some of the conversation in the past few days between the two camps has been very hostile, especially on here. It will likely become hostile again as we gear up for Pennsylvania's primaries. This said, I feel it is important that we not lose sight of the bigger picture.

John McCain went to the White House today to receive the mark of primogeniture from the man who stomped him in the 2000 elections and later went on to win the Presidency. McCain may claim to be something else in the coming days, but his hearty handshake with the President might as well be a promissory note for four more years of Bush-Cheney failures.

I hope deep in my heart that the Democratic Party finds a way to bring Obama and Clinton together in a unity ticket. As one of Clinton's backers, I of course would prefer that she be the President...but if Obama ended up on top with her as the Vice-Presidential candidate, I would endorse the whole ticket with great enthusiasm as well.

The Republicans are preparing their attacks and their excuses for the miserable failures of the past eight years. When this comes down to the convention floor in Denver, I pray that the Party will not just choose the black man or the woman. I want them to choose BOTH the black man and the woman. The defeat of the GOP in November is paramount.

I've never been a Clinton-hater. Even of Hillary, but since John Edwards dropped out I've leaned slightly Obamawards. However, I have lately been harboring the giddy fantasy that Hillary wants to be president for the same reason that Dubya did. To destroy those who attacked the last president in her family, and perhaps hang a Starr (http://www.menithings.com/images/news/KenStarr2.jpg)in Gitmo.

Probably not gonna happen though. Especially the way Bill is buddying up to Gramps Bush.

Unfortunately I do not think you can add polls to threads already begun. :headbang:

Unfortunately I do not think you can add polls to threads already begun. :headbang:

Yes you can - go to tools and add thread - tools should be in the grey bar above your post.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain trails Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in hypothetical matchups, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released on Wednesday.

Illinois Sen. Obama leads McCain by 12 percentage points -- 52 percent to 40 percent; New York Sen. Clinton leads McCain by 6 points -- 50 percent to 44 percent, the poll found.

McCain, an Arizona senator, has turned his attention to the November 4 general election after clinching his party's nomination on Tuesday night. Clinton and Obama are still locked in a close battle for the Democratic nomination.

McCain, endorsed by U.S. President George W. Bush, fares poorly against Clinton and Obama among Americans who disapprove of the president and Americans opposing the war, The Washington Post said.

About two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job and think the war was not worth fighting, the newspaper said.



http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0565259320080306


No matter who wins, the Democrats win.

Also, Bush endorsing McCain in my opinion will harm him.


All any Democratic candidate has to say is "Bush sucked. Bush endorses McCain. Therefore McCain sucks." And with two thirds of Americans now wising up and realizing Iraq was a mistake, in campaign adds they can just play McCain saying we should spend 100 years in Iraq and its over.

How do you think politics work?
But...But, I thought all polititions were kind and honest people who only wanted to help us! How could they knowingly use a fallacy to convince people? *Sob* I don't believe you! LALALALALALA!

Not at all. They've got the momentum necessary to win, but this is by no means going to be an easy victory. It will definitely be very close, especially if the divisions caused by the Clinton-Obama split end up pushing a lot of people away from voting.

EXACTLY! We might have a third-party candidate win this year! Probably not, but it dosn't hurt to hope!

No matter who wins, the Democrats win.

Not at all. They've got the momentum necessary to win, but this is by no means going to be an easy victory. It will definitely be very close, especially if the divisions caused by the Clinton-Obama split end up pushing a lot of people away from voting.

Dislike for Republican policies alone isn't going to be enough to win this election, and right now that's the only thing really giving the Democrats a lead. They've spent a lot of their time fighting each other and not enough time forming a united front against the Republicans. If that continues in to the general election, they're going to be in trouble.

All any Democratic candidate has to say is "Bush sucked. Bush endorses McCain. Therefore McCain sucks." And with two thirds of Americans now wising up and realizing Iraq was a mistake, in campaign adds they can just play McCain saying we should spend 100 years in Iraq and its over.

B-but isn't that a fallacy...?

I was actually thinking of starting a thread on this...

I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would b pretty goo, I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks of that...

BTW, this thread needs a poll
Obama will lose all credibility if he concedes and takes Clintons VP seat.

B-but isn't that a fallacy...?

How do you think politics work?

If that continues in to the general election, they're going to be in trouble.

It won't. The differences between Obama and Clinton are non-substantive. Their disputes are pedantic. They have reason to be competitive right now, but once this is decided it'll be over without any real break.

We shouldn't be cocky based on polls--especially this early. Polls had Kerry beating Bush the Younger. Dukakis had a huge lead in the polls against Bush the Elder. Etc, etc.
Then lets look at it slightly more analytically.

