NationStates Jolt Archive

Barely!!

The problem is that you need to be concerned about the toss up states (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5).

Hillary wins with room to spare (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/clinton_vs_mccain/?map=14):
You are assuming that Hillary automatically wins all tossups? That's Hillarious!
THIS (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/clinton_vs_mccain/?map=8) is the comparable map for Hillary. One electoral vote better, true; but based on older polls of course.

I'd consider it a huge mistake to put her on the ticket. I didn't like the "dream ticket" idea even before all the nonsense she's pulled. Doing it now would likely be disastrous.
You think so? Why? (Not doubting, just asking)
Wouldn't her supporters (i.e. a huge minority of registered Democrats, it appears) never forgive him if he "shut her out" completely?
And wouldn't people, in contrast, be happy if they could vote for a ticket that had the two candidates with the most votes?

I so totally can't tell anymore what the feeling is in US voters these days...

That is EXACTLY the elitist attitude that harms Obama in the fall.

This elitist thing is like what Neocons (when they were cool) used the word "liberal" to do. The RNC is planning to use it again. Your cries are wrought with defiant anger instead of reasoned frustration. it's really quite sad (no sarcasm).

Obama is up to 2,108 delegates. This is 10 shy of what he needs to secure the nomination. Thirty-one delegates are up for grabs in MT and SD. Do the math here folks. This is truly over.

You think so? Why? (Not doubting, just asking)

After this race, I don't think it would send the right signals, and I would have seen her as a weakening running mate from the start.

After her claims that she lost because of sexism, for example, giving her the VP slot would simply validate those claims. In the eyes of many, she'd be playing second fiddle to a man in a contest that was "stolen" from her.

It would also help the Republicans to co-opt some of her attacks. Having her on the ticket sends the message that he somehow needs all the things she's been claiming she has that he doesn't.

In the end, it would be counter to his whole message. You can't run as the non-establishment candidate by getting a clear establishment running mate.

While it's tapered off as the Republicans hope to see this fight go to the convention, she carries a lot of baggage that they'd hit her and, by extension, Obama with.

Bill Clinton has shown himself to be a loose cannon. And you don't get her without him.

Wouldn't her supporters (i.e. a huge minority of registered Democrats, it appears) never forgive him if he "shut her out" completely?

Some of them are going to never forgive him anyways. Most will back him regardless.

And wouldn't people, in contrast, be happy if they could vote for a ticket that had the two candidates with the most votes?

I so totally can't tell anymore what the feeling is in US voters these days...

Sometimes, neither can I.

In the end, I think it would be best if Obama chose a Clinton supporter as his running mate. I don't think choosing Clinton herself would be a good idea.

Obama is up to 2,108 delegates. This is 10 shy of what he needs to secure the nomination. Thirty-one delegates are up for grabs in MT and SD. Do the math here folks. This is truly over.
RCP has it at 2100. Not that 8 makes all that much of a difference...
You think so? Why? (Not doubting, just asking)
Wouldn't her supporters (i.e. a huge minority of registered Democrats, it appears) never forgive him if he "shut her out" completely?
And wouldn't people, in contrast, be happy if they could vote for a ticket that had the two candidates with the most votes?

I so totally can't tell anymore what the feeling is in US voters these days...

There are a few problems with that. First of all is the impression of the 'puppet presidency.' We make a lot of hay about it with Cheney and Bush and we'd essentially be setting up the same thing here. When Hillary Clinton was first lady she butted heads with Al Gore about her position and function of the first lady and elbowed her way into taking the lead on the failed health care initiative. At this point that power struggle would look like a fight over a toy.

It would give the impression that the Democrats are running a 'co-presidency' ticket. The Republicans have been loading up to run against Clinton since she became a New York senator, painting her as Obama's Ms. Daisy is going to be a walk in the park. In essence it illigitimizes Obama's candidacy, like sending him to the national stage with a chaperone. The narrative that they have to run against Obama is weakness, while it seems like having the 'strong' candidate as a VP would counter that, it actually would play out as a weakness.

For Obama supporters, looking at what is viewed as a degree of underhandedness an manipulative campaigning, they distrust putting her in that position.

Ultimately, and I've said this before, she gets to pick her terms. And not because she's being unreasonable, but rather in spite of it. She has motivated and excited an amazingly large amount of Democrats, she just happened to do it when someone who had a slightly better ability to do that showed up. She deserves that, she earned it, because past all of the damage she's done shes done a lot for the party. And you're right, if she seems like she wants the VP slot and doesn't get it, Denver might as well be a bonfire. But that doesn't mean that it's the best decision.

ITS OFFICIAL

Obama has secured enough delegates to be declared the nominee for the Democratic Party.

Also, he won Montana and lost South Dakota.

Congratulations Obama and best of luck in the General Election.

ITS OFFICIAL

Obama has secured enough delegates to be declared the nominee for the Democratic Party.

Also, he won Montana and lost South Dakota.

Congratulations Obama and best of luck in the General Election.
Hillary finished extremely strong.

Hillary for VP!!

Hillary finished extremely strong.

Hillary for VP!!

If she's the VP, I'm not voting Dem this election year. If she is on the ballot that will seriously hurt Obama's chances.

The Democratic Party has made a serious mistake. It has ignored the popular vote, which Clinton arguably won. It has ignored the fact that she has states worth 292 Electoral Votes in her column whereas Obama has only 272. It has ignored the fact that Clinton performs better than Obama in the really big swing states.

Hillary finished extremely strong.

Hillary for VP!!


Dude, you gotta remember to sign into your nation...

Well, folks, show's over, Hillary lost, and I found out there is no firework smiley. Ah well.

Now, I took the liberty of making another thread to see who Obama should pick as his VP.

Enjoy. :D

The Democratic Party has made a serious mistake. It has ignored the popular vote, which Clinton arguably won.

Selecting Hillary would be a bad mistake for that would have ignored the popular vote.

It has ignored the fact that she has states worth 292 Electoral Votes in her column whereas Obama has only 272.

:rolleyes:

It has ignored the fact that Clinton performs better than Obama in the really big swing states.

Are you a CH puppet?

The Democratic Party has made a serious mistake. It has ignored the popular vote, which Clinton arguably won. It has ignored the fact that she has states worth 292 Electoral Votes in her column whereas Obama has only 272. It has ignored the fact that Clinton performs better than Obama in the really big swing states.

If you know it's arguable (and arguable if you ignore other evidence, but I'll let that slide for now), then you don't get to include an accusation that it was ignored. Because it wasn't "ignored" in this case, they DISAGREED WITH YOU ON SOMETHING THAT'S ARGUABLE.

The Democratic Party has made a serious mistake. It has ignored the popular vote, which Clinton arguably won. It has ignored the fact that she has states worth 292 Electoral Votes in her column whereas Obama has only 272. It has ignored the fact that Clinton performs better than Obama in the really big swing states.

And now the weeping begins.

The Democratic Party has made a serious mistake. It has ignored the popular vote, which Clinton arguably won.
Not a metric, and in order to count it as a 'win' you have to ignore four states. You can't simultaneously say "Count every vote" and then say "Not these four states with legitimate elections."
It has ignored the fact that she has states worth 292 Electoral Votes in her column whereas Obama has only 272.
Also not a metric, if it was, delegates would be alloted based on electoral votes. They are not, nor are they winner take all. Again, you can't champion the vote and then champion 'all or nothing' allocation.
It has ignored the fact that Clinton performs better than Obama in the really big swing states.
Depends on who gets to pick the swing states we're talking about. Not only that, but Obama has demonstrated a remarkable ability to campaign-in five months he overcame a 20 point deficit, he has five months to move states on the fence.

Also, not a metric. Otherwise they would weight more delegates in 'swing' states.

And now the weeping begins.

More than that....

I hereby endorse John McCain at this moment. The Democratic Party has utterly betrayed a core principle in doing what it has done. I look forward to fighting and defeating Senator Obama in the fall election.

And now the weeping begins.
The weeping begins after the general election after McCain has chalked up a big win.

The Democratic Party has made a serious mistake. It has ignored the popular vote, which Clinton arguably won.

Arguably if you don't count the caucus states and you don't give Obama a single vote from Michigan - an election that wasn't legal anyways.

But you keep holding onto that.

Meanwhile, the popular vote was never the metric for the nomination. If you wanted it that way, you should have argued that before the contest began.

Like it or not, the Democrats ran a contest mostly by the rules they set at the outset. Even with a rules change that favored her, Clinton lost the contest. Arguing that there should have been different rules is now a moot point.

More than that....

I hereby endorse John McCain at this moment. The Democratic Party has utterly betrayed a core principle in doing what it has done. I look forward to fighting and defeating Senator Obama in the fall election.

Okay, I propose that everyone joins me in saying...

GOOD FRIGGIN' RIDDANCE!

McCain will lose, and you'll get to feel frustrated all over again.

The weeping begins after the general election after McCain has chalked up a big win.

So... the weeping begins... never?

What are tear-ducts for then? :confused:

So... the weeping begins... never?

What are tear-ducts for then? :confused:

You're ignorant if you think McCain will be easy to roll over. Every poll shows him running incredibly competitively with Obama regardless of the poisonous environment to the rest of the GOP.

He has a good shot at defeating Obama.

More than that....

I hereby endorse John McCain at this moment. The Democratic Party has utterly betrayed a core principle in doing what it has done. I look forward to fighting and defeating Senator Obama in the fall election.

What core principal has it betrayed and in what way is McCain more representative of that principle than Obama?

You're ignorant if you think McCain will be easy to roll over. Every poll shows him running incredibly competitively with Obama regardless of the poisonous environment to the rest of the GOP.

He has a good shot at defeating Obama.

You still didn't answer my point about your seeming lack of knowledge of what "arguably" actually means.

And you also said that of Hillary. So, good money says you'll be crying foul and being, once again, a pretty sore loser, when McCain goes down.

I hereby endorse John McCain at this moment.

*shrug* That's your choice.

The Democratic Party has utterly betrayed a core principle in doing what it has done.

Changing the rules midstream is a core principle of the Democratic Party?

I look forward to fighting and defeating Senator Obama in the fall election.

*sigh* I suppose those of us who actually care about the nation more than revenge will still have someone to argue with, eh?

More than that....

I hereby endorse John McCain at this moment. The Democratic Party has utterly betrayed a core principle in doing what it has done. I look forward to fighting and defeating Senator Obama in the fall election.

Not that I am surprised, but this makes you

A) Childish
B) Stupid
C) Probably a closest Republican

You have to be at least A and B in order to jump from Hillary to McCain rather than Obama, because they agree on almost everything. You are just upset that your pet has been trounced in an election she should have had locked up by month 2, yet through incompetence and Obama's superior campaign lost. It was not stolen from her, as it was never hers to begin with, and he broke no rules.

I find it very funny that so many people who claim to be such passionate Clinton supporters and passionate democrats are so willing to cut off their nose to spite their face because they feel that the mean black man (and probably closet Muslim) has cheated their beloved Hillary. It surely had nothing to do with his superior campaign, her constant mudslinging compared to his relatively clean campaign, and her being caught in multiple lies throughout the campaign, as well as various other things she said and did that destroyed her chances.

No core principles were betrayed. The rules were established from the get go. Some people broke those rules, and thus they were punished. Now, they are getting a comparatively lighter punishment. The chosen candidate has won per the established rules that everyone knew and agreed to. He also held the popular vote (if real math, not fuzzy Clinton bordering on Bush esc math).

To recap, it is extremely childish (yet predictable) for you to support a candidate who will: continue wars which cost thousands more lives and billions of dollars, rape the constitution and economy with continued Bush policies, and crush a woman's right to choice through the appointment of Scalia adepts and clones to the Supreme Court. All of which are the exact opposite of what your candidate wants and ran on. A candidate with nearly identical views has been given the nomination. Yet, out of petty spite, you will vote against him. As I said childish and stupid, yet predictable.

I welcome your departure from the party. It has enough DINOs and fools.

So... the weeping begins... never?

