NationStates Jolt Archive

As we hurtle into the next round of primaries, we're confronted with the very real and likely prospect that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama are going to be able to land "the knockout punch". This battle is going to go (regardless of what Howard Dean wants) all the way to the convention.

The Democratic electorate is too closely split to give either Obama or Clinton victory. The superdelegates will have to break the deadlock.

If I were a superdelegate, I'd be past the delegate count by this point. It is quite clear that Barack Obama is going to win more delegates than Clinton, but he's not going to have enough to lock up the nomination.

My primary concern is finding a candidate who has the best shot against John McCain this coming November...and a poll released today by AP appears to show that Clinton has a more substantial lead over him than Obama does. That's nothing short of extraordinary, given how much campaign cash Obama has raised and spent.

I think Clinton's best argument lies in the popular vote. She is very close to him. If she comes within 378,556 votes of him in the popular vote (the margin of her gains in Michigan and Florida, assuming you count all the "uncommitted" to Obama), then I foresee a difficult decision at the convention for many superdelegates. The DNC does not appear interested in counting the votes of Michigan or Florida, but that doesn't nullify the people who voted for Clinton (and Obama) there. If I were a superdelegate and that happened to be the case, I'd be inclined to throw my vote behind Clinton regardless of how many pledged delegates Obama had. Otherwise, I'd feel like I was an accessory to some Election 2000 redux.

I personally find the inability of a party to elect a leader to be ... silly.
If two compete - make two parties.

Imo Barrack Obama ftw, but if he might lose to Mccain then Hillary. I think the American population should decide, not just democratic party members.

Ultimately does it really matter? If Obama got into office it would show America wants a change yes. But what sort of alternative have the democrats ever really been historically? Answer: A pathetic one.

http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1898

^This is the sort of alternative I think America needs.

Whatever happened to Nader?

yes delegates matter. thats why they have them.

unless she can significantly close the gap it would be wrong for superdelegates to override the pledged delegates majority.

Imo Barrack Obama ftw, but if he might lose to Mccain then Hillary. I think the American population should decide, not just democratic party members.

Ultimately does it really matter? If Obama got into office it would show America wants a change yes. But what sort of alternative have the democrats ever really been historically? Answer: A pathetic one.

I don't know. America's involvement in World War 2 played decisively in the eventual Allied victory, and a Democrat was at the helm for the entire war. I feel confident in saying that if the United States had not entered the war that the Axis might well have won, and the world might be a very different place now.

Aside from that, the Democratic Party has more or less decided that it likes both and can't decide between them. Someone has to be the tiebreaker.

yes delegates matter. thats why they have them.

unless she can significantly close the gap it would be wrong for superdelegates to override the pledged delegates majority.

Even if Hillary Clinton wins more popular votes?

Even if Hillary Clinton wins more popular votes?

yes

not that she will.

Can we keep it in the designated threads please?

My primary concern is finding a candidate who has the best shot against John McCain this coming November

hey, remember a couple months ago?

I do not care if Barack Obama is the more electable candidate either now or in the general election.

hey, remember a couple months ago?

That was before John McCain surged in the polls, when it seemed that either of them could take him on.

I find it somewhat amusing that the Obama-supporters are willing to overlook the spirit of democracy in exercising the letter of it. Clinton has EVERY opportunity to overtake him in the popular vote, and if she does I think it makes an even stronger case for her nomination.

I'd also like to note that if she loses, I'm still very much inclined to vote for Barack Obama in the general. I'm a petty man, but not THAT petty.

That was before John McCain surged in the polls, when it seemed that either of them could take him on.

I find it somewhat amusing that the Obama-supporters are willing to overlook the spirit of democracy in exercising the letter of it. Clinton has EVERY opportunity to overtake him in the popular vote, and if she does I think it makes an even stronger case for her nomination.

I'd also like to note that if she loses, I'm still very much inclined to vote for Barack Obama in the general. I'm a petty man, but not THAT petty.

of course youll vote for obama in the general election. just as i would vote for clinton.

anyone who would be attracted to any democratic candidate would not vote for john "i will do things just like bush does them" mccain.

of course youll vote for obama in the general election. just as i would vote for clinton.

anyone who would be attracted to any democratic candidate would not vote for john "i will do things just like bush does them" mccain.