McCain is pretty much Bush-lite. And once we hit general election, it will have to come out that he isn't the same middle-of-the-road McCain that got railroaded 8 years ago. When he got railroaded, he went off the tracks and is not painting a nice moderate face over a sycophant willing to pander to anyone, especially the uber conservative base. And he will probably pick Huckabee or Romney as his VP to pull in the neocons. At which point he will definitely drive off the moderates that Obama easily attracts. If Obama can win it, it is very unlikely that McCain can walk off with the election.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0565259320080306


No matter who wins, the Democrats win.


We shouldn't be cocky based on polls--especially this early. Polls had Kerry beating Bush the Younger. Dukakis had a huge lead in the polls against Bush the Elder. Etc, etc.

I want them to choose BOTH the black man and the woman. The defeat of the GOP in November is paramount.
Haha we've got you now, what if McCain chooses Condi for VP?

that made far too much sense, alacea

this all worries me. what if we do get more GOP? more Iraq? more of this foreign policy? The only thing keeping people from armed revolution was the promise that it all would stop once Bush finally GTFO. Do you imagine?

fuck that. i'm going to go to the US to vote, and if mcain wins, i'm applying for irish citizenship.

McCain has these four threats on the horizon:

The economy, which will continue to suck and, while unlikely to slide into any severe recession, is likely to suck worse as the year goes on. In particular, the annual summer spike in gas prices is going to be into the $4.50 or maybe $5 range, given the recent oil market. This has absolutely zero to do with McCain, but the people always punish the party in power when the economy goes south.

Iraq, despite being in a lull now, with the "surge" troops clamping down on things, is going to have some explosions again when the "surge" ends. And it will end: we cannot keep sending more troops over there, because we don't have any more. It was never supposed to last more than a year anyway, but the idea was that this would buy time for the Iraqi politicians to get their act together, and they totally failed to do so. So, as the troop levels go down, the violence is going to go back up, very bad for a pro-war candidate.

His running mate: as has been pointed out by pantless_hero, his likely choice of a conservative will drive away a lot of people; if he makes a more radical choice like Condi or whoever, then the Limbaugh-type conservatives will just stay home or make third-party noises. He can't help but alienate a block of people on one side or the other.

Himself: he's old, and already looks tired, often. He will get a much-needed break these next couple months, but in the fall look for him to get grumpy and display ill-advised flashes of temper when the strain of campaigning wears on him.

i just dont see the american public signing on to another 4 years of the failed policies of george bush. and i dont see either obama or clinton getting too sulky to campaign for the other if they dont get the nomination.

Being the second time in three posts I have seen people denounce 'four more years of Bush' I would like to remind everyone that current US policy restricts presidents to only two terms, both of which Bush will have served at the end of his current term.

In summation, we cannot have four more years of Bush... just to tell those who seem to not understand.

Being the second time in three posts I have seen people denounce 'four more years of Bush' I would like to remind everyone that current US policy restricts presidents to only two terms, both of which Bush will have served at the end of his current term.

In summation, we cannot have four more years of Bush... just to tell those who seem to not understand.

She didn't say "four more years of Bush" she said "another 4 years of the failed policies of george bush." You'll notice the distinct and subtle difference. While you are correct that a person cannot serve more than two terms, their policies can be carried over as many terms as the people elected allow them.

I was actually thinking of starting a thread on this...

I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would b pretty goo, I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks of that...

BTW, this thread needs a poll

I've been hearing about his idea for at least 6 months, if not longer... it's not good or even neat, and now, after all the rivalries have formed I don't think the two could work well together.

The Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket... Hmm. I somehow don't think it's possible. There's been too much mudslinging in this campaign already. I bet you Obama's still mad about that South Carolina stint...

Either way, the Democrats will only lose ground the longer the race goes on. That's why Limbaugh told people to vote for Hilary in Texas and Ohio, he enjoys seeing both of them bloodied and battered. And if the victor spends all his/her resources in the primary, they'll be facing a refreshed McCain and the full resources of the GOP against a depleted Democratic candidate.

The faster the candidacy is decided, the better.

And one note, McCain is hardly a mini-Bush and has had noticable disagreements with him over the years. But, he is a Republican, which will knock him down quite a bit in public opinion.

i just dont see the american public signing on to another 4 years of the failed policies of george bush. and i dont see either obama or clinton getting too sulky to campaign for the other if they dont get the nomination.

But they are already doing it. They are talking about each other being running mates. They believe a unity ticket is inevitable, it's just a question who is going to be the top part of the ticket.

In some polls, a combined ticket easily beats McCain whereas, if each went their own way, McCain beats them as individuals.