What are tear-ducts for then? :confused:
As I stated before....with Obama, the red states stay red.

So what if Obama wins Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa (total of 21 ECV), but loses Michigan and New Hampshire (total of 21 ECV).

That means that Obama would HAVE to win Ohio. Good luck!!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Twelve Issues that Matter for 2008 (http://www.votenader.org/issues/)

NADER '08 HILLARY '12

What core principal has it betrayed and in what way is McCain more representative of that principle than Obama?

The "My girl lost" principle. He said repeatedly that he'd support McCain when Hillary lost, and he also didn't name ANY reason to do so besides sour grapes.

More than that....

I hereby endorse John McCain at this moment. The Democratic Party has utterly betrayed a core principle in doing what it has done. I look forward to fighting and defeating Senator Obama in the fall election.

Told you you weren't a Dem to begin with.

Snip.

You're assuming Obama WILL lose Michigan, WILL lose New Hampshire, and so on, and so forth.

Any and all assumptions to try and defend your lack-of-a-point.

Meanwhile, I can go "ding-dong".

More than that....

I hereby endorse John McCain at this moment. The Democratic Party has utterly betrayed a core principle in doing what it has done. I look forward to fighting and defeating Senator Obama in the fall election.

You want every vote counted right? Guess what? You are being highly hypocritical.

The weeping begins after the general election after McCain has chalked up a big win.

What makes you think he'll lose?

You're ignorant if you think McCain will be easy to roll over. Every poll shows him running incredibly competitively with Obama regardless of the poisonous environment to the rest of the GOP.

He has a good shot at defeating Obama.

Good God, does this mean I have to listen to you defend McCain until November now?

Good God, does this mean I have to listen to you defend McCain until November now?

You bet your sweet ass.

Good God, does this mean I have to listen to you defend McCain until November now?

Nah. I think the voting will speak louder than I can. Obama is a severely flawed candidate. A George McGovern for 2008. That will become clear in the days ahead when Obama doesn't get traction.

Nah. I think the voting will speak louder than I can. Obama is a severely flawed candidate. A George McGovern for 2008. That will become clear in the days ahead when Obama doesn't get traction.



How foolish you will look come November.

You bet your sweet ass.

Hey, KoL, is your ass really sweet? :confused:

Nah. I think the voting will speak louder than I can. Obama is a severely flawed candidate. A George McGovern for 2008. That will become clear in the days ahead when Obama doesn't get traction.

Wouldn't that have been clear, I dunno, five months ago?

Nah. I think the voting will speak louder than I can.

Yup. It'll speak "I'M VOTING AGAINST AMERICA AND THE WORLD OUT OF PETTY SPITE!" quite loudly.

You're ignorant if you think McCain will be easy to roll over. Every poll shows him running incredibly competitively with Obama regardless of the poisonous environment to the rest of the GOP.

He has a good shot at defeating Obama.

No one is saying it's going to be a slaughter. Even if Clinton was the nominee, she still would have had a hell of a fight on her hands.

How foolish you will look come November.

Because now he's looking like someone with a lot of common sense?

Because now he's looking like someone with a lot of common sense?

Elitist. Again.

If McCain wins, I get the opportunity to say, "I was correct."

Hey, KoL, is your ass really sweet? :confused:

I pray that neither you, nor anyone else ever finds out. :D

Good God, does this mean I have to listen to you defend McCain until November now?

More than likely.

Nah. I think the voting will speak louder than I can. Obama is a severely flawed candidate.

And Hillary isn't?

What makes you think he'll lose?
1. The red States are not ready for a black President. They won't vote for him. Two ministers did not help his cause.

2. He is a smooth talker but a little shallow (bitter Americans)

3. Disaffected Clinton supporters voting for McCain or Nader.

4. People will realize that he is after all, just another politician and he will realize that corporate America can deal him a severe set back.

5. Republicans know how to package and sell fear.

6. Obama's campaign was crashing at the end.

7. Osama Bin Laden will release another tape about a week or two before the election.

Elitist. Again.

If McCain wins, I get the opportunity to say, "I was correct."

How is that not elitist?

Elitist. Again.



Just throwing around the word "elitest" is not the "god mode" of debating.

Be a good sport. Hillary ran a strong campaign. But she got bested. Man up and admit it.

Elitist. Again.

If McCain wins, I get the opportunity to say, "I was correct."

Yeah? You call me elitist? Well, you are a big (insert buzzword here)! That's right, you (insert buzzword here), I think you're just being (insert buzzword here) out of (insert buzzword here)! All because you (insert buzzword here) (insert buzzword here) (insert buzzword here)! You should stop being so (insert buzzword here).

If you only have buzzwords to throw at me, it's because you just lack (insert buzzword here).

Elitist. Again.

If McCain wins, I get the opportunity to say, "I was correct."

And if Clinton was going to be the nominee and lost, the Obama supporters could say the samething. Guess what? Obama losing does not make you right anymore than Clinton winning makes you wrong.

1. The red States are not ready for a black President. They won't vote for him. Two ministers did not help his cause.

2. He is a smooth talker but a little shallow (bitter Americans)

3. Disaffected Clinton supporters voting for McCain or Nader.

4. People will realize that he is after all, just another politician and he will realize that corporate America can deal him a severe set back.

5. Republicans know how to package and sell fear.

6. Obama's campaign was crashing at the end.

7. Osama Bin Laden will release another tape about a week or two before the election.

Since you seem to be able to predict the future five months from now, couldyou tell me the lottery numbers for next week?

1. The red States are not ready for a black President. They won't vote for him. Two ministers did not help his cause.

Prove it.

2. He is a smooth talker but a little shallow (bitter Americans)

Prove it.

3. Disaffected Clinton supporters voting for McCain or Nader.

not according to polls that are starting to come out. Not enough of them will vote for McCain over Obama.

4. People will realize that he is after all, just another politician and he will realize that corporate America can deal him a severe set back.

Maybe but so far, that is not occuring.

5. Republicans know how to package and sell fear.

That did not exactly work well for Clinton.

6. Osama Bin Laden will release another tape about a week or two before the election.

That I would not be surprised. BTW, he did that during 2006 and the Dems still took Congress.

Elitist. Again.

Again, I do not think that word thinks what you think it means.

If McCain wins, I get the opportunity to say, "I was correct."

So that's what matters, then?

If you and many others back McCain out of revenge, all it will show is your own spitefulness. It won't say anything about how Clinton would have fared against him. It won't even say much about how Obama would fare against him - given that some people apparently plan on voting purely out of spite instead of based on the candidates themselves.

Is Shal too busy crying to respond?

I hereby endorse whoever is opposing the person that the 5 people who were mean to me endorse because that is way more important than little things like war, the economy, health care and education

Nah. I think the voting will speak louder than I can. Obama is a severely flawed candidate. A George McGovern for 2008. That will become clear in the days ahead when Obama doesn't get traction.

Elitist. Again.

If McCain wins, I get the opportunity to say, "I was correct."

These are the posts you answer? I asked you a direct, unloaded question. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741493&postcount=2523) I acknowledged her strength and what she has earned in the party (I'd link to it but my internet is moving too slow). I reached out to you. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13738784&postcount=2217)

Do I have to insult you to get a response? Are you interested in a discussion or do you just want to throw your toys around the room?

I hereby endorse McCain because Obama stole my lunch money.

These are the posts you answer? I asked you a direct, unloaded question. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741493&postcount=2523) I acknowledged her strength and what she has earned in the party (I'd link to it but my internet is moving too slow). I reached out to you. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13738784&postcount=2217)

Do I have to insult you to get a response? Are you interested in a discussion or do you just want to throw your toys around the room?

I think he wants to throw his toys around the room.

I hereby endorse McCain because Obama stole my lunch money.

I hearby endorse Barr because Obama doesn't like mustaches.

Since you seem to be able to predict the future five months from now, couldyou tell me the lottery numbers for next week?

You.

I imagine you're young. I also imagine this is the first time you've tossed your hat into politics.

This said, you more than any other have turned me against your candidate.

I don't know if you intended to at first, but at every moment you've spoken, I've felt that you have talked down to me. Like I am possessed of some type of mental defect that should be immediately obvious. Lemme tell you something. I am a Democratic loyalist. Perhaps you should ask why I am so angry that I am refusing to support the nominee.

I am a Democratic loyalist.

Bull. Shit.


Its adorable however that you are voting for a candidate based on what their supporters do, as opposed to what the candidate does/says/believes.


I cant drink milk because I met some guy yesterday drinking milk and he was a douschebag.

Perhaps you should ask why I am so angry that I am refusing to support the nominee

All right. Ill bite. Why are you so angry?


All though I know the answer.

You.

I imagine you're young. I also imagine this is the first time you've tossed your hat into politics.

1) I do not think he's young

2) He's from Brazil.

This said, you more than any other have turned me against your candidate.

How childish.

I don't know if you intended to at first, but at every moment you've spoken, I've felt that you have talked down to me. Like I am possessed of some type of mental defect that should be immediately obvious. Lemme tell you something. I am a Democratic loyalist. Perhaps you should ask why I am so angry that I am refusing to support the nominee.

Well you do seem to be ignoring well reasoned posts and ignored several questions poised to you. I'm beginning to suspect that you never were a Democrat to begin with.

Me on the other hand, I am not a Democrat by nature.

Perhaps you should ask why I am so angry that I am refusing to support the nominee.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741628&postcount=2556
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741628&postcount=2556
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741628&postcount=2556
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741628&postcount=2556
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741628&postcount=2556
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741628&postcount=2556

You.

I imagine you're young. I also imagine this is the first time you've tossed your hat into politics.

This said, you more than any other have turned me against your candidate.

I don't know if you intended to at first, but at every moment you've spoken, I've felt that you have talked down to me. Like I am possessed of some type of mental defect that should be immediately obvious. Lemme tell you something. I am a Democratic loyalist. Perhaps you should ask why I am so angry that I am refusing to support the nominee.

1- I'm 27. You? For that matter, while we're on the "act your age" issue, YOU are the one acting like a spoiled kid that lost a game of hide and seek.

2- You did not need ANY incentive to be "against Obama". Stop blaming me for your shortcomings.

3- Considering you are behaving LIKE CLINTON HAS and got me infuriated at her, and considering I'd still support HER should the hag lose, that speaks a lot about who is being the bigger person here.

4- If you're voting for someone else out of spite, you are NOT much of a loyalist.

I'm beginning to suspect that you never were a Democrat to begin with.

You're not the only one.

You're not the only one.

I know.

I hope none of the McCain supporters went to bed angry.

I hope none of the McCain supporters went to bed angry.

The poor, poor victims of the mean, mean Obama supporters...

The poor, poor victims of the mean, mean Obama supporters...

I can't sleep I'm so furious. I'm ready to explode. And my guy fucking won.

Senator Obama has now, officially, CROSSED THE LINE!

The delegate line, that is. We've known it for weeks, but now we can finally, definitively say that he is the nominee.

We're not quite finished with Senator Clinton yet, however. She is to meet with Senator Obama sometime--either tomorrow or within a couple of days--about the possibility of a vice presidential ticket. I think we all know why that would be a mistake, so I won't go over it.

One thing I want to say right now: Despite her tactics in the last month of the primary campaign, we do have to congratulate Senator Clinton on her tenacity, her courage, and her outright strength. Regardless of your personal opinion of her, she is not to be taken lightly. I wholly agree with Senator Obama when he said that it was an honour to compete against her, and I think all of us could say that if we were in his place.

Though I am an independent and thus do not have a personal stake in the internal politics of the Democratic Party, I urge all Clinton supporters to set aside their anger and unite behind Senator Obama. I realize how you feel, but you musn't give in to petty revenge tactics. You know that Senator McCain does not represent your views, your policies, and the direction you want America to go. Senator Obama may not be the candidate you wanted, but he's definitely a good one, so I say let bygones be bygones and support him.