I kind of wish they'd figure out a way to put these two on the same ticket with each other in no particular order. I'd be wildly enthusiastic about such a ticket myself.

I kind of wish they'd figure out a way to put these two on the same ticket with each other in no particular order. I'd be wildly enthusiastic about such a ticket myself.

by the convention they will be too disgusted with each other to be able to work together.

it would have worked better if clinton was ahead and obama behind. if she is not president this time, she will be too old in '12 (unless mccain wins *spits*) as it is obama has no incentive to take the 2nd spot.

democrats recently have not done well stepping up from Vice pres to pres.
So I don't think the loser of the convention will be the others Vice press as both of them have lofty goals and i think would likely wait 4 to 8 years.

Since there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to count popular or delegate votes in Florida or Michigan votes because of their stupidity in going against party rules effectively nullifying any legitimacy they may have had, Clinton is never going to catch up to Obama on either count.

There have been many polls showing Obama as the Dem to beat in the general, so why is this latest poll the one to consider?

That was before John McCain surged in the polls, when it seemed that either of them could take him on.

I find it somewhat amusing that the Obama-supporters are willing to overlook the spirit of democracy in exercising the letter of it. Clinton has EVERY opportunity to overtake him in the popular vote, and if she does I think it makes an even stronger case for her nomination.

I'd also like to note that if she loses, I'm still very much inclined to vote for Barack Obama in the general. I'm a petty man, but not THAT petty.

see, that isn't actually what you were saying a couple months ago. you said you did not care if he was more electable in the general because,

nominating Obama, should we go through with it, would be a major mistake, even if he wins the election

your primary concern is not now and has never been anything to do with electability.

also, what surge in the polls for mccain?

yes

not that she will.

She's claiming that she is already. With some very dubious mathematics to back it up. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7371367.stm

She's claiming that she is already. With some very dubious mathematics to back it up. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7371367.stm

only the clintons themselves think that this analysis makes sense.

I was doing some housework this morning and came up with a theory. Remember this summer when she said if she won she'd ask Obama to run on her ticket, and he said he wouldn't ask her? I wondered (and it's possible that in the end politicians are just people too, so this isn't that far-fetched) if the reason she's so dug in, and won't give up, is because he hurt her feelings.

only the clintons themselves think that this analysis makes sense.

Well that's what's so fun about 'em. Slippery fucking snakes ain't they? There's a reason Bill was derisively called "Slick Willy".

only the clintons themselves think that this analysis makes sense.

i'm not even sure about them. i really have no idea who they think will buy that other than the lowest of low information voters (assuming they would even hear of it at all).

i'm not even sure about them. i really have no idea who they think will buy that other than the lowest of low information voters (assuming they would even hear of it at all).

That is elitist, to borrow a Republican phrase.

That is elitist, to borrow a Republican phrase.

i do not think that word means what you think it means

That is elitist, to borrow a Republican phrase.



I seem to recall Hillary trumpeting that "Republican phrase"....

i'm not even sure about them. i really have no idea who they think will buy that other than the lowest of low information voters (assuming they would even hear of it at all).

they might have talked themselves into it. its common for people who want something so much to believe their own bs about why they should have it. just as ms clinton may have believed the story she told about being under fire in bosnia. the human mind is kinda strange sometimes.

Even if Hillary Clinton wins more popular votes?

If you count Michigan and Florida. Then yes she has thepopular vote. Its easy to win when you're running unopposed...

If you count Michigan and Florida. Then yes she has thepopular vote. Its easy to win when you're running unopposed...

Pardon me, but she was NOT unopposed. In Michigan she only received about 55% of the vote where Kucinich was on the ballot and where the majority of the remainder voted "uncommitted". In Florida she was on the ballot along with Barack Obama. It seems to me that, having succeeded in torpedoing a re-vote, the Obama camp now wants to make sure that the votes in those two states are not counted in any way that harms their presidential aspirations. The only deal offered by Obama thus far in this regard is to split each of the state delegations 50/50. This is -clearly- unfair to Senator Clinton, especially in Florida where she ran against Obama (although neither of them campaigned extensively there) and who won a decisive victory there.

Explain how Obama torpedoed anything. Florida and Michigan fucked themselves over. Do you believe the democratic thing to do is to ignore the rules?