John McCain went to the White House today to receive the mark of primogeniture from the man who stomped him in the 2000 elections and later went on to win the Presidency. McCain may claim to be something else in the coming days, but his hearty handshake with the President might as well be a promissory note for four more years of Bush-Cheney failures.



It is nothing but a customary party move for a sitting President to pass an endorsement to the expected nominee. It is a passing of the party torch so to speak. McCain is after all a Republican, albiet a very moderate one. It would be naive to think the move is anything more than traditional ceremony. McCain, as we all know, is not hard core party.

Clinton-Obama is a joke. Obama-Clinton is even more of a joke. The crazy whore deserves nothing at all and shouldn't even be this far.

For me, it's Obama or bust...well McCain. By the way, he will run Iraq well. He's a military man, unlike Bush, and knows how shit is done. He also has broad appeal.

Clinton-Obama is a joke. Obama-Clinton is even more of a joke. The crazy whore deserves nothing at all and shouldn't even be this far.

For me, it's Obama or bust...well McCain. By the way, he will run Iraq well. He's a military man, unlike Bush, and knows how shit is done. He also has broad appeal.

Only a traumatic experience can explain this degree of loathing and personal hatred against Senator Clinton. She is nigh identical to Obama on the issues.

So, the question is Sel Appa: where did the bad lady touch you?

Only a traumatic experience can explain this degree of loathing and personal hatred against Senator Clinton. She is nigh identical to Obama on the issues.

So, the question is Sel Appa: where did the bad lady touch you?

I wouldn't say their platforms are "nigh identical" - there are specific, but important differences in technology, health care, and some votes on select issues that haven't been represented in platforms, but the candidates are similar in this regard, yes. But platforms only mean anything if they get done. I have reason to believe that BHO will be better in terms of actual accomplishment in part because he has had greater success in using positive persuasion to create legislation, and because I trust that he is committed to his platform. The issues of transparency and ethics are centerpieces to Obama's campaign and hallmarks of his career, whereas Clinton's talk on similar issues seems to be in spite of her history.

A sound platform is just one of several important attributes one might consider necessary for a president. Honesty is a big one. So is judgment. Character. Integrity. Accountability. A respect for the electorate. Demonstrating an internalization of the values on which America is founded. To me, Obama trumps Clinton in all of these areas.

It would be interesting to see Obama as the Presidential candidate, and Clinton as the Vice Presidential candidate.......:D

As it stands right now, it appears unlikely that either Clinton or Obama will muster the necessary 2,025 delegates for nomination. Both candidates are strong. Both candidates are popular among Democrats. Both candidates have lots of supporters.Had to fix this.

I really hope Obama and Clinton can swallow their pride, whatever happens, and form a joint ticket. That's the only way that the Democrats will stay together. I already see a lot of other Democrats, both online and in person, saying that "if [their preferred candidate] doesn't get the nomination, I'm [pick option of abstaining or voting for McCain]". After having to berate several people already on how incredibly stupid it is to protest who gets the Dem nomination by helping a Republican get elected again, I'm starting to worry just a little bit.

For the record, I'm an Obama supporter, but if Hillary gets the nomination, I'll vote for her, because I'm not stupid enough to vote for a 71-year-old Republican whose likely response to a crisis would be to have a heart attack or stroke, and who thinks we might have troops in Iraq for 100 more years. I'm not fond of Hillary, but I can stomach her a lot more than I can grandpa McCain, aka Bush Lite.

Some of the conversation in the past few days between the two camps has been very hostile, especially on here. It will likely become hostile again as we gear up for Pennsylvania's primaries. This said, I feel it is important that we not lose sight of the bigger picture.

Aren't there several other primaries between now and Pennsylvania?

I hope deep in my heart that the Democratic Party finds a way to bring Obama and Clinton together in a unity ticket. As one of Clinton's backers, I of course would prefer that she be the President...but if Obama ended up on top with her as the Vice-Presidential candidate, I would endorse the whole ticket with great enthusiasm as well.

The Republicans are preparing their attacks and their excuses for the miserable failures of the past eight years. When this comes down to the convention floor in Denver, I pray that the Party will not just choose the black man or the woman. I want them to choose BOTH the black man and the woman. The defeat of the GOP in November is paramount.

I really don't see it happening. But then, I apparently see more differences between the candidates than many, so maybe it's just me.

Not at all. They've got the momentum necessary to win, but this is by no means going to be an easy victory. It will definitely be very close, especially if the divisions caused by the Clinton-Obama split end up pushing a lot of people away from voting.

Dislike for Republican policies alone isn't going to be enough to win this election, and right now that's the only thing really giving the Democrats a lead. They've spent a lot of their time fighting each other and not enough time forming a united front against the Republicans. If that continues in to the general election, they're going to be in trouble.