One thing I want to say right now: Despite her tactics in the last month of the primary campaign, we do have to congratulate Senator Clinton on her tenacity, her courage, and her outright strength. Regardless of your personal opinion of her, she is not to be taken lightly. I wholly agree with Senator Obama when he said that it was an honour to compete against her, and I think all of us could say that if we were in his place.

I don't admire Clinton much like I'd not admire a staph infection, nor would I, after finally beating it, admire its tenacity.

I urge all Clinton supporters to set aside their anger and unite behind Senator Obama.

Unlikely.

I hereby endorse McCain because Obama stole my lunch money.

Obama stole my bike!


This said, you more than any other have turned me against your candidate.

Let's be honest here. You were claiming that you would support McCain long before Heikoku was rude to you.

I don't know if you intended to at first, but at every moment you've spoken, I've felt that you have talked down to me. Like I am possessed of some type of mental defect that should be immediately obvious.

Funny, you've done the same to Obama supporters.

Lemme tell you something. I am a Democratic loyalist. Perhaps you should ask why I am so angry that I am refusing to support the nominee.

You've been asked. The reasons keep shifting. One moment, it's because some Obama supporters were big meanie heads.

Then, it's because of the illusory popular vote. Of course, you then turn around and advocate the Republican style of primaries - which are even less democratic than the Democrat ones.

Then, it's because he supposedly won't stand up for Democratic values and will give up too much to the Republicans.

Then, it's because he's an extreme liberal who has hijacked the party. (Don't ask me how the last two are at all compatible, I'm not sure).

Then, you're back to "Obama supporters are big mean meanie heads".

All the while, you hold yourself up as a perfect little angel who just got attacked by those meanie heads. Of course, you are faced with honest and polite questions from some of those supposed meanie heads, you ignore them, choosing only to respond to the more hotheaded responses.

Frankly, it's hard to continue to be polite in the face of all that.

I leave all of you with this. . . Figure out what it means. . . .

Would you like our way home
I bleed my own

Round the hangin tree
Swayin in the breeze
In the summer sun
As we two are one
Swayin

Can you see under my thumb
There you are

Round the hangin tree
Swaying in the breeze
In the summer sun
As we two are one
Swaying

I don't admire Clinton much like I'd not admire a staph infection, nor would I, after finally beating it, admire its tenacity.

I don't think you and I need to rehash our views on this matter. I don't approve of how Senator Clinton conducted herself over the last month nor do I approve of her general methods, but I am far more than willing to acknowledge her strength as a candidate and a person, as I am glad Obama is, because only a fool would refuse to acknowledge the strengths and abilities of their opponent, and such fools often fall. Luckily, Obama is not such a fool.

Unlikely.
Unfortunately so. Still, I felt it had to be said, even if no one listens. Better to try and fail than not to try at all.

I don't think you and I need to rehash our views on this matter. I don't approve of how Senator Clinton conducted herself over the last month nor do I approve of her general methods, but I am far more than willing to acknowledge her strength as a candidate and a person, as I am glad Obama is, because only a fool would refuse to acknowledge the strengths and abilities of their opponent, and such fools often fall. Luckily, Obama is not such a fool.

Oh, I don't refuse to acknowledge her strength, much like I wouldn't should I be facing a staph infection. :p

More than that....

I hereby endorse John McCain at this moment. The Democratic Party has utterly betrayed a core principle in doing what it has done. I look forward to fighting and defeating Senator Obama in the fall election.

So...when Kerry beat out Edwards in '04...did you vote for Bush out of spite as well??

Oh, I don't refuse to acknowledge her strength, much like I wouldn't should I be facing a staph infection. :p

That's not what I meant. The problem is that you're looking at her like she's an obstacle to run over rather than the person she is. You're trying to make her into something inhuman, which is definitely not true of her. My opinion of her character has certainly gone down recently, but she's hardly become inhuman.

So...when Kerry beat out Edwards in '04...did you vote for Bush out of spite as well??

Exactly, it's not so much beating the Reps that concerns me as much as bitter Dems jumping ship because their favorite doll didn't get nominated. I hate party wreckers, the Dems need to get some discipline together and unite behind Senator Obama if we want to overcome the torrent of conservative crap that is going to be thrown our way.

My opinion of her character has certainly gone down recently, but she's hardly become inhuman.

She didn't? :p

She didn't? :p

No, she didn't. Setting aside for the moment my philosophical view that it is IMPOSSIBLE to become inhuman, I think most people would consider what she has done merely on the level of throwing an enormous temper tantrum. To become inhuman in the normal definition would require something on the level of mass murder or genocide, or at the very least some serious power abuse, and we've seen neither one from Senator Clinton, not even remotely close.

No, she didn't. Setting aside for the moment my philosophical view that it is IMPOSSIBLE to become inhuman, I think most people would consider what she has done merely on the level of throwing an enormous temper tantrum. To become inhuman in the normal definition would require something on the level of mass murder or genocide, or at the very least some serious power abuse, and we've seen neither one from Senator Clinton, not even remotely close.

You're a better person than I am. :p

Hm, I wonder... is there a version of Godwin's Law for Orwell? If not, there really should be.

PC's Law?

It was an asprine factory that was destroyed by billy boy clinton.

Ya know, that's a common misspelling that shouldn't be. AspIrni = [as-per-in]. Asprine = [as-prain].[/English teacher mode]

Not denying it but if the general was held today, Obama would win.

Indeed. And the effects of the end of the surge in Iraq have yet to kick in. When the violence starts going back up, people will start remembering Mr. "100 years". (Note: the people have a long memory. That doesn't mean it's a good one...)

I really hate to side with either of you but at this point he's kind of right. All the polls show is that the election is open with a fairly open map. If the polls showed something like what they were for Romney dragging the polls around would be something, showing a candidate down by as much as 30 points. That still wouldn't be a garauntee of anything, Obama was down 20 points 5 months ago, but it would show an incredible up hill battle. But really all the polls show now is that neither of them get much of a headstart on the Eliminator. (eh? EH? Didn't see an American Gladiators reference comin', did ya? DID YA!?!)

It's why CH's polls are unconvincing, and we don't get to have it both ways.

M-O-O-N, that spells bingo. ;)

It's just bad statistics. Anything that far within the MoE of the poll they're using shouldn't be handed over to either side. There isn't a statistically significant difference between getting 50.00% of the vote and 50.10% when your Margin of Error is +/- 2% (don't know if that's the actual MoE, and it's likely higher, just throwing a number out there)

You're scaring me... If political science grads are unable to understand the statistical principles that create the opinion polls, how can they use the data?
What is politics but opinion polls? Studying politics without worrying about the underlying fundamentals is like studying finance but not worrying about math.

Indeed so. When I did my BS at UH, " 3312: Introduction to Research Methods in Political Science" (basic statistics for Poli Sci) was one of the core requirements. Even though my course work was concentrated in theory and IR, that was a useful course.

Kakkovian Leader

Nik Yarollov

This forums OOC. ;)

The Democratic Party has made a serious mistake. It has ignored the popular vote, which Clinton arguably won. It has ignored the fact that she has states worth 292 Electoral Votes in her column whereas Obama has only 272. It has ignored the fact that Clinton performs better than Obama in the really big swing states.

At least you've taken a small step back from your previous falsehood.

I hereby endorse John McCain

I am a Democratic loyalist.

Lets check the dictionary.

loy·al·ist (loi'ə-lĭst) n.

1. One who maintains loyalty to an established government, political party, or sovereign, especially during war or revolutionary change.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loyalist
loy·al (loi'əl) adj.

1. Steadfast in allegiance to one's homeland, government, or sovereign.
2. Faithful to a person, ideal, custom, cause, or duty.
3. Of, relating to, or marked by loyalty. See Synonyms at faithful.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loyal

traitor [ˈtreitə] noun
a person who changes to the enemy's side or gives away information to the enemy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/traitor

You can argue all you want with the good people at http://dictionary.reference.com, but you've made a liar of yourself again.

Let's be honest here. You were claiming that you would support McCain long before Heikoku was rude to you.

Funny, you've done the same to Obama supporters.

You've been asked. The reasons keep shifting. One moment, it's because some Obama supporters were big meanie heads.

Then, it's because of the illusory popular vote. Of course, you then turn around and advocate the Republican style of primaries - which are even less democratic than the Democrat ones.

Then, it's because he supposedly won't stand up for Democratic values and will give up too much to the Republicans.

Then, it's because he's an extreme liberal who has hijacked the party. (Don't ask me how the last two are at all compatible, I'm not sure).

Then, you're back to "Obama supporters are big mean meanie heads".

All the while, you hold yourself up as a perfect little angel who just got attacked by those meanie heads. Of course, you are faced with honest and polite questions from some of those supposed meanie heads, you ignore them, choosing only to respond to the more hotheaded responses.

Frankly, it's hard to continue to be polite in the face of all that.

Indeed. I believe it's time to make use of the ignore functon again.

Nah. I think the voting will speak louder than I can. Obama is a severely flawed candidate. A George McGovern for 2008. That will become clear in the days ahead when Obama doesn't get traction.

Indeed.

Now that the Democrats have voted to jump over the cliff by nominating a far-left lightweight, they should go ahead and change their mascot from the jackass to the lemming. The Lemocrats have set themselves up for another McGovernesque meltdown–exactly the outcome the superdelegate system was created to avoid. Even hard-core libs know it, and they’re already preparing their excuses for why Obama will fail. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, for one, just today chimed in with what will no doubt be the predominant whine of the losers:
It was RRRRrrrrrrRRRRRrrrrRRRRAYYYYY-ssssssism!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060202590.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I am SO going to enjoy watching Obama crash and burn come November. I am going to enjoy even more hearing George Soros, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, the 9/11 Truthers, Hollywood wackos, Michael Moore-ons, Bob Beckel, Babs Boxer, Dingy Harry, San Fran Nan Pelosi and all the rest of the loons on the extra-chromosome left wail and gnash their teeth as they are consigned to outer darkness, powerless, for another four years. Most of all, as I recall the words of Conan the Barbarian on what is best in life, I will enjoy seeing the tears in the eyes of all those young, emotional, idealistic leftie college babies as they see their hopes and dreams crushed into dust and they are forced to confront the harsh reality that adults determine the direction of this country, not them.

But that's just my opinion ;)

Indeed.

Now that the Democrats have voted to jump over the cliff by nominating a far-left lightweight, they should go ahead and change their mascot from the jackass to the lemming. The Lemocrats have set themselves up for another McGovernesque meltdown–exactly the outcome the superdelegate system was created to avoid. Even hard-core libs know it, and they’re already preparing their excuses for why Obama will fail. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, for one, just today chimed in with what will no doubt be the predominant whine of the losers:
It was RRRRrrrrrrRRRRRrrrrRRRRAYYYYY-ssssssism!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060202590.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I am SO going to enjoy watching Obama crash and burn come November. I am going to enjoy even more hearing George Soros, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, the 9/11 Truthers, Hollywood wackos, Michael Moore-ons, Bob Beckel, Babs Boxer, Dingy Harry, San Fran Nan Pelosi and all the rest of the loons on the extra-chromosome left wail and gnash their teeth as they are consigned to outer darkness, powerless, for another four years. Most of all, as I recall the words of Conan the Barbarian on what is best in life, I will enjoy seeing the tears in the eyes of all those young, emotional, idealistic leftie college babies as they see their hopes and dreams crushed into dust and they are forced to confront the harsh reality that adults determine the direction of this country, not them.

But that's just my opinion ;)

You've been gone awhile, New Mitanni. We all missed your astounding viewpoint. Good to see you're back and can share the lovely delights with us once again.

Cool. That's not trolling at all. :rolleyes:

If after eight years of Bush we get four years of McCain, it will simply demonstrate what I am beginning to feel: that anti-authoritarians can no longer trust Americans. We hardening into a nation of evil people.

Indeed.