Explain how Obama torpedoed anything. Florida and Michigan fucked themselves over. Do you believe the democratic thing to do is to ignore the rules?

If it helps her candidate yes.

Pardon me, but she was NOT unopposed. In Michigan she only received about 55% of the vote where Kucinich was on the ballot and where the majority of the remainder voted "uncommitted". In Florida she was on the ballot along with Barack Obama. It seems to me that, having succeeded in torpedoing a re-vote, the Obama camp now wants to make sure that the votes in those two states are not counted in any way that harms their presidential aspirations. The only deal offered by Obama thus far in this regard is to split each of the state delegations 50/50. This is -clearly- unfair to Senator Clinton, especially in Florida where she ran against Obama (although neither of them campaigned extensively there) and who won a decisive victory there.

40% of the voters in michigan went out in the cold and the snow to vote UNDECLARED because they didnt want to vote for clinton. many more would have voted if their candidate had been on the ballot.

how would you count those votes?

Explain how Obama torpedoed anything. Florida and Michigan fucked themselves over. Do you believe the democratic thing to do is to ignore the rules?

Do you think all the voters who didn't decide to move the vote should be ignored through no fault of their own?

Do you think all the voters who didn't decide to move the vote should be ignored through no fault of their own?

They knew their vote would be pointless, so why not?

40% of the voters in michigan went out in the cold and the snow to vote UNDECLARED because they didnt want to vote for clinton. many more would have voted if their candidate had been on the ballot.

how would you count those votes?

But you're not understanding the big picture here, Ash.

Yes, Obama has won in swing states. He's won in solid blue states. He's won in red states. He's won in big states. He's won in small states. He's won in caucus states and in primary states. But there is one obvious similarity between these places: everywhere he's won, he was first and foremost on the ballot. Now, if Hillary is the nominee, Obama won't be on the ballot, and as the Michigan results show, Hillary is undefeated in states where Obama is not on the ballot. Therefore, in a general election with Obama not on the ballot, only Hillary has demonstrated the ability to win on a non-Obama ballot.

Do you think all the voters who didn't decide to move the vote should be ignored through no fault of their own?

I think they should sue the people who decided to move the primary up and invalidate their votes.

They knew their vote would be pointless, so why not?

xactly

But you're not understanding the big picture here, Ash.

Yes, Obama has won in swing states. He's won in solid blue states. He's won in red states. He's won in big states. He's won in small states. He's won in caucus states and in primary states. But there is one obvious similarity between these places: everywhere he's won, he was first and foremost on the ballot. Now, if Hillary is the nominee, Obama won't be on the ballot, and as the Michigan results show, Hillary is undefeated in states where Obama is not on the ballot. Therefore, in a general election with Obama not on the ballot, only Hillary has demonstrated the ability to win on a non-Obama ballot.

whoa

how did i miss that?

you are a freaking genius!

whoa

how did i miss that?

you are a freaking genius!

And almost Dr. Seussesque

Reposted from the Poll Thread:

Originally Posted by Newsweek poll (http://www.newsweek.com/id/132730)
Suppose it is left to the party leaders and elected officials known as the super delegates to decide whether Clinton or Obama is the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. In which of the following ways would you MOST like to see them make their choice? Should the super delegates…(READ)
BASED ON REGISTERED DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANERS

Total Clinton Obama

38 35 39 Choose the candidate who won the biggest share of the POPULAR VOTE in primaries and caucuses across the country, or

12 7 16 Choose the candidate who won the most DELEGATES in the primaries and caucuses, or

46 54 41 Choose the candidate who is BEST QUALIFIED to be the nominee in their judgment?
4 4 4 Don't know
100 100 100

Reposted from the Poll Thread:

Originally Posted by Newsweek poll (http://www.newsweek.com/id/132730)
Suppose it is left to the party leaders and elected officials known as the super delegates to decide whether Clinton or Obama is the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. In which of the following ways would you MOST like to see them make their choice? Should the super delegates…(READ)
BASED ON REGISTERED DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANERS

Total Clinton Obama

38 35 39 Choose the candidate who won the biggest share of the POPULAR VOTE in primaries and caucuses across the country, or

12 7 16 Choose the candidate who won the most DELEGATES in the primaries and caucuses, or

46 54 41 Choose the candidate who is BEST QUALIFIED to be the nominee in their judgment?
4 4 4 Don't know
100 100 100

As we hurtle into the next round of primaries, we're confronted with the very real and likely prospect that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama are going to be able to land "the knockout punch". This battle is going to go (regardless of what Howard Dean wants) all the way to the convention.