Good analysis.

I really hope Obama and Clinton can swallow their pride, whatever happens, and form a joint ticket. That's the only way that the Democrats will stay together. I already see a lot of other Democrats, both online and in person, saying that "if [their preferred candidate] doesn't get the nomination, I'm [pick option of abstaining or voting for McCain]". After having to berate several people already on how incredibly stupid it is to protest who gets the Dem nomination by helping a Republican get elected again, I'm starting to worry just a little bit.

You make the assumption here that anyone voting for Clinton or Obama is a Democrat.

For some of us, the goal isn't to get a Democrat in the White House. It's to get the best person for the job there. If we don't see the candidate we feel is the best person for the job on the ballot, it's a game of "choose the lesser evil."

The only thing you can pray for is that the Republicans fuck up more than the Democrats.

If the Democrats fuck up their own convention and nominate Hillary, and the Republicans keep their fuckups to a minimum...

Aren't there several other primaries between now and Pennsylvania?

Wyoming is coming up on Saturday with Mississippi on the 11. Those are the only two primaries before Pennsylvania on April 22.

McCain is not Bush.

Of course not. John McCain is not George W. Bush, John McCain is John McCain.

And John McCain is someone who supported wholeheartedly, and continues to support, the worst blunders of the Bush administration.

Is he George Bush? Of course not. Is he someone who supports the disasterous, idiotic, and downright destructive policies of George Bush and will continue them in his own administration? Absolutely. Which is why he should never get to be president.

McCain is not Bush. Despite what youve been brainwashed to believe by the democratic party. They have many differences and that sort of character assassination and personal attacks are what make the democrats what they are today. You can look forward to seeing those tactics used by dems against dems for the next few months. While McCain displays what a real candidate looks like.

An old, decreipt, sychopantic kiss-ass that lost all sense of principle?

McCain is not Bush. Despite what youve been brainwashed to believe by the democratic party. They have many differences and that sort of character assassination and personal attacks are what make the democrats what they are today. You can look forward to seeing those tactics used by dems against dems for the next few months. While McCain displays what a real candidate looks like.

So, quick question, and provide links:

List which candidates will immediately pull out all troops from Iraq (a mass, quick exodus).

Which candidates will slowly pull them out over time (give timetable)?

Which candidates see us staying there until *whenever*

It would be good to see. So far, I only had Ron Paul really saying we would be out as fast as the planes could fly the troops out.

While we're at it, which candidates will immediately pull out of Afghanistan? (if you see that as more "failed Bush stuff").

McCain is not Bush. Despite what youve been brainwashed to believe by the democratic party. They have many differences and that sort of character assassination and personal attacks are what make the democrats what they are today. You can look forward to seeing those tactics used by dems against dems for the next few months. While McCain displays what a real candidate looks like.

no mccain is not bush but he did just sign on to the failed policies of the bush administration. so while he is not a moron, he IS a fool.

You make the assumption here that anyone voting for Clinton or Obama is a Democrat.

You're right that I make that assumption, because I don't really see a huge number of Republicans deciding to cross over to vote in Democratic primaries/caucuses, except perhaps to play the role of spoiler or agent provocateur. Independents are a different story; I consider myself mostly independent but tend to vote for Democrats because the Republicans have taken too many stances on issues that I am morally opposed to.

For some of us, the goal isn't to get a Democrat in the White House. It's to get the best person for the job there.

That's my goal also; I just happen to think that the Democratic candidates are the better people for the job than the Republican ones.

If we don't see the candidate we feel is the best person for the job on the ballot, it's a game of "choose the lesser evil."

That's pretty much what American politics has become though. If I had had my way, Bill Richardson would be the Dem nominee, not Obama or Clinton. But we saw how well that worked out.

Only a traumatic experience can explain this degree of loathing and personal hatred against Senator Clinton. She is nigh identical to Obama on the issues.

So, the question is Sel Appa: where did the bad lady touch you?

Cat, Sel isn;t the only one who has a knee jerk nasty gut reaction to HRC. You know (I hope) that I', usually a sane reasoned person, and you've seen my reactions...

Even if it were six of one and half a dozen of the other (and I don't think it is), she has a knack for bringing out this sort of reaction.

(And the bad lady "touched me" in Iraq.)

And as a general overal note, my younger brother, who's voted dem his whole life, unlike my generally indy self, e-mailed me this morning, saying "I will make the show of withdrawing my registration from the dems." if HRC squeaks through on the supers. Note again - he's a lifelong dem, a county delegate, precinct captain, etc. When party loyalists like him state something like that, it should serve as a wakeup call...