Now that the Democrats have voted to jump over the cliff by nominating a far-left lightweight, they should go ahead and change their mascot from the jackass to the lemming. The Lemocrats have set themselves up for another McGovernesque meltdown–exactly the outcome the superdelegate system was created to avoid. Even hard-core libs know it, and they’re already preparing their excuses for why Obama will fail. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, for one, just today chimed in with what will no doubt be the predominant whine of the losers:
It was RRRRrrrrrrRRRRRrrrrRRRRAYYYYY-ssssssism!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060202590.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I am SO going to enjoy watching Obama crash and burn come November. I am going to enjoy even more hearing George Soros, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, the 9/11 Truthers, Hollywood wackos, Michael Moore-ons, Bob Beckel, Babs Boxer, Dingy Harry, San Fran Nan Pelosi and all the rest of the loons on the extra-chromosome left wail and gnash their teeth as they are consigned to outer darkness, powerless, for another four years. Most of all, as I recall the words of Conan the Barbarian on what is best in life, I will enjoy seeing the tears in the eyes of all those young, emotional, idealistic leftie college babies as they see their hopes and dreams crushed into dust and they are forced to confront the harsh reality that adults determine the direction of this country, not them.

But that's just my opinion ;)

facepalms

Cool. That's not trolling at all. :rolleyes:

I've seen far more than that posted about President Bush. Eye of the beholder, friend.

Btw, it's not "gloating" either. I won't be gloating until after the election, and then I'll just read and smile rather than post ;)

If after eight years of Bush we get four years of McCain, it will simply demonstrate what I am beginning to feel: that anti-authoritarians can no longer trust Americans. We hardening into a nation of evil people.

Ah, yes, of course. Disagree with the left and you're just plain EVIL.

That's one of the many differences between conservatives and libs. Libs think conservatives are EVIL, while cons think libs are merely WRONG.

I've seen far more than that posted about President Bush. Eye of the beholder, friend.

Btw, it's not "gloating" either. I won't be gloating until after the election, and then I'll just read and smile rather than post ;)



Ah, yes, of course. Disagree with the left and you're just plain EVIL.

That's one of the many differences between conservatives and libs. Libs think conservatives are EVIL, while cons think libs are merely WRONG.
You're a troll, so I don't think I'll bother even speaking to you, it seems pretty obviously your one of those 'too far gone' people who will never change their mind anyways.

I've seen far more than that posted about President Bush. Eye of the beholder, friend.
This may be true, but you could try being the "better person" so to speak by not stooping to such a level.

But considering your level is far beneath most of us...

Btw, it's not "gloating" either. I won't be gloating until after the election, and then I'll just read and smile rather than post ;)

I find it highly unlikely that you would not gloat. Indeed, I expect that you would gloat in no less than sixty posts, with at least one thread devoted to gloating.


Ah, yes, of course. Disagree with the left and you're just plain EVIL.


New Mitanni: King of the strawman.

That's one of the many differences between conservatives and libs. Libs think conservatives are EVIL, while cons think libs are merely WRONG.
Rather interesting how you group everyone together like that. Undoubtably there are people who consider themselves conservative who hate those they consider liberal and vice versa, despite your claims to the contrary.

*snips a bunch of stuff I couldn't care less about*

adults determine the direction of this country

If the last couple of decades are any indication, that's not necessarily a good thing.

New Mitanni, it just proves how distorted and deranged your brain is, that you think Obama is 'far-left', it's like your political compass has been so terribly warped to the right by reading right-wing columns 24/7 that you can no longer see reality.

You remind of Libertarian Party nutjobs saying everything they don't like is 'COMMUNISM!!!111'.

Go away troll.

Senator Obama has now, officially, CROSSED THE LINE!

The delegate line, that is. We've known it for weeks, but now we can finally, definitively say that he is the nominee.

We're not quite finished with Senator Clinton yet, however. She is to meet with Senator Obama sometime--either tomorrow or within a couple of days--about the possibility of a vice presidential ticket. I think we all know why that would be a mistake, so I won't go over it.

One thing I want to say right now: Despite her tactics in the last month of the primary campaign, we do have to congratulate Senator Clinton on her tenacity, her courage, and her outright strength. Regardless of your personal opinion of her, she is not to be taken lightly. I wholly agree with Senator Obama when he said that it was an honour to compete against her, and I think all of us could say that if we were in his place.

Though I am an independent and thus do not have a personal stake in the internal politics of the Democratic Party, I urge all Clinton supporters to set aside their anger and unite behind Senator Obama. I realize how you feel, but you musn't give in to petty revenge tactics. You know that Senator McCain does not represent your views, your policies, and the direction you want America to go. Senator Obama may not be the candidate you wanted, but he's definitely a good one, so I say let bygones be bygones and support him.
Interesting comment to say the least. In this thread, the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th highest posters to this thread (Obama supporters?) do not consider themselves as "Democrats". Liuzzo and Corneliu are both Republicans at heart, and I do believe that either of them would be happy with a McCain or Obama win.

The 1st and 4th highest posters can't vote in this election.

The 7th highest poster (Obama supporter) suggested at one time that Obama was "too young" and also referred to Obama as "less slimy" than Clinton.

The 8th highest poster suggested that he is switching to McCain.

The 9th highest poster is well....DK.

At any rate, I believe that the divisiveness of this campaign, especially that which was created by the Obama supporters, will end up costing the Dems the White House.

Interesting comment to say the least. In this thread, the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th highest posters to this thread (Obama supporters?) do not consider themselves as "Democrats". Liuzzo and Corneliu are both Republicans at heart, and I do believe that either of them would be happy with a McCain or Obama win.

The 1st and 4th highest posters can't vote in this election.

The 7th highest poster (Obama supporter) suggested at one time that Obama was "too young" and also referred to Obama as "less slimy" than Clinton.

The 8th highest poster suggested that he is switching to McCain.

The 9th highest poster is well....DK.

At any rate, I believe that the divisiveness of this campaign, especially that which was created by the Obama supporters, will end up costing the Dems the White House.

As a Christian, I have to say there is nothing more wonderful to see than hypocrites. "If my person doesn't win, I'm voting for McCain" followed by accusations that Obama supporters are divisive.

Not to mention that broadbrushing is INHERENTLY devisive but we'll pretend that the few Clinton supporters who show up haven't to a person tried to pretend like there is some Obama supporter hive mind.

Oh, and for the irony hit.

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh.
More Kennedys support Clinton (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kennedy29jan29,0,1618955.story).

Maybe you should make your decisions on something less shaky.
Quite a bag of tricks you have there CTOAN? It would appear that you will go to any length to support your man?
You gotta love that a post like that incited some of the vitriol will still see, but it's Obama supporters who are divisive.

And, of course, ignore the "states that matter" and that her popular vote numbers don't include 4 states (yeah, that's not divisive) and caucuses don't matter, or red states, or reaching across the aisle. That divisive, elitist Obama what with his desire to work with everyone and to include everyone in his politics. That bastard. Don't forget he's the uber-liberal, but also much more likely to be Republican than Hillary Clinton. Oh, and the party was hijacked by the far left (which OF COURSE is not divisive to say) but he pulls independents like crazy.

Anyone who would willing to go over to the conservative camp so willingly because their candidate didn't win is worthless anyways.

Also, I love seeing the so called 'Democrats' saying they will now vote for McCain, you are all full of crap, we all you are you conservatives anyways so don't use that excuse, you were never going to vote Democrat regardless so don't hand that crap out like it's a Christmas present.

I would love to see a single pro-Obama post from one the Clinton supporters on this forum. Link us to one of your pro-Obama posts. I can link to many posts from CTOAN and Dem and myself that defended Clinton and/or just generally complimented her. That's because we recognize the similarities and don't believe in the with us or against brand of divisive politics.

So now, the group that's saying it's our candidate or nothing, give us an example of your inclusiveness. Let's see a post where you don't tear Obama down.

Actually, I did some looking around and I'll give it to Shal -

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican. We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.

So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days. Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.

I totally agree with this post and it's very reasonable. I wish he would heed his own advice. Incidentally, after making a thread statind the above, he attacked Obama in the very next post he offered. It should also be noted that at the time the person who was attacking Clinton and pissing of Shal doesn't like either candidate but just likes Clinton less. I've noticed there is a lot of confusing Hillary hating Republicans with Obama supporters. And, of course, as a result of the Hillary hating Republicans, Shal is gonna vote Republican. Totally makes sense if you don't actually think about it.

I totally agree with this post and it's very reasonable. I wish he would heed his own advice.

I miss that guy. I wonder what happened to him.

I miss that guy. I wonder what happened to him.

Well, he kind of forgot that point by the second post in that thread, but one can hope that he remembers that he said it and that he's completely going against his ideals to spite a bunch of people on the internet, most of which are Republicans who just hate Hillary Clinton. It's interesting that his response is to reward them.

Do you find it interesting that CH gave a big speech about all the different kinds of people who are in this thread arguing for Obama and then claims that he's divisive.

By the way, the person who actually talked me into liking Hillary Clinton...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550085

Notice that I'm attacking her stance on video games which was one of the prime reasons I disliked her.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13468156&postcount=57

It was CTOAN who was defending Clinton and eventually made me take a more reasonable approach toward her. Not any Clinton supporters, but an Obama supporter. Those damn divisive Obama supporters, what with their defense of the other candidates and whatnot.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13468449&postcount=96

It should also be pointed out that I was accused of being a Clinton supporter in the same thread. I wonder if the non-divisive CH has even been accused of being an Obama supporter?

Well, he kind of forgot that point by the second post in that thread, but one can hope that he remembers that he said it and that he's completely going against his ideals to spite a bunch of people on the internet, most of which are Republicans who just hate Hillary Clinton. It's interesting that his response is to reward them.

Do you find it interesting that CH gave a big speech about all the different kinds of people who are in this thread arguing for Obama and then claims that he's divisive.

I've been going on about that kind of thing for a while.

I'm at the point now where I'm almost willing to offer $5 over paypal if people would just answer my damn questions.

As an outsider to all this, it seems that you have the most bizarre election system anyone has ever conceived. And I thought our system was bad!

In January, you don't know who is going to represent you, and then spend most of the election year itself tearing yourselves to pieces over who should be be the nomination. When you should be out campaigning as a unified party, telling the people 'this is what we believe and this is why you should vote for us' - you haven't yet even decided what you believe, or why they should vote for you!

Why not pick your nomination the year before, or hold all your nomination elections on a single day at the start of the year? I admit I'm slightly fed up with it all because I don't understand why our news services here in Britain feel the need to report on every single part of your election in nauseating detail, but still, it seems that this would be a far more sensible way of doing things.

At the start of the year, I thought there was no way in hell that the Republicans could win again after the last 8 years, and that McCain was essentially selected as the 'guy who's going to lose'. Now, I'm starting to think that a Republican victory is not only possible, but even probable.

And don't just say 'it's Clinton's fault', because, like it or not, she got nearly half of the vote so was hardly a clear loser from the start clinging on to a hopeless cause. It's the fault of the party; jeez, you should have got your house in order months ago.

I admit I'm slightly fed up with it all because I don't understand why our news services here in Britain feel the need to report on every single part of your election in nauseating detail
It's the same in Canada and the Bahamas, apparently, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's covered in detail in most of the Anglosphere (even if those countries are both next to America). In any case, it's a good distraction from the general doom and gloom that fills our media these days.

Cool. That's not trolling at all. :rolleyes:
Nah, it's attention seeking.

As an outsider to all this, it seems that you have the most bizarre election system anyone has ever conceived. And I thought our system was bad!

In January, you don't know who is going to represent you, and then spend most of the election year itself tearing yourselves to pieces over who should be be the nomination. When you should be out campaigning as a unified party, telling the people 'this is what we believe and this is why you should vote for us' - you haven't yet even decided what you believe, or why they should vote for you!

Why not pick your nomination the year before, or hold all your nomination elections on a single day at the start of the year? I admit I'm slightly fed up with it all because I don't understand why our news services here in Britain feel the need to report on every single part of your election in nauseating detail, but still, it seems that this would be a far more sensible way of doing things.

At the start of the year, I thought there was no way in hell that the Republicans could win again after the last 8 years, and that McCain was essentially selected as the 'guy who's going to lose'. Now, I'm starting to think that a Republican victory is not only possible, but even probable.