The Democratic electorate is too closely split to give either Obama or Clinton victory. The superdelegates will have to break the deadlock.

If I were a superdelegate, I'd be past the delegate count by this point. It is quite clear that Barack Obama is going to win more delegates than Clinton, but he's not going to have enough to lock up the nomination.

My primary concern is finding a candidate who has the best shot against John McCain this coming November...and a poll released today by AP appears to show that Clinton has a more substantial lead over him than Obama does. That's nothing short of extraordinary, given how much campaign cash Obama has raised and spent.

I think Clinton's best argument lies in the popular vote. She is very close to him. If she comes within 378,556 votes of him in the popular vote (the margin of her gains in Michigan and Florida, assuming you count all the "uncommitted" to Obama), then I foresee a difficult decision at the convention for many superdelegates. The DNC does not appear interested in counting the votes of Michigan or Florida, but that doesn't nullify the people who voted for Clinton (and Obama) there. If I were a superdelegate and that happened to be the case, I'd be inclined to throw my vote behind Clinton regardless of how many pledged delegates Obama had. Otherwise, I'd feel like I was an accessory to some Election 2000 redux.

Ah, one poll shows Hillary doing well (better than the others) and it's off to break ways with the current threads already listed on this topic. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Those are the rcp numbers for head to head.

These are the numbers for the dem nod. rcp has obama up near 6 points

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

40% of the voters in michigan went out in the cold and the snow to vote UNDECLARED because they didnt want to vote for clinton. many more would have voted if their candidate had been on the ballot.

how would you count those votes?

The people of Michigan and Florida did not ask for their primary to be moved up. They simply reported to the polls on the day they were told to, and they cast their ballots. That we should strip them of their delegates in order to soothe the wounded feelings of Iowa and New Hampshire is idiocy.

How would I count the votes?

FLORIDA:
Both Obama and Hillary were on the ballot in Florida, and I therefore think that the delegates should be apportioned according to the numbers there without editing.

MICHIGAN:
Unfortunately, Obama was not on the ballot. He and many of the other Democratic contenders urged their supporters to vote as "Uncommitted". We know how many votes Clinton got, so she should receive her share of the delegates from that state. However, there is no way to know for sure how many of the "Uncommitted" were Obama voters and how many were voters for other candidates. Since none of those candidates are in the race any longer, however, it seems like the fairest compromise to give ALL of those votes to Obama (since the majority were likely his to begin with).

Can we keep it in the designated threads please?

You don't know Shalr very well.

You don't know Shalr very well.

The "Designated thread" is a clusterf___. I find it difficult to shape a particular discussion over a specific topic in that free-for-all. I tend to create new threads from time to time on different subjects in order to keep things tidy.

Pardon me, but she was NOT unopposed. In Michigan she only received about 55% of the vote where Kucinich was on the ballot and where the majority of the remainder voted "uncommitted". In Florida she was on the ballot along with Barack Obama. It seems to me that, having succeeded in torpedoing a re-vote, the Obama camp now wants to make sure that the votes in those two states are not counted in any way that harms their presidential aspirations. The only deal offered by Obama thus far in this regard is to split each of the state delegations 50/50. This is -clearly- unfair to Senator Clinton, especially in Florida where she ran against Obama (although neither of them campaigned extensively there) and who won a decisive victory there.

Wow, she won 55% and the only other one on the ballot was Dennis the Menace? Bad Show!

I believe the words you were looking for were "not at all."

One question: How do you know it was Obama that stopped the revote? Besides that this is what the Clinton campaign is saying. Give me something verifiable that says it was all Obama's doing. The states had nothing to do with it, she had nothing to do with it, it was all him. Otherwise your whole flimsy argument (at best) is in the shitter.

I would not vote for any of the 3. But I suppose if I was a bit more "moderate", I'd vote for Obama. But not Clinton, not ever.