In the meantime, we have to face the likelihood now that neither Obama nor Clinton will have the necessary delegates to claim the nomination in Denver. Clinton's victories in Texas and Ohio have virtually assured it.

We will head to the floor and neither candidate will have enough delegates to win. Two arguments will then be made to the superdelegates who will decide:

The Obama Argument: I am the choice of the people. I do not have a majority, but I do have a plurality. In a democratic system, the candidate who receives the most votes is generally supposed to win. If we are committed to the principle of a democratic system in this party, I am the only logical outcome of this process.

The Clinton Argument: I won the big states...but more importantly, I won the swing states. The purple states that will, in November, decide who the next President of the United States is. I present the best opportunity for victory in November because I am the one who can win the most critical contests in the most critical states.

It is, essentially, an argument of idealism versus pragmatism. Both arguments are very, VERY good arguments, and I feel to accept one in its' totality by necessity demands the rejection of the other. But both arguments are too good for an outright rejection.

In the meantime, we have to face the likelihood now that neither Obama nor Clinton will have the necessary delegates to claim the nomination in Denver. Clinton's victories in Texas and Ohio have virtually assured it.

We will head to the floor and neither candidate will have enough delegates to win. Two arguments will then be made to the superdelegates who will decide:

The Obama Argument: I am the choice of the people. I do not have a majority, but I do have a plurality. In a democratic system, the candidate who receives the most votes is generally supposed to win. If we are committed to the principle of a democratic system in this party, I am the only logical outcome of this process.

The Clinton Argument: I won the big states...but more importantly, I won the swing states. The purple states that will, in November, decide who the next President of the United States is. I present the best opportunity for victory in November because I am the one who can win the most critical contests in the most critical states.

It is, essentially, an argument of idealism versus pragmatism. Both arguments are very, VERY good arguments, and I feel to accept one in its' totality by necessity demands the rejection of the other. But both arguments are too good for an outright rejection.

Or we can go with what most democrats want and that is on the basis of the WILL OF THE PEOPLE! That means Obama at this moment.

I foresee a Democratic victory. I'm a libertarian-leaning Republican, and I can tell you Democrats that neither I nor any others I know have the stomach to vote for McCain. (Ron Paul was my choice)

However, the Democrats do have a remarkable history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, so we'll see.

i just dont see the american public signing on to another 4 years of the failed policies of george bush.

Never, ever underestimate the power of stupidity.

McCain is pretty much Bush-lite.

Correction: Bush is McCain-lite. McCain is far more belligerent and militaristic.

But they are already doing it. They are talking about each other being running mates. They believe a unity ticket is inevitable, it's just a question who is going to be the top part of the ticket.

In some polls, a combined ticket easily beats McCain whereas, if each went their own way, McCain beats them as individuals.

Please post these polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Obama on average beats McCain by 6.3

Clinton wins by .3

Some polls have Obama up by as much as 10-12 points on McCain. I'm not saying this means they win, but I want to know what polls you are looking at?

Never, ever underestimate the power of stupidity.

we've been living with abject stupidity for 8 years. i wish i could underestimate it.

I really hope Obama and Clinton can swallow their pride, whatever happens, and form a joint ticket. That's the only way that the Democrats will stay together. I already see a lot of other Democrats, both online and in person, saying that "if [their preferred candidate] doesn't get the nomination, I'm [pick option of abstaining or voting for McCain]". After having to berate several people already on how incredibly stupid it is to protest who gets the Dem nomination by helping a Republican get elected again, I'm starting to worry just a little bit.

For the record, I'm an Obama supporter, but if Hillary gets the nomination, I'll vote for her, because I'm not stupid enough to vote for a 71-year-old Republican whose likely response to a crisis would be to have a heart attack or stroke, and who thinks we might have troops in Iraq for 100 more years. I'm not fond of Hillary, but I can stomach her a lot more than I can grandpa McCain, aka Bush Lite.

Did you ever stop to think that some of these people don't just vote based upon party? That there might be more to why they vote the way they do then a D or R? Finally, your criticism of McCain is so biting that we all now know we could never vote for McCain. After all, he's just going to go die on us anyway right? He better pick a vp we like then. Seriously, let's try to debate something of substance.

Or we can go with what most democrats want and that is on the basis of the WILL OF THE PEOPLE! That means Obama at this moment.

No campaign has ever raised this much in a single month in the history of presidential primaries. But more important than the total is how we did it -- more than 90% of donations were $100 or less, and more than 385,000 new donors in February pushed us past our goal of more than 1,000,000 people owning a piece of this campaign.