And don't just say 'it's Clinton's fault', because, like it or not, she got nearly half of the vote so was hardly a clear loser from the start clinging on to a hopeless cause. It's the fault of the party; jeez, you should have got your house in order months ago.
What you're essentially suggesting is tha a party only have one viable candidate at any given time. What really happened here was that there were two rather strong candidates at the same time. That doesn't necessarily have to divide the party, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. In sheer numbers you could argue that this has been the best thing to happen. At the end of this contest the Democrats have campaigned in every single state, created infrastructure to be used in the general, not to mention the voter drives to grow the party.

There's nothing wrong with the fight, but there are wrong ways to fight it.

I've been going on about that kind of thing for a while.

I'm at the point now where I'm almost willing to offer $5 over paypal if people would just answer my damn questions.

It's not coincidence that they are BOTH ignoring you and I and replying to more agressive and vitriolic posts. They don't have an argument anymore. This is just bitching. And you can't have people asking you calm and reasonable questions in the middle of bitching. How would that work?

Incidentally -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13469979&postcount=149

You'll notice I don't get all up in arms at his use of the term "intellectually dishonest" toward me. Amusing, huh? You'll also notice that we all begged him to actually promote Hillary. He refused. He said he couldn't do, so instead he focused on dragging down Obama. This whole line of argument about the "Obama supporters" is ridiculous and requires us to completely ignore his behavior and arguments.

What you're essentially suggesting is tha a party only have one viable candidate at any given time. What really happened here was that there were two rather strong candidates at the same time. That doesn't necessarily have to divide the party, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. In sheer numbers you could argue that this has been the best thing to happen. At the end of this contest the Democrats have campaigned in every single state, created infrastructure to be used in the general, not to mention the voter drives to grow the party.

There's nothing wrong with the fight, but there are wrong ways to fight it.

But why couldn't you have done the whole thing earlier, and then used any advantages it gives you to campaign for a whole lot longer?

Sure, you'll gain some things from having a long selection process, but does that really outweigh months of your two candidates slagging each other off? The Republicans can just sit back, save their money, and let your own party tell the people why not to vote for its eventual nominee.

But why couldn't you have done the whole thing earlier, and then used any advantages it gives you to campaign for a whole lot longer?

Sure, you'll gain some things from having a long selection process, but does that really outweigh months of your two candidates slagging each other off? The Republicans can just sit back, save their money, and let your own party tell the people why not to vote for its eventual nominee.

The only reason the Republicans got such a long stretch was because they only had one viable candidate. Even then they had an unusually long nomination process on their own. This primary was actually a lot earlier than it has been in the past and yet still started the general election at the same time. In a lot of ways, since we're married to binary politics, the primary is a more important and 'vast' election since this time we were widdling down from 20 some candidates to pick the final two for the head to head. I would argue that in that process you want it to be more involved and selective. By the end of it the candidate has introduced him or herself to the party and the people and doesn't need as long to campaign against the other finalist.

We can agree here. If we could throw a little "keeping corporations from running government" conservatism that would be perfect.
That's a huge systemic problem that would be reduced as the size of government diminishes. Not eliminated -- everyone is entitled to lobby, but as there is less to gain from government decisions... well there's less reason to buy officeholders.

I CAN put a name on my candidate. We had a fellow run for Senate a few years back. Really a bright, common-sense, limited government kind of guy. He pulled Godfather's Pizza out from a nose dive, was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City... His name is Herman Cain.

As an outsider to all this, it seems that you have the most bizarre election system anyone has ever conceived. And I thought our system was bad!

In January, you don't know who is going to represent you, and then spend most of the election year itself tearing yourselves to pieces over who should be be the nomination. When you should be out campaigning as a unified party, telling the people 'this is what we believe and this is why you should vote for us' - you haven't yet even decided what you believe, or why they should vote for you!

Why not pick your nomination the year before, or hold all your nomination elections on a single day at the start of the year? I admit I'm slightly fed up with it all because I don't understand why our news services here in Britain feel the need to report on every single part of your election in nauseating detail, but still, it seems that this would be a far more sensible way of doing things.

At the start of the year, I thought there was no way in hell that the Republicans could win again after the last 8 years, and that McCain was essentially selected as the 'guy who's going to lose'. Now, I'm starting to think that a Republican victory is not only possible, but even probable.

And don't just say 'it's Clinton's fault', because, like it or not, she got nearly half of the vote so was hardly a clear loser from the start clinging on to a hopeless cause. It's the fault of the party; jeez, you should have got your house in order months ago.
I don't think I could have stated that better myself. I truly believed that this election was going to be a walk for the Democratic party.....it doesn't appear that way anymore.

I don't think I could have stated that better myself. I truly believed that this election was going to be a walk for the Democratic party.....it doesn't appear that way anymore.

Huh, I figured this was going to be a walk for Hillary. Man did she ever fuck the dog on that one eh?

I don't think I could have stated that better myself. I truly believed that this election was going to be a walk for the Democratic party.....it doesn't appear that way anymore.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558115

I don't think the Democratic party has much to worry about...we'll be seeing quite a lot of stories like this as November approaches.

I would love to see a single pro-Obama post from one the Clinton supporters on this forum. Link us to one of your pro-Obama posts. I can link to many posts from CTOAN and Dem and myself that defended Clinton and/or just generally complimented her. That's because we recognize the similarities and don't believe in the with us or against brand of divisive politics.

Even I defended her a couple of times.

I don't think I could have stated that better myself. I truly believed that this election was going to be a walk for the Democratic party.....it doesn't appear that way anymore.

Even if Clinton was the nominee, she would not have a walk into the White House. She would have to fight to get through the front door.

More than that....

I hereby endorse John McCain at this moment. The Democratic Party has utterly betrayed a core principle in doing what it has done. I look forward to fighting and defeating Senator Obama in the fall election.
Oh dear.

I came here to look for replies to my question last night but that involved reading through all the last 8 pages and now my mind is so boggled by your posts that the other replies will have to wait.

I refuse to believe that anyone smart enough to string together two words would actually have fallen for her campaign's brazen attempt to pull the wool over everyone's eyes by randomly going "She, uh, was betrayed!" while they were scrambling to betray Obama ("Not our fault he wasn't on the ballot, ladidah").
I refuse. Because, for once, there aren't even any two ways about it. There aren't. It's not a matter of interpretation or loyalty, it's a matter of facts. Even as a Hillary supporter, it should have been impossible for anyone to literally believe the BS her campaign put out.
Saying "Man, that's getting pathetic and nasty, but alright, I want her to win, so she's welcome to do this so she can win" is perfectly fine (maybe not for one's conscience, but alright, if you truly believe she's best for the country, go ahead).
But surely nobody could actually have bought the surreal "reasonings" of her campaign hook, line and sinker. I mean, do you really think a single person inside that campaign actually believed any of this?

And what's even more mindboggling is that even though you repeat those invented campaign "truths" over and over and over again and even go so far as to call people out on not asking you for your reasons to do so, you have YET to reply to even a single one of the numerous posts where people have asked you that exact thing!
What's up with that?
If you really believe what you're saying you're obviously convinced of its truth, so you must be able to explain it to us!
But instead you're sitting there going "She was betrayed!" and aren't offering even a word of explanation as to how she actually WAS betrayed.

Look, there are exactly two options:

1) You're aware of the fact that these were desperate attempts of her campaign at changing the previously-agreed-upon rules to another candidate's detriment. In this case, you acknowledge that they were and say they were fine with you anyway because you think it's worth it. You don't get to say "She was betrayed!", but neither are you expected to explain how she was betrayed.

2.) You really believe she was in the right and what she and her campaign said regarding how they weren't really changing the rules but were instead being betrayed is true. In this case, you have to be able to explain to yourself (and, thus, to others) why that is the case.

You cannot have it both ways.

After this race, I don't think it would send the right signals, and I would have seen her as a weakening running mate from the start.

After her claims that she lost because of sexism, for example, giving her the VP slot would simply validate those claims. In the eyes of many, she'd be playing second fiddle to a man in a contest that was "stolen" from her.

It would also help the Republicans to co-opt some of her attacks. Having her on the ticket sends the message that he somehow needs all the things she's been claiming she has that he doesn't.

In the end, it would be counter to his whole message. You can't run as the non-establishment candidate by getting a clear establishment running mate.

While it's tapered off as the Republicans hope to see this fight go to the convention, she carries a lot of baggage that they'd hit her and, by extension, Obama with.

Bill Clinton has shown himself to be a loose cannon. And you don't get her without him.



Some of them are going to never forgive him anyways. Most will back him regardless.



Sometimes, neither can I.

In the end, I think it would be best if Obama chose a Clinton supporter as his running mate. I don't think choosing Clinton herself would be a good idea.

There are a few problems with that. First of all is the impression of the 'puppet presidency.' We make a lot of hay about it with Cheney and Bush and we'd essentially be setting up the same thing here. When Hillary Clinton was first lady she butted heads with Al Gore about her position and function of the first lady and elbowed her way into taking the lead on the failed health care initiative. At this point that power struggle would look like a fight over a toy.

It would give the impression that the Democrats are running a 'co-presidency' ticket. The Republicans have been loading up to run against Clinton since she became a New York senator, painting her as Obama's Ms. Daisy is going to be a walk in the park. In essence it illigitimizes Obama's candidacy, like sending him to the national stage with a chaperone. The narrative that they have to run against Obama is weakness, while it seems like having the 'strong' candidate as a VP would counter that, it actually would play out as a weakness.

For Obama supporters, looking at what is viewed as a degree of underhandedness an manipulative campaigning, they distrust putting her in that position.

Ultimately, and I've said this before, she gets to pick her terms. And not because she's being unreasonable, but rather in spite of it. She has motivated and excited an amazingly large amount of Democrats, she just happened to do it when someone who had a slightly better ability to do that showed up. She deserves that, she earned it, because past all of the damage she's done shes done a lot for the party. And you're right, if she seems like she wants the VP slot and doesn't get it, Denver might as well be a bonfire. But that doesn't mean that it's the best decision.
Thanks for the replies!

Those are all good points. Especially the ones about picking an establishment candidate in a non-establishment campaign and the one you both made, namely that it would seem like he needed to complement his weaknesses.

Now I only hope you will be proven right... ><

painting her as Obama's Ms. Daisy
Quite a great comparison. Chilling.

Your margins in the battleground states are pretty small. Ohio is about 1.3 percent for Obama, with a number of undecideds. New Mexico is dead even, but they give it to Obama. Wisconsin is +2.0 for Obama.

The margins are small. The polls are virtually a dead heat.

right, but the election is in November so we're going to see how it plays out.

What? Based on stale dated polls garnered by RCP, and then averaged?

That is the problem with RCP....it is junk science.

You're right. It'd be better if we threw some numbers in from February and march like electoral-vote.com did. Then we can make a super argument. Have they update their site, sure. Then again, if you look at their site today you see something interesting about Obama v. McCain. (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) This may be why you are not using the site anymore. So according to CH and Shal, the greatest site ever is predicting an Obama win.

Obama 287 McCain 227 Ties 24

Senate: Dem 58 GOP 42

House: Dem 237 GOP 198

The Senate and House numbers are interesting too. Although I prefer a split congress vs. Pres (one party rule brought us 2000-2006).

The Democratic Party has made a serious mistake. It has ignored the popular vote, which Clinton arguably won. It has ignored the fact that she has states worth 292 Electoral Votes in her column whereas Obama has only 272. It has ignored the fact that Clinton performs better than Obama in the really big swing states.

Hey, the site you love to quote has Obama at 287 today

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

You should follow Miranda warnings.

You're right. It'd be better if we threw some numbers in from February and march like electoral-vote.com did. Then we can make a super argument. Have they update their site, sure. Then again, if you look at their site today you see something interesting about Obama v. McCain. (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) This may be why you are not using the site anymore. So according to CH and Shal, the greatest site ever is predicting an Obama win.