Michigan and Florida

You mean those states whose votes she now thinks should count because they lean in her favor? Those same states whose exclusion she supported until she fell behind and found those states to be in her favor.

That's not just waffling. That's clear evidence that in her view every last one of her supporters can go to hell so long as they cast their vote for her first.

The people of Michigan and Florida did not ask for their primary to be moved up. They simply reported to the polls on the day they were told to, and they cast their ballots. That we should strip them of their delegates in order to soothe the wounded feelings of Iowa and New Hampshire is idiocy.

How would I count the votes?

FLORIDA:
Both Obama and Hillary were on the ballot in Florida, and I therefore think that the delegates should be apportioned according to the numbers there without editing.

MICHIGAN:
Unfortunately, Obama was not on the ballot. He and many of the other Democratic contenders urged their supporters to vote as "Uncommitted". We know how many votes Clinton got, so she should receive her share of the delegates from that state. However, there is no way to know for sure how many of the "Uncommitted" were Obama voters and how many were voters for other candidates. Since none of those candidates are in the race any longer, however, it seems like the fairest compromise to give ALL of those votes to Obama (since the majority were likely his to begin with).

No campaigning favors the person best known. That's Hillary and even then she didnt' do especially well. Michigan should be embarrassment to her campaign if she had any humility. The message in MI is that nearly half of voters would want anyone but Hillary. Not only that, but this was nearly half of democrats. She should be pretending MI never happened, but she's willing to trample all over reality in this campaign.

The "Designated thread" is a clusterf___. I find it difficult to shape a particular discussion over a specific topic in that free-for-all. I tend to create new threads from time to time on different subjects in order to keep things tidy.

I believe that is the job of the mods to keep things tidy. Anyone else here seen Shalr's posting history? You don't make threads to keep things tidy. Hell, you've made threads on the exact same topic just changing the wording of the title. You may try and fly shit under the radar of people who don't know your work, but I am not one of those people. Think if I summon CTOAN, Jacobia, Barringtonia, Corny, Thumbless Pete, et al. they won't call you on the carpet for this BS? Tidy, now isn't that special. Anyone else but me remember the months of this nonsense? No, CH I'm not talking to you because you can never turn down an ally.

Wow, she won 55% and the only other one on the ballot was Dennis the Menace? Bad Show!

I believe the words you were looking for were "not at all."

One question: How do you know it was Obama that stopped the revote? Besides that this is what the Clinton campaign is saying. Give me something verifiable that says it was all Obama's doing. The states had nothing to do with it, she had nothing to do with it, it was all him. Otherwise your whole flimsy argument (at best) is in the shitter.

You know what? I'm getting kind of tired of you coming onto my threads and just raising hell for the sake of raising hell. If you're suggesting that somehow Obama's Michigan supporters evaporated merely because his name wasn't on the ballot (he took it OFF the ballot himself, by the way), then you are naive. "Uncommitted" got a shit-ton of votes. When you count Michigan's votes (and think about the people who live in Michigan), Clinton hit just about where she has in other contests (like Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc). She is consistently winning these rustbeltish states by wide margins.

Obama's campaign stopped the revote through inaction. Before the revote could be executed, the terms of it had to be agreed to by both campaigns. The Clinton camp agreed to the terms of the revote, but the Obama campaign deliberately dragged its' feet until the clock ran out on the proposal, and it died. You can hardly blame them, but it doesn't jive with the shiny, happy, "new-politics" image Obama is trying to project. Running out the clock is a lot like politics as usual.

Paradoxically, any time I argue with Obama supporters I somehow become glad (again) that my vote helped propel Clinton to victory in Ohio.

My two cents: The party system is whacked. I'd like to see all interested presidential candidates "throw their hats in the ring" no more than 3 months before the election, have some real debates instead of the American Idol soundbite contests we've seen, and let every candidate on the ballot. If the winner has 20% of the vote and still defeats his opponents, so be it. Runner-up gets the VP slot.

I believe that is the job of the mods to keep things tidy. Anyone else here seen Shalr's posting history? You don't make threads to keep things tidy. Hell, you've made threads on the exact same topic just changing the wording of the title. You may try and fly shit under the radar of people who don't know your work, but I am not one of those people. Think if I summon CTOAN, Jacobia, Barringtonia, Corny, Thumbless Pete, et al. they won't call you on the carpet for this BS? Tidy, now isn't that special. Anyone else but me remember the months of this nonsense? No, CH I'm not talking to you because you can never turn down an ally.