This alone says to me that Barack is more the choice of the "people." Hillary's donations come mostly in chunks of 2,300 (the limit for primaries). Make of this what you will, but you see my feeling.

Barack also leads the popular vote amongst the parties. This is of course not including MI and FL. It'd be tough to argue (Hillary did when she said, "I won...") you can include numbers where Obama wasn't even on the ticket.

Barack is also far ahead in pledged delegates. I think of pledged delegates like the electoral college. You don't have to like it, but it's the way the system was set up to work.

Finally, Hillary took in $35 million which is impressive. Barack pulled in $55 million. Now remember, those came from over 1 million people in mostly $100 chunks.

As for the person who tried to challenge you and say that these two are only popular among Democrats, they must not be paying attention to actual voting returns or fundraising. Two candidates don't pull in $90 million are popular no matter what way you cut it. Unless you really believe that only Democrats contributed to this cause you'd have to admit they are just flat out popular.

Cat, Sel isn;t the only one who has a knee jerk nasty gut reaction to HRC. You know (I hope) that I', usually a sane reasoned person, and you've seen my reactions...

Even if it were six of one and half a dozen of the other (and I don't think it is), she has a knack for bringing out this sort of reaction.

(And the bad lady "touched me" in Iraq.)

And as a general overal note, my younger brother, who's voted dem his whole life, unlike my generally indy self, e-mailed me this morning, saying "I will make the show of withdrawing my registration from the dems." if HRC squeaks through on the supers. Note again - he's a lifelong dem, a county delegate, precinct captain, etc. When party loyalists like him state something like that, it should serve as a wakeup call...

But that is exactly my problem. I don't see why sane, reasonable persons such as yourself have such vicious and hysterical reactions to Senator Clinton.

I've only grown stronger in my belief that Senator Obama is the better choice, but I will gladly support Senator Clinton if she were the nominee.

How can you claim that Iraq is your sorepoint and then consider voting for McCain who wants us to stay 100 years? I just don't get it.

But that is exactly my problem. I don't see why sane, reasonable persons such as yourself have such vicious and hysterical reactions to Senator Clinton.

I've only grown stronger in my belief that Senator Obama is the better choice, but I will gladly support Senator Clinton if she were the nominee.

How can you claim that Iraq is your sorepoint and then consider voting for McCain who wants us to stay 100 years? I just don't get it.

[I misread Cat-Tribes post, see below]

From Factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/cleveland_clinkers.html)-
About That 100-year "War"

Obama twisted the words of John McCain, the likely Republican nominee:

Obama: We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.

Actually, McCain suggested no such thing. Obama is referring to a statement that McCain made at a New Hampshire town hall meeting on Jan. 3. As we said before when the Democratic National Committee made a similar statement about McCain, the Arizona senator said that he would be "fine" staying in Iraq for 100 years "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." You can view the whole exchange below:
[youtube video]
Furthermore, McCain elaborated on that statement at a campaign event in Ohio, saying the "war" will end "soon":

McCain, Feb. 25: My friends, the war will be over soon. The war for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years, but it'll be handled by the Iraqis not by us.

Obama was more careful in the previous Democratic debate on Feb. 21, when he stated – accurately – that McCain "has said that he is willing to have these troops over there for 100 years."

[again, see below]

The entry is at the bottom of the page.
EDIT: And, of course, now that I read what you wrote one more time, that is exactly what you said, keep troops there 100 years...sorry man, my reading mistake. I'm leaving this up though, just for general with this caveat at the end that I read your post wrong.

But that is exactly my problem. I don't see why sane, reasonable persons such as yourself have such vicious and hysterical reactions to Senator Clinton.

I think there're a lot of reasons going into it, but it boils down to history, frustration, and trust.

How can you claim that Iraq is your sorepoint and then consider voting for McCain who wants us to stay 100 years? I just don't get it.

As, CtoaN pointed out, that's not what was said. At this point, we need a diplomat and not a hawk. HRC and McCain are both hawks. And if we're going to have a hawk for POTUS, I'd rather it be a military man.

Everyone on here already knows that I ferociously back Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. Her string of victories last night demonstrate that she is not yet out of this race.


Two victories is not a string.

Two victories is not a string.

Three actually. The caucus results are still out however though Obama has a 12 point lead with 41% reporting.

I agree about the Democrat ticket. It would be either or, though for success, they may very well put Clinton first, and probably only to get the presidential seat because there would be a lot of room for the GOP to walk all over the Dems if they put in Obama. The GOP could use fear tactics (even though we know Obama is American by birth and is Christian), something that wouldn't work as well as with a white female candidate with a very WASP name and appearance.

Of course, I say this as an outside observer.