Obama 287 McCain 227 Ties 24

Senate: Dem 58 GOP 42

House: Dem 237 GOP 198

The Senate and House numbers are interesting too. Although I prefer a split congress vs. Pres (one party rule brought us 2000-2006).

It shows Indiana tied? Jesus, I doubt that. Indiana hasn't gone Democrat in a presidential race in my lifetime.

More than that....

I hereby endorse John McCain at this moment. The Democratic Party has utterly betrayed a core principle in doing what it has done. I look forward to fighting and defeating Senator Obama in the fall election.

You did this already. Can you say something different that might make a little sense?

If you believe the little straw poll I have running in the other thread, approximately 30% of Hillary supporters are now crossing over into McCain's camp. If that's a number that holds true in the population at-large, it would almost certainly be fatal to Obama's candidacy in the November election because of where those voters are to be found.

You did this already. Can you say something different that might make a little sense?

Changing arguments isn't possible for Shal. That would require evaluating evidence and altering opinions.

If you believe the little straw poll I have running in the other thread, approximately 30% of Hillary supporters are now crossing over into McCain's camp. If that's a number that holds true in the population at-large, it would almost certainly be fatal to Obama's candidacy in the November election because of where those voters are to be found.

SURPRISE! Another untruth from you.

Your poll shows nothing of the sort. It simply shows that the demographic here prefers Obama to McCain.

More than that....

I hereby endorse John McCain at this moment. The Democratic Party has utterly betrayed a core principle in doing what it has done. I look forward to fighting and defeating Senator Obama in the fall election.

You did this already. Can you say something different that might make a little sense?

If you believe the little straw poll I have running in the other thread, approximately 30% of Hillary supporters are now crossing over into McCain's camp. If that's a number that holds true in the population at-large, it would almost certainly be fatal to Obama's candidacy in the November election because of where those voters are to be found.

It doesn't. The fact you suggest it might proves you haven't a clue about polling methodology.

If you believe the little straw poll I have running in the other thread, approximately 30% of Hillary supporters are now crossing over into McCain's camp. If that's a number that holds true in the population at-large, it would almost certainly be fatal to Obama's candidacy in the November election because of where those voters are to be found.

and it won't. you guys can go have a good tantrum for now, but most of you will be back because you aren't all utterly retarded.

of course, the fact that obama is beating mccain without you guys right now says something too...
(no really, go look. the only thing even keeping it close is that obama has only been getting 60-some% of the democratic vote. that number will only go up and every time it does, obama's margin of victory goes up too.)

The weeping begins after the general election after McCain has chalked up a big win.

Not according to your favorite site. http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Changing arguments isn't possible for Shal. That would require evaluating evidence and altering opinions.

Hey. Badmouth me all you like, buddy. The fact remains that the current electoral projection shows him with 272 electoral votes. You only need 270 to win, but Obama has absolutely no margin for error. Three states are considered to be pure tossups...Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio (all states Clinton won). Depending on the circumstances, losing any one of them could lose you the election. Especially Ohio.

Hey. Badmouth me all you like, buddy. The fact remains that the current electoral projection shows him with 272 electoral votes. You only need 270 to win, but Obama has absolutely no margin for error. Three states are considered to be pure tossups...Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio (all states Clinton won). Depending on the circumstances, losing any one of them could lose you the election. Especially Ohio.

You know, when someone calls you on your inability to adapt to a changing debate, you probably ought not quote yourself verbatim. Just a little tip. Right now you and those like you are pouting. You'll get over it, and if you don't, who cares? Obama is winning in the middle of your tantrum.

right, but the election is in November so we're going to see how it plays out.
That's exactly the point. Any polls, now, are going to be affected by Obama's and Clinton's media saturation. Then there's the post convention boost that both candidates will get. Throw in a debate or so, and we'll get a better picture of where things stand.

By the way, my favorite polling and analysis site is at
http://www.tarrance.com/battleground.html
These guys are usually dead-on in the few weeks before the election.

Hey. Badmouth me all you like, buddy. The fact remains that the current electoral projection shows him with 272 electoral votes. You only need 270 to win, but Obama has absolutely no margin for error. Three states are considered to be pure tossups...Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio (all states Clinton won). Depending on the circumstances, losing any one of them could lose you the election. Especially Ohio.
You mean electoral projections before the general campaign has even begun. :rolleyes:

You mean electoral projections before the general campaign has even begun. :rolleyes:

A week ago it was "Obama will absolutely 100% lose Ohio, I know I live there!".

What core principal has it betrayed and in what way is McCain more representative of that principle than Obama?

Shal has dodged that question for about 30 pages.

What? Based on stale dated polls garnered by RCP, and then averaged?

That is the problem with RCP....it is junk science.

You're right.
I am glad that you finally agree with me that RCP is based on "junk science".

It'd be better if we threw some numbers in from February and march like electoral-vote.com did.
RCP does in fact have many polls included in their average that includes Feb. and March polls.

Then we can make a super argument.
I believe I already made a super argument in that regard.

Have they update their site, sure. Then again, if you look at their site today you see something interesting about Obama v. McCain. (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) This may be why you are not using the site anymore.
Well, the Clinton maps have been removed, thusly removing the superior comparator.

So according to CH and Shal, the greatest site ever is predicting an Obama win.
Point me to a post whereby I claim that electoral-vote.com is "the greatest site ever". You can't.

Obama 287 McCain 227 Ties 24

Senate: Dem 58 GOP 42

House: Dem 237 GOP 198
Despite your earlier complaints about this site, you now like it because it indicates an Obama win?

What you should be concerned about are the components required for Obama actually to win, in other words, the most recent polls in the close states.

Consider Ohio (20 ECV):

SurveyUSA 05/16 - 05/18 600 RV 48 39 Obama +9.0
Quinnipiac 05/13 - 05/20 1244 RV 40 44 McCain +4.0
Rasmussen 05/15 - 05/15 500 LV 44 45 McCain +1.0

Two out of 3 recent polls indicates McCain would win. Obama loses Ohio and his total goes below win territory.

Consider Missouri (11 ECV):

SurveyUSA 05/16 - 05/18 1523 LV 48 45 McCain +3.0
Rasmussen 05/06 - 05/06 500 LV 47 41 McCain +6.0

RCP and Electoral Vote dot com seem to be in conflict here. If RCP is correct, that would be another -11 (ECV) for Obama.

Consider Michigan (17 ECV):

EPIC-MRA 05/19 - 05/22 600 RV 44 40 McCain +4.0
SurveyUSA 05/27 - 05/27 529 RV 41 37 McCain +4.0
Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 45 44 McCain +1.0

Obama loses Michigan. Obama cannot afford to lose too many blue states, especially since he is struggling in the red states.

The Senate and House numbers are interesting too. Although I prefer a split congress vs. Pres (one party rule brought us 2000-2006).
Weren't you one of the people who was touting Obama's appeal as helping down ballot candidates?

What is the sense in electing a Democrat President and then hampering him with a split Congress?

You're ignorant if you think McCain will be easy to roll over. Every poll shows him running incredibly competitively with Obama regardless of the poisonous environment to the rest of the GOP.

He has a good shot at defeating Obama.

I don't believe H2 said it would be a rollover. Of course it will be a competitive race, but Obama will be in it.

If you believe the little straw poll I have running in the other thread, approximately 30% of Hillary supporters are now crossing over into McCain's camp. If that's a number that holds true in the population at-large, it would almost certainly be fatal to Obama's candidacy in the November election because of where those voters are to be found.

This? This is what you post?

You leave me speechless.

In the last 8 pages alone the following posts have been directed at you in reply to your large-fonted post about how you will vote for McCain because the Democratic Party "utterly betrayed a core principle in doing what it has done":

What core principal has it betrayed and in what way is McCain more representative of that principle than Obama?
*shrug* That's your choice.



Changing the rules midstream is a core principle of the Democratic Party?



*sigh* I suppose those of us who actually care about the nation more than revenge will still have someone to argue with, eh?
Not that I am surprised, but this makes you

A) Childish
B) Stupid
C) Probably a closest Republican

You have to be at least A and B in order to jump from Hillary to McCain rather than Obama, because they agree on almost everything. You are just upset that your pet has been trounced in an election she should have had locked up by month 2, yet through incompetence and Obama's superior campaign lost. It was not stolen from her, as it was never hers to begin with, and he broke no rules.

I find it very funny that so many people who claim to be such passionate Clinton supporters and passionate democrats are so willing to cut off their nose to spite their face because they feel that the mean black man (and probably closet Muslim) has cheated their beloved Hillary. It surely had nothing to do with his superior campaign, her constant mudslinging compared to his relatively clean campaign, and her being caught in multiple lies throughout the campaign, as well as various other things she said and did that destroyed her chances.

No core principles were betrayed. The rules were established from the get go. Some people broke those rules, and thus they were punished. Now, they are getting a comparatively lighter punishment. The chosen candidate has won per the established rules that everyone knew and agreed to. He also held the popular vote (if real math, not fuzzy Clinton bordering on Bush esc math).

To recap, it is extremely childish (yet predictable) for you to support a candidate who will: continue wars which cost thousands more lives and billions of dollars, rape the constitution and economy with continued Bush policies, and crush a woman's right to choice through the appointment of Scalia adepts and clones to the Supreme Court. All of which are the exact opposite of what your candidate wants and ran on. A candidate with nearly identical views has been given the nomination. Yet, out of petty spite, you will vote against him. As I said childish and stupid, yet predictable.

I welcome your departure from the party. It has enough DINOs and fools.
You want every vote counted right? Guess what? You are being highly hypocritical.
These are the posts you answer? I asked you a direct, unloaded question. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741493&postcount=2523) I acknowledged her strength and what she has earned in the party (I'd link to it but my internet is moving too slow). I reached out to you. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13738784&postcount=2217)

Do I have to insult you to get a response? Are you interested in a discussion or do you just want to throw your toys around the room?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741628&postcount=2556
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741628&postcount=2556
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741628&postcount=2556
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741628&postcount=2556
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741628&postcount=2556
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741628&postcount=2556
You've been asked. The reasons keep shifting. One moment, it's because some Obama supporters were big meanie heads.

Then, it's because of the illusory popular vote. Of course, you then turn around and advocate the Republican style of primaries - which are even less democratic than the Democrat ones.

Then, it's because he supposedly won't stand up for Democratic values and will give up too much to the Republicans.

Then, it's because he's an extreme liberal who has hijacked the party. (Don't ask me how the last two are at all compatible, I'm not sure).

Then, you're back to "Obama supporters are big mean meanie heads".

All the while, you hold yourself up as a perfect little angel who just got attacked by those meanie heads. Of course, you are faced with honest and polite questions from some of those supposed meanie heads, you ignore them, choosing only to respond to the more hotheaded responses.

Frankly, it's hard to continue to be polite in the face of all that.
Oh dear.

I came here to look for replies to my question last night but that involved reading through all the last 8 pages and now my mind is so boggled by your posts that the other replies will have to wait.

I refuse to believe that anyone smart enough to string together two words would actually have fallen for her campaign's brazen attempt to pull the wool over everyone's eyes by randomly going "She, uh, was betrayed!" while they were scrambling to betray Obama ("Not our fault he wasn't on the ballot, ladidah").
I refuse. Because, for once, there aren't even any two ways about it. There aren't. It's not a matter of interpretation or loyalty, it's a matter of facts. Even as a Hillary supporter, it should have been impossible for anyone to literally believe the BS her campaign put out.
Saying "Man, that's getting pathetic and nasty, but alright, I want her to win, so she's welcome to do this so she can win" is perfectly fine (maybe not for one's conscience, but alright, if you truly believe she's best for the country, go ahead).
But surely nobody could actually have bought the surreal "reasonings" of her campaign hook, line and sinker. I mean, do you really think a single person inside that campaign actually believed any of this?