Me? I am not the one who came onto this thread with more testosterone than is required for an internet posting. :upyours:

The people of Michigan and Florida did not ask for their primary to be moved up. They simply reported to the polls on the day they were told to, and they cast their ballots. That we should strip them of their delegates in order to soothe the wounded feelings of Iowa and New Hampshire is idiocy.

How would I count the votes?

FLORIDA:
Both Obama and Hillary were on the ballot in Florida, and I therefore think that the delegates should be apportioned according to the numbers there without editing.

MICHIGAN:
Unfortunately, Obama was not on the ballot. He and many of the other Democratic contenders urged their supporters to vote as "Uncommitted". We know how many votes Clinton got, so she should receive her share of the delegates from that state. However, there is no way to know for sure how many of the "Uncommitted" were Obama voters and how many were voters for other candidates. Since none of those candidates are in the race any longer, however, it seems like the fairest compromise to give ALL of those votes to Obama (since the majority were likely his to begin with).

if you did it that way, what do the total numbers work out to?

Primaries are pointless, they fail in their purpose, because only party members can vote in them...

and the only party members that do vote in them, are Fanatics...Hillary's finding that out the hard way...

No campaigning favors the person best known. That's Hillary and even then she didnt' do especially well. Michigan should be embarrassment to her campaign if she had any humility. The message in MI is that nearly half of voters would want anyone but Hillary. Not only that, but this was nearly half of democrats. She should be pretending MI never happened, but she's willing to trample all over reality in this campaign.

Michigan and Florida voted a considerable period of time into the primary season...and the political battle between Clinton and Obama had been going on for months prior. And this was well after Obama's stunning victory in Iowa. Do you really mean to suggest that people didn't know who Barack Obama was by this point?

No. Clinton won in Michigan by a margin mirrored in similar states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. You're just spinning results in whatever way seems favorable to Obama.

Primaries are pointless, they fail in their purpose, because only party members can vote in them...

and the only party members that do vote in them, are Fanatics...Hillary's finding that out the hard way...

TELL me about it. There's a lot of fanatics fueling the man's campaign. I've had arguments with Obamites that were just as fierce, if not fiercer, than the ones I have had with neoconservatives.

Michigan and Florida voted a considerable period of time into the primary season...and the political battle between Clinton and Obama had been going on for months prior. And this was well after Obama's stunning victory in Iowa. Do you really mean to suggest that people didn't know who Barack Obama was by this point?

No. Clinton won in Michigan by a margin mirrored in similar states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. You're just spinning results in whatever way seems favorable to Obama.

dont be disingenuous. all you have to do is look at the pennsylvania primary to see that campaigning makes all the difference.

Personally, im at the point where i refuse to vote for anyone that adheres to the Two-Party Dictatorship of Washington...

From now on im only voting for Independents and if there is no independent then i wont vote...

Democrats and Republicans fail in their purpose...

You know what? I'm getting kind of tired of you coming onto my threads and just raising hell for the sake of raising hell. If you're suggesting that somehow Obama's Michigan supporters evaporated merely because his name wasn't on the ballot (he took it OFF the ballot himself, by the way), then you are naive. "Uncommitted" got a shit-ton of votes. When you count Michigan's votes (and think about the people who live in Michigan), Clinton hit just about where she has in other contests (like Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc). She is consistently winning these rustbeltish states by wide margins.

Obama's campaign stopped the revote through inaction. Before the revote could be executed, the terms of it had to be agreed to by both campaigns. The Clinton camp agreed to the terms of the revote, but the Obama campaign deliberately dragged its' feet until the clock ran out on the proposal, and it died. You can hardly blame them, but it doesn't jive with the shiny, happy, "new-politics" image Obama is trying to project. Running out the clock is a lot like politics as usual.

Paradoxically, any time I argue with Obama supporters I somehow become glad (again) that my vote helped propel Clinton to victory in Ohio.

If you're getting tired then you just might have to take a nap. I'll get you a bowl of milk so you can lap it up and rest your weary head. Now to lay what you thought was witty above to rest...