Now, people who think McCain would pick either Romney or Huckabee assume that McCain likely has a political death wish. He likely knows that either one of those will lose him the key popular vote, though retain the Christian right vote. He may very well pick the last Republican to drop out. The one Republican candidate who managed to get no states yet didn't drop out.

I hate to say it but the GOP ticket may very well be McCain/Paul. Yes, Ron Paul as the Vice President. Why? Not many people are aware of Ron Paul on the whole. Picking a lesser known candidate is often a fail-safe when the other possibilities may repulse voters. It could save the GOP by having someone slightly different. After all, being pro-state rights may indeed appeal to the Christian right, who would like the idea of someone who would let them have their way.

Why has this thread not been deleted or merged with the election mega-thread?

i just dont see the american public signing on to another 4 years of the failed policies of george bush.

I've said that three times, and been right once. :(

All any Democratic candidate has to say is...When John McRambo starts running ads about being horny to dial the -Launch 200 cruise missiles- war button everytime the phone rings at 3am... even if its a wrong number.

All any good Democratic candidate has to say is NOT: "i am almost as good as a Warmonger as you, I am the margarine of evil.. Bush minus 1 calorie... I will sleep with my finger ready to launch"

All any good Democratic candidate has to say is "I have BETTER JUDGMENT than that"

Did you ever stop to think that some of these people don't just vote based upon party? That there might be more to why they vote the way they do then a D or R?

Uh, yes, I did, especially considering that I *am* one of those people. As you didn't figure it out from the post I made, let me reiterate: these are not people who vote across party lines I'm talking about. These are committed, card-carrying Democrats (NOT independents) who I've seen and heard saying they'd rather, in effect, elect a Republican than a Democrat they dislike. From a party perspective, that *is* a remarkably stupid way to protest a decision you dislike, no matter how you analyze it.

Finally, your criticism of McCain is so biting that we all now know we could never vote for McCain. After all, he's just going to go die on us anyway right? He better pick a vp we like then. Seriously, let's try to debate something of substance.

Do you seriously believe that someone's age and mental/physical capabilities aren't substantive factors to consider when picking a president? If you think those things are unimportant, you're a fool. It's not like I'm critiquing the man's choice of ties here.

There's also the fact that McCain absolutely refuses to repudiate the failed policies of Dubya, but I think others have already covered that here.

Uh, yes, I did, especially considering that I *am* one of those people. As you didn't figure it out from the post I made, let me reiterate: these are not people who vote across party lines I'm talking about. These are committed, card-carrying Democrats (NOT independents) who I've seen and heard saying they'd rather, in effect, elect a Republican than a Democrat they dislike. From a party perspective, that *is* a remarkably stupid way to protest a decision you dislike, no matter how you analyze it.



Do you seriously believe that someone's age and mental/physical capabilities aren't substantive factors to consider when picking a president? If you think those things are unimportant, you're a fool. It's not like I'm critiquing the man's choice of ties here.

There's also the fact that McCain absolutely refuses to repudiate the failed policies of Dubya, but I think others have already covered that here.

Here are some important things to note.

1. FDR was old and physically limited to a wheelchair. This did not destroy his leadership abilities.
2. It has not been proven that McCain has any sort of mental deficiency. Your projection of this upon him because you believe his age is a factor is your problem, not his.
3. The percentage of CEO's of fortune 500 companies has seen a great increase in the age of their Chiefs. http://www.slate.com/id/2081900/

CEOldThe foolishness of forcing corporate executives to retire at 65.
By Daniel Gross
Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 4:38 PM ET

Investors reacted with joy yesterday to President Bush's signal that he would reappoint Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to a fifth term when his fourth expires next year.

The reappointment of the 77-year-old Greenspan is another small jab at one of the business world's silliest customs. While the public is willing to tolerate elder statesmen at the highest levels of government—the median age on the Supreme Court is 68; the Senate only just retired Strom Thurmond—the private sector remains significantly more ageist. Despite advances in life expectancy and medicine, many blue-chip companies (General Electric, Altria, ExxonMobil, Intel, to name a few) maintain a mandatory retirement age of 65 for their CEOs. And even when a company doesn't force out its senior CEO, investors and analysts act as though a 65-year-old boss ought to be tottering around Shady View Retirement Castle, not barking at underlings.

Of course, not every CEO should aim to spend his (or her) golden years running a large enterprise. It is exhausting. The average 70-year-old doesn't have the mental agility of the average 50-year-old. If only for reasons of morale, it's important for rising executives to believe they may have a shot at the top job. Nonetheless, there is something arbitrary about a mandatory CEO retirement age. The fact that the markets took solace in the prospect of Alan Greenspan overseeing the economy into his 80s shows that reputation and performance matter far more than age.