And what's even more mindboggling is that even though you repeat those invented campaign "truths" over and over and over again and even go so far as to call people out on not asking you for your reasons to do so, you have YET to reply to even a single one of the numerous posts where people have asked you that exact thing!
What's up with that?
If you really believe what you're saying you're obviously convinced of its truth, so you must be able to explain it to us!
But instead you're sitting there going "She was betrayed!" and aren't offering even a word of explanation as to how she actually WAS betrayed.

Look, there are exactly two options:

1) You're aware of the fact that these were desperate attempts of her campaign at changing the previously-agreed-upon rules to another candidate's detriment. In this case, you acknowledge that they were and say they were fine with you anyway because you think it's worth it. You don't get to say "She was betrayed!", but neither are you expected to explain how she was betrayed.

2.) You really believe she was in the right and what she and her campaign said regarding how they weren't really changing the rules but were instead being betrayed is true. In this case, you have to be able to explain to yourself (and, thus, to others) why that is the case.

You cannot have it both ways.


You did not reply to a single one of them yet had the audacity halfway through to accost people of not asking you about your motivations.

You have got to be joking. There is no way you can be serious about this.

That's one of the many differences between conservatives and libs. Libs think conservatives are EVIL, while cons think libs are merely WRONG.

I've been called an America-hater in the run-up for the goddamn Iraq War redux. I got called an America-hater for disagreeing with other Bush policies. And you have the GALL to say THAT? Do you know how many people got screwed over because Bush wanted a new war? Do you know how many people got called evil, America-hater, terrorist-sympathizer and on and on? No? Then why do you keep talking?

I won many arguments against you, in fact all we ever had, and you come here, in a thread that has me in it, to spout your tripe? It's almost funny.

I am glad that you finally agree with me that RCP is based on "junk science".


RCP does in fact have many polls included in their average that includes Feb. and March polls.


I believe I already made a super argument in that regard.


Well, the Clinton maps have been removed, thusly removing the superior comparator.


Point me to a post whereby I claim that electoral-vote.com is "the greatest site ever". You can't.


Despite your earlier complaints about this site, you now like it because it indicates an Obama win?

What you should be concerned about are the components required for Obama actually to win, in other words, the most recent polls in the close states.

Consider Ohio (20 ECV):

SurveyUSA 05/16 - 05/18 600 RV 48 39 Obama +9.0
Quinnipiac 05/13 - 05/20 1244 RV 40 44 McCain +4.0
Rasmussen 05/15 - 05/15 500 LV 44 45 McCain +1.0

Two out of 3 recent polls indicates McCain would win. Obama loses Ohio and his total goes below win territory.

Consider Missouri (11 ECV):

SurveyUSA 05/16 - 05/18 1523 LV 48 45 McCain +3.0
Rasmussen 05/06 - 05/06 500 LV 47 41 McCain +6.0

RCP and Electoral Vote dot com seem to be in conflict here. If RCP is correct, that would be another -11 (ECV) for Obama.

Consider Michigan (17 ECV):

EPIC-MRA 05/19 - 05/22 600 RV 44 40 McCain +4.0
SurveyUSA 05/27 - 05/27 529 RV 41 37 McCain +4.0
Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 45 44 McCain +1.0

Obama loses Michigan. Obama cannot afford to lose too many blue states, especially since he is struggling in the red states.


Weren't you one of the people who was touting Obama's appeal as helping down ballot candidates?

What is the sense in electing a Democrat President and then hampering him with a split Congress?


You posted a lot of interesting data there, but neglected to link to sources. Naughty.

As for the split congress thing, historically the country does better when the president doesn't have carte blanche to do whatever they want.

At any rate, I believe that the divisiveness of this campaign, especially that which was created by the Obama supporters, will end up costing the Dems the White House.

Do they have magic, sexy elf women, and succubi in the reality you seem to live in? How do I get from here to there, if so?

Nah. I think the voting will speak louder than I can. Obama is a severely flawed candidate. A George McGovern for 2008. That will become clear in the days ahead when Obama doesn't get traction.

It never stopped you from speaking loudly before.

Nah. I think the voting will speak louder than I can. Obama is a severely flawed candidate. A George McGovern for 2008. That will become clear in the days ahead when Obama doesn't get traction.

What are these flaws you speak of? Oh and I don't want generalizations about "big speeches and rallies, etc." I want actual substantiative issues that you have with Obama. All candidates are flawed. What makes Obama so flawed you believe he'll get blown out 49-1.

What are these flaws you speak of? Oh and I don't want generalizations about "big speeches and rallies, etc." I want actual substantiative issues that you have with Obama. All candidates are flawed. What makes Obama so flawed you believe he'll get blown out 49-1.

1) He's not Hillary.
2) He's black.
3) He's not a Muslim, as far as I know...

Elitist. Again.

If McCain wins, I get the opportunity to say, "I was correct."

buzzwords again. No real substance coming from you at the current time. I'm giving you the opportunity to answer questions put forth by Joc, CTOAN, Dempl, myself, and others. Why is Obama severely flawed? How has he broken with core principals? Why is John McCain a better choice than someone who shares 95% of the same platform as your candidate? You've already been wrong. Changing horses doesn't make you correct, it makes you a bandwagon fair weather friend.

1. The red States are not ready for a black President. They won't vote for him. Two ministers did not help his cause. This argument really doesn't hold water. What evidence do you have that certain states are so racist they could not vote for a half black candidate?

2. He is a smooth talker but a little shallow (bitter Americans)

Really, so you know him personally? Hillary Clinton talking points aside, what makes you believe he is shallow? Other than the bitter voter thing which can be put in any context you see fit?

3. Disaffected Clinton supporters voting for McCain or Nader.

This will be unfortunate. The thing is, in the final 2 primaries there were more people who said they would vote for Barack even it Hillary is not on the ticket. If Hillary supports do this it will confirm the "tear down the party" strategy we've all said she has been employing.
4. People will realize that he is after all, just another politician and he will realize that corporate America can deal him a severe set back.

5. Republicans know how to package and sell fear.

Yes, and this is exactly what Obama has spoke out against. They tried to use fear in 3 special elections, tying the candidate to Obama, and it failed miserably. What makes you think it will be more effective when it's been shown to have failed?

6. Obama's campaign was crashing at the end.

This statement is just absurd, a fabrication of that "biased" media. Obama was still, and is still, bringing in record donations. He won the last primary last night so he ended with a win. While being attacked from both sides his numbers still remained very high. The Republicans cannot attack Obama on Wright without being attacked on Hagee, Parsley, etc. They cannot attack his lack of service in Vietnam, because he wasn't even old enough to go. This will be a much harder election than 2000 and 2004 were. The dynamics have changed.



7. Osama Bin Laden will release another tape about a week or two before the election.

This is pure speculation with nothing really backing it up. You are entitled to your opinion, but we are entitled to show it being baseless.

You.

I imagine you're young. I also imagine this is the first time you've tossed your hat into politics.

This said, you more than any other have turned me against your candidate.

I don't know if you intended to at first, but at every moment you've spoken, I've felt that you have talked down to me. Like I am possessed of some type of mental defect that should be immediately obvious. Lemme tell you something. I am a Democratic loyalist. Perhaps you should ask why I am so angry that I am refusing to support the nominee.

Jesus Christ, we have Dori and 10 second Tom here in CH and Shal. WE have asked you this question and more. Hell, CTOAN asks in the post directly preceding this one. Do you think you have not talked down to people? Do I need to go back through your posting history and show your own arrogance? You have refused to answer substantiative posts and instead want to throw more temper tantrums.

Interesting comment to say the least. In this thread, the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th highest posters to this thread (Obama supporters?) do not consider themselves as "Democrats". Liuzzo and Corneliu are both Republicans at heart, and I do believe that either of them would be happy with a McCain or Obama win.

The 1st and 4th highest posters can't vote in this election.

The 7th highest poster (Obama supporter) suggested at one time that Obama was "too young" and also referred to Obama as "less slimy" than Clinton.

The 8th highest poster suggested that he is switching to McCain.

The 9th highest poster is well....DK.

At any rate, I believe that the divisiveness of this campaign, especially that which was created by the Obama supporters, will end up costing the Dems the White House.

Response to bolded:

1. I've never voted a straight ticket in my life. Although a registered Republican, I vote based upon my personal preference.

2. More Obama supporters are meanies crap. Can you say with a straight face that Hillary and her supporters have contributed to this in no way?

3. Hillary supporters voting more out of spite will have a greater impact here.

4. Listening to Obama's speech last night, he praised Hillary and Bill repetitively. He showed that he can be a gracious winner, and that he's like to bring everyone into the fold. Hillary's speech was, um, different than that.

Other than the bitter voter thing which can be put in any context you see fit?

How about putting it in the context of what we've seen from Canuck and Shal all thread long? Bitter, much?

If you believe the little straw poll I have running in the other thread, approximately 30% of Hillary supporters are now crossing over into McCain's camp. If that's a number that holds true in the population at-large, it would almost certainly be fatal to Obama's candidacy in the November election because of where those voters are to be found.

Ah yes, if you're little anecdotal poll on NSG holds true for an entire 5 months across the whole country..... I'll stop laughing eventually I swear.

Hey. Badmouth me all you like, buddy. The fact remains that the current electoral projection shows him with 272 electoral votes. You only need 270 to win, but Obama has absolutely no margin for error. Three states are considered to be pure tossups...Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio (all states Clinton won). Depending on the circumstances, losing any one of them could lose you the election. Especially Ohio.

now according to the site you've been touting all along. http://www.electoral-vote.com/

tee hee

I am glad that you finally agree with me that RCP is based on "junk science".


Strawman. Don't put words in my mouth.

RCP does in fact have many polls included in their average that includes Feb. and March polls.

Right, but they use it to show trends. Using just the latest polls like that other site did is not valid.


I believe I already made a super argument in that regard.

Hmm, who here agrees CH made a "super argument?"


Well, the Clinton maps have been removed, thusly removing the superior comparator.

You don't need Clinton maps to read an Obama map. The site you used on numerous occasions now defies you.




Point me to a post whereby I claim that electoral-vote.com is "the greatest site ever". You can't.

Ah, an exact quote I cannot give. Do you really think we've forgotten how many times you lauded it as proof? Come on Dori, you can do better.




Despite your earlier complaints about this site, you now like it because it indicates an Obama win?

I didn't say I liked anything. What I did say was that the site you have used repetetively to make your case does not support your supposition. As for blowing in the wind regardins sites and polls... Do you really want to go down that road Captian Selective Memory?


What you should be concerned about are the components required for Obama actually to win, in other words, the most recent polls in the close states.

Ahh right. We should look at polls 5 months in advance before he became to official nominee as wonderful evidence as to what will happen in the general.

Consider Ohio (20 ECV):

SurveyUSA 05/16 - 05/18 600 RV 48 39 Obama +9.0
Quinnipiac 05/13 - 05/20 1244 RV 40 44 McCain +4.0
Rasmussen 05/15 - 05/15 500 LV 44 45 McCain +1.0

Two out of 3 recent polls indicates McCain would win. Obama loses Ohio and his total goes below win territory.

Consider Missouri (11 ECV):

SurveyUSA 05/16 - 05/18 1523 LV 48 45 McCain +3.0
Rasmussen 05/06 - 05/06 500 LV 47 41 McCain +6.0

RCP and Electoral Vote dot com seem to be in conflict here. If RCP is correct, that would be another -11 (ECV) for Obama.

Consider Michigan (17 ECV):

EPIC-MRA 05/19 - 05/22 600 RV 44 40 McCain +4.0
SurveyUSA 05/27 - 05/27 529 RV 41 37 McCain +4.0
Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 45 44 McCain +1.0

Obama loses Michigan. Obama cannot afford to lose too many blue states, especially since he is struggling in the red states.


Weren't you one of the people who was touting Obama's appeal as helping down ballot candidates?

I still hold my point on that. Economically, the best years out of the last 30 for the stock market and economic growth have been when we had a dem pres and republican congress. It was on CNN last night. I can try to find it to show you.

What is the sense in electing a Democrat President and then hampering him with a split Congress?

Hampering? How did you like it when GWB had both houses of congress on his side? Do you consider it hampering that the Democrats won in 2006? Or do you think that was a great thing to stop Bush?

How about putting it in the context of what we've seen from Canuck and Shal all thread long? Bitter, much?

That's not bitter. That's battery acid sour "grapes."

That's not bitter. That's battery acid sour "grapes."

You know how battery acid tastes? o_O

You know how battery acid tastes? o_O

Actually yes, accidentally. It was not one of my happier days. It resulted from the explosion of a battery on a Humvee. It required a quick trip to the infirmary.

It shows Indiana tied? Jesus, I doubt that. Indiana hasn't gone Democrat in a presidential race in my lifetime.

I don't understand this idea that demographics and voting patterns never change.


If you believe the little straw poll I have running in the other thread, approximately 30% of Hillary supporters are now crossing over into McCain's camp. If that's a number that holds true in the population at-large, it would almost certainly be fatal to Obama's candidacy in the November election because of where those voters are to be found.

To be fair, I doubt all the people voting in that thread were ever Clinton supporters. You say it in the OP, but the actual question on the poll doesn't stipulate - and that's the question most people answer when they answer a poll.


Changing arguments isn't possible for Shal. That would require evaluating evidence and altering opinions.

Shal has changed arguments before. Granted, it wasn't until Clinton changed arguments and SHal could pick up the new line, but it has happened.

Actually yes, accidentally. It was not one of my happier days. It resulted from the explosion of a battery on a Humvee. It required a quick trip to the infirmary.

Is it sour?

4. Listening to Obama's speech last night, he praised Hillary and Bill repetitively. He showed that he can be a gracious winner, and that he's like to bring everyone into the fold. Hillary's speech was, um, different than that.

Yeah, what was that. It was like she was making a speech accepting the nomination or something (at least, the part of it I heard before I got home).

I don't understand this idea that demographics and voting patterns never change.

Well didn't say they can't change, it's just really shocking. Indiana is full of rednecks.

Well didn't say they can't change, it's just really shocking. Indiana is full of rednecks.

It, however, borders Illinois. Then there's Indianapolis, Gary, right by Chicago...

now according to the site you've been touting all along. http://www.electoral-vote.com/

tee hee

Obama 287 -- McCain 227 -- Ties 24
Looking excellent.


I can't wait until he picks a VP and we see how this whole thing moves.

Actually yes, accidentally. It was not one of my happier days. It resulted from the explosion of a battery on a Humvee. It required a quick trip to the infirmary.

Fortunately not all battery acid is so unpleasant, although one really shouldn't eat the fruit used in the grade school classic fruit batteries. But at least grapefruit juice, orange juice, and many others do qualify as tasty battery acids. :P

Fortunately not all battery acid is so unpleasant, although one really shouldn't eat the fruit used in the grade school classic fruit batteries. But at least grapefruit juice, orange juice, and many others do qualify as tasty battery acids. :P

Chotto, mondai wa sore ja nai... :p

De mo, kore wa watashi no tsumi da... De. Daijoubu...

Chotto, mondai wa sore ja nai... :p

De mo, kore wa watashi no tsumi da... De. Daijoubu...

Boku wa oyajigagu osama desu. (And you can take that in either the "king" sense or the "bin Laden" sense - it works equally well both ways... ;))

You're right. It'd be better if we threw some numbers in from February and march like electoral-vote.com did. Then we can make a super argument. Have they update their site, sure. Then again, if you look at their site today you see something interesting about Obama v. McCain. (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) This may be why you are not using the site anymore. So according to CH and Shal, the greatest site ever is predicting an Obama win.

Obama 287 McCain 227 Ties 24

Senate: Dem 58 GOP 42

House: Dem 237 GOP 198

The Senate and House numbers are interesting too. Although I prefer a split congress vs. Pres (one party rule brought us 2000-2006).

Damn!!

Oh and as a side note, it was part of 2000. It was not until 2002 that there truly was a 1 party rule. Remember. At the end of the 2000 campaign, it was a 50-50 split but then one republican became an independent. making it 50-49-1 Democrat in the Senate.

If you believe the little straw poll I have running in the other thread, approximately 30% of Hillary supporters are now crossing over into McCain's camp. If that's a number that holds true in the population at-large, it would almost certainly be fatal to Obama's candidacy in the November election because of where those voters are to be found.

Uh Shal? 30% is not a majority. Also, you have to factor in how many people were not going to vote for the Democratic Candidate anyway regardless of who the nominee is.

Hey. Badmouth me all you like, buddy. The fact remains that the current electoral projection shows him with 272 electoral votes.

287 actually

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

Please try to keep up.

Do they have magic, sexy elf women, and succubi in the reality you seem to live in? How do I get from here to there, if so?
You can be cute/funny, whatever you wish, but I sincerely meant what I stated. I have seen so many vile comments directed towards Hillary Clinton by Obama supporters here and on numerous weblogs that I question the direction of the Democratic party in the US. The future of the party looks bleak.

Obama's message is obviously not getting through to his supporters.

Clearly 50% of the votes went to Clinton in the nomination process, and yet the Obama supporters seem to believe that they can magically get by without her supporters.

The fact that so many are levelling racist accussations against the Clintons these days that it is no wonder that many of her supporters are looking to either write Hillary's name on the ballot, vote for Nader, vote for McCain or just stay home on election day.

I believe that the damage has been done and the results will be devestating come November.

I also believe that the only probable way of healing some of the enormous amount of damage, would be for Obama to offer Hillary the running mate position. Even then, it might be too late.

So carry on with the snickering or gloating or whatever else you deem appropriate....I assure you that it doesn't make the situation any better.

Liuzzo and Corneliu are both Republicans at heart, and I do believe that either of them would be happy with a McCain or Obama win.

I'd tolerate whoever the hell is in the oval office be it a Democrat or a Republican. Unlike most people, I do not cry when my candidate loses nor say he's not my president if I dislike/hate the person.

At any rate, I believe that the divisiveness of this campaign, especially that which was created by the Obama supporters, will end up costing the Dems the White House.

It could but one will not know till november.

I can't believe I missed this earlier.

So carry on with the snickering or gloating or whatever else you deem appropriate....I assure you that it doesn't make the situation any better.

So completely ignore the vile racist slanderous claims by Hillary and her spokes people and continue to lambaste Obama because a few of his supporters made you cry.

God damn the leap of logic that takes. Evel Knievel would be jealous of that one.

Snip.

CLINTON divided the party, not Obama.

CLINTON attacked her opponent, not Obama.

CLINTON plays the victim, not Obama.

And here are her supporters claiming it to be the other way around.

Heh.

Boku wa oyajigagu osama desu. (And you can take that in either the "king" sense or the "bin Laden" sense - it works equally well both ways... ;))

"Oyajigagu" no imi wo wakaranakatta...

I can't wait until he picks a VP and we see how this whole thing moves.

This is what I'm waiting for.

But as a Hillary supporter on the television said, Obama is an "inadequate black male". Surely, it isn't racist or sexist to see his skin color and gender as negative aspects of a person.

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of stuff like this being said by Obama supporters on TV right? I'm just not watching enough TV to see them.

So completely ignore the vile racist slanderous claims by Hillary and her spokes people and continue to lambaste Obama because a few of his supporters made you cry.

God damn the leap of logic that takes. Evel Knievel would be jealous of that one.

I'm more impressed by the pretzeled "How dare you infer racism while we're accusing you of sexism, foolishness, stupidity, vileness, and generally being big meanies!"

I'm done with this. It's over. He can predict doom all he wants. He also predicted that Clinton would 'fly' on Super Tuesday and would win the nomination. It didn't happen. He's 0-2. If he and Sal think that these tantrums reflect well on 'Clinton supporters' it's really only one of the many cracks in their credibility. Fortunately there are enough people who judge a candidate by the candidate and not by the actions of any jackass with an internet connection.

Here's what rational HRC supporters shou;d be saying right now:

Senator Clinton's speech last night was a justifiably proud recitation of her accomplishments over the course of this campaign, but it did not end right. She didn't do what she should have done. As hard and as painful as it might have been, she should have conceded, congratulated, endorsed and committed to Barack Obama. Therefore the next 48 hours are now as important to the future reputation of Hillary Clinton as the last year and a half have been.

I am disappointed. As a long time Hillary Clinton supporter and more importantly, an admirer, I am sad that this historic effort has ended with such a narrow loss for her. There will be the appropriate "if onlys" for a long time to come. If only the staff shakeup happened earlier; if only the planning in caucus states had more focus; if only Hillary had let loose with the authentic human and connecting voice she found in the last three months of the campaign. If only. If only. I have written many times on this site about the talents of Hillary Clinton and why I thought she'd make a great President.

After last night's final primary, she was only about pledged 100 delegates behind him. Ironic that after not wanting to make the decision for so long, it was in fact, the superdelegates who made the decision. But I guess they did so for another reason. It just isn't her time. It is his time. It's a new day that offers a freshness to our party that many have longed for. We felt the rush of new voices and a new energy in the Congressional sweep of 2006 and the sweep continues. It has been an organic shift. And a healthy one.

The life's work of Bill and Hillary Clinton in partnering with so many African Americans uniting our purpose and promoting our mutual issues is as responsible for Barack Obama's success as our first African American nominee as anyone. And yet, that joy is being denied for them by themselves. It is so sad.

So, I am also so very disappointed at how she has handled this last week. I know she is exhausted and she had pledged to finish the primaries and let every state vote before any final action. But by the time she got on that podium last night, she knew it was over and that she had lost. I am sure I was not alone in privately urging the campaign over the last two weeks to use the moment to take her due, pass the torch and cement her grace. She had an opportunity to soar and unite. She had a chance to surprise her party and the nation after the day-long denials about expecting any concession and send Obama off on the campaign trail of the general election with the best possible platform. I wrote before how she had a chance for her "Al Gore moment." And if she had done so, the whole country ALL would be talking today about how great she is and give her her due.

Instead she left her supporters empty, Obama's angry, and party leaders trashing her. She said she was stepping back to think about her options. She is waiting to figure out how she would "use" her 18 million voters.

But not my vote. I will enthusiastically support Barack Obama's campaign. Because I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/i-am-not-a-bargaining-chi_b_105133.html

"Oyajigagu" no imi wo wakaranakatta...

"'bad' joke/pun", a la osama = king/terrorist

Clearly 50% of the votes went to Clinton in the nomination process, and yet the Obama supporters seem to believe that they can magically get by without her supporters.


Here is where experience will count and inexperience will hurt. Obama has just squeaked by in the nomination process. He hasn't had a sweeping mandate from the Democratic party, only from enough to get by. In fact, if Clinton had not taken the nomination for granted, he would probably be cheering her on in her run for President.

Will Obama believe the hype and ignore half the party? It can only hurt him.

Will Obama believe the hype and ignore half the party? It can only hurt him.

I see someone did not hear Obama's speech. If he had, he would realize that he was reaching out to Hillary's supporters.

Since when has Obama ignored half the party? By running for President and not stepping aside for Hillary? He ran a better campaign - it's as simple as that. I'm sure he would have been a gracious loser, had he lost. He didn't He's quite a gracious winner though.

Also, who in their right mind would believe that the majority of Hillary supporters are not going to back Obama?

Since when has Obama ignored half the party? By running for President and not stepping aside for Hillary? He ran a better campaign - it's as simple as that. I'm sure he would have been a gracious loser, had he lost. He didn't He's quite a gracious winner though.

Also, who in their right mind would believe that the majority of Hillary supporters are not going to back Obama?
Not yet, but there have been plenty of past occasions, where the nominee couldn't pull the rest of the party in behind him. It's something to watch out for.

I see someone did not hear Obama's speech. If he had, he would realize that he was reaching out to Hillary's supporters.
There's a difference between deeds and words. Let's see what happens.

Here is where experience will count and inexperience will hurt. Obama has just squeaked by in the nomination process. He hasn't had a sweeping mandate from the Democratic party, only from enough to get by. In fact, if Clinton had not taken the nomination for granted, he would probably be