1. Thank you for mentioning that uncommitted got a shit ton of votes. Now, if I'm voting in an election where only one person is on the ballot (effectively what happened) would I be more prone to go out in horrible weather to vote for the person I want... Or to vote against the person I don't want?

2. Both Hillary and Obama agreed to the ruling by the DNC. What does it say about her character that she nows wants to change the rules after the game is in the 4th quarter? How valuable is your word? Take a stand you man and live with the choices you have made. I suppose we were raised by different types of parents.

3. Florida was a name recognition contest because no one was allowed to campaign. Every state that Obama has campaigned in he has closed the gap Clinton already held. Why do you think that the trend nearly 100% of the time that exists would be altered here? Get pissy all you want, but I'm just asking you to substantiate your claims.

4. Finally, your little rant about running out the clock is supported by...? I want something not out of the Clinton campaign or their surrogates. Further, please explain how strategy (maybe even one based on principle) is a bad move? Football teams run out the clock, as do hockey, soccer, etc. Strategy is part of the game. You know, like throwing out lines such as "Jessie Jackson won SC twice...?" These are all strategic moves which work to varying degrees. What you are crying about Obama doing has been done by Hillary. When she does it it's valient, when he does it he's scum. Do tell...

Michigan and Florida voted a considerable period of time into the primary season...and the political battle between Clinton and Obama had been going on for months prior. And this was well after Obama's stunning victory in Iowa. Do you really mean to suggest that people didn't know who Barack Obama was by this point?

No. Clinton won in Michigan by a margin mirrored in similar states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. You're just spinning results in whatever way seems favorable to Obama.

Really, we're spinning? You and Hillary are trying to spin losses into wins. You're trying to claim victory in a state where one of the candidates wasn't even on the ballot. Spinning!!!!!? That shit is flat out sniper fire lying.

dont be disingenuous. all you have to do is look at the pennsylvania primary to see that campaigning makes all the difference.

I mirror your sentiments.

If you're getting tired then you just might have to take a nap. I'll get you a bowl of milk so you can lap it up and rest your weary head. Now to lay what you thought was witty above to rest...

1. Thank you for mentioning that uncommitted got a shit ton of votes. Now, if I'm voting in an election where only one person is on the ballot (effectively what happened) would I be more prone to go out in horrible weather to vote for the person I want... Or to vote against the person I don't want?

2. Both Hillary and Obama agreed to the ruling by the DNC. What does it say about her character that she nows wants to change the rules after the game is in the 4th quarter? How valuable is your word? Take a stand you man and live with the choices you have made. I suppose we were raised by different types of parents.

3. Florida was a name recognition contest because no one was allowed to campaign. Every state that Obama has campaigned in he has closed the gap Clinton already held. Why do you think that the trend nearly 100% of the time that exists would be altered here? Get pissy all you want, but I'm just asking you to substantiate your claims.

4. Finally, your little rant about running out the clock is supported by...? I want something not out of the Clinton campaign or their surrogates. Further, please explain how strategy (maybe even one based on principle) is a bad move? Football teams run out the clock, as do hockey, soccer, etc. Strategy is part of the game. You know, like throwing out lines such as "Jessie Jackson won SC twice...?" These are all strategic moves which work to varying degrees. What you are crying about Obama doing has been done by Hillary. When she does it it's valient, when he does it he's scum. Do tell...

Your arrogant, condescending attitude I anticipated. Your implication that I am somehow childlike I accept, despite its' untruth. Your comment, "I suppose we were raised by different types of parents", however, is insulting in the extreme. You just undercut any presumption of moral authority that you could have laid claim to, rightly or wrongly.

Kindly do not disturb any of my threads again.

Michigan and Florida voted a considerable period of time into the primary season...and the political battle between Clinton and Obama had been going on for months prior. And this was well after Obama's stunning victory in Iowa. Do you really mean to suggest that people didn't know who Barack Obama was by this point?

No. Clinton won in Michigan by a margin mirrored in similar states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. You're just spinning results in whatever way seems favorable to Obama.

Any state where 40% of your party votes "anybody but you" is a loss. It's sad that Clinton doesn't recognize this.

Meanwhile, PA was even later and, hmmmm.... what direction did it go when Obama campaigned? Very good representation of her. I mean, it's not as if your candidate is honest.