CEOs are getting younger. According to executive search firm Spencer Stuart, the average age of CEOs at the 700 largest U.S. companies dropped from 59 in 1980 to 56 in 2000. But younger isn't necessarily better. Plenty of companies run by youthful CEOs have been run into the ground recently, even as many firms with geezer CEOs have held up quite well.

Under the direction of Sandy Weill, who turned 70 last month, Citigroup is crushing its competitors. American International Group CEO Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg—at 77, old enough to have watched the home-run-hitting Hank Greenberg play for the Tigers—has helped his global insurance giant surf the recent industry downturn. Viacom, run by 79-year-old chief executive officer Sumner Redstone (recently married to 40-year-old Paula Fortunato), has outperformed all the major media stocks in the past two years—except 72-year-old Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

The mandatory retirement age occasionally has palpably negative effects on companies. Jack Welch, more energetic at 65 than most MBAs are at 25, was forced to step down in 2001 because of GE's policy. While his fortysomething successor, Geoffrey Immelt, has done a good job, it's a safe bet GE's stock would probably be higher today if Welch were still in control.

Nor is age or tenure an indication of engagement. At Enron, fortysomething Jeffrey Skilling was a youthful and buff CEO. But he forswore all knowledge of what was actually happening at the company. By contrast, 69-year-old Irwin Jacobs of Qualcomm is intimately involved with the development of his company's wireless technology.

What's more, the mandatory retirement age turns many CEOs into lame ducks. Craig Barrett, the 63-year-old CEO of Intel Corp., is only five years into his tenure, but speculation about his successor is already mounting.

The retirement age of 65 remains strangely standard despite advances in health care and the emphasis on healthy living—developments that particularly benefit CEOs. With their gold-plated executive health-insurance benefits, senior corporate executives have ready access to dietitians and cooks, personal trainers and on-call doctors, and the latest pharmaceuticals and procedures. (Sandy Weill even has an entire medical school—Cornell's—named after him.)

Of course age does undermine some CEOs, and they may have acquired enough clout to prevent their board from forcing them out. The mandatory retirement age is designed for such cases. But—in theory, at least—the market will notice a blundering, forgetful CEO who is no longer up to the task and punish the company that keeps a superannuated boss for too long (just as the market would notice if Greenspan's performance at his congressional appearances begins to slip).

Perhaps the best reason to scrap the mandatory retirement age is this: History is a good teacher. As we struggle with the stubborn aftereffects of a mild recession, it may be wise to heed to those business leaders who can actually remember—if only faintly—the Great Depression.

4.I'd appreciate it if you'd stop flaming me with your immature name calling. I am a CO in the US Marine Corp., have two MA's, and I'm working on a law degree. I'll do it if you can.

5. Your personal circle of acquaintances does not make a broad statement about how the majority of people in a political party feel. It just means that the people you know feel that way.

6. You'd never speak this way to me face to face. Please stop feeling like a keyboard commando whose mouth writes checks his body can't cash.

1. FDR was old and physically limited to a wheelchair. This did not destroy his leadership abilities.

FDR was only 63 when he died. McCain is 71, and not getting any younger.

2. It has not been proven that McCain has any sort of mental deficiency. Your projection of this upon him because you believe his age is a factor is your problem, not his.

Admittedly, no one has yet proven that McCain is senile or in bad health. That doesn't change the fact that as one gets older, they lose many of their basic capabilities, and that age is thus a legitimate concern. The presidency ages even young men rapidly, and placing someone as old as McCain in that spot is a matter of concern, no matter how hard you may argue that it isn't.

3. The percentage of CEO's of fortune 500 companies has seen a great increase in the age of their Chiefs.

How many of them are 71 or older?

4.I'd appreciate it if you'd stop flaming me with your immature name calling. I am a CO in the US Marine Corp., have two MA's, and I'm working on a law degree. I'll do it if you can.

Flaming? I wasn't aware I said anything particularly harsh; I've seen far worse on NSGeneral, frankly, than anything I've posted so far. I think you're a tad oversensitive. As for your list of accomplishments, I couldn't care less, and I don't think anyone else could either.

5. Your personal circle of acquaintances does not make a broad statement about how the majority of people in a political party feel. It just means that the people you know feel that way.

Again, you're missing the point. This is not just my "personal circle of acquaintances"; I've seen the sentiments in question expressed in multiple online forums, and by many people I don't know (including at the caucus I attended).

6. You'd never speak this way to me face to face. Please stop feeling like a keyboard commando whose mouth writes checks his body can't cash.

:rolleyes:

Please take any further comments to the US Elections Mega-Thread. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=549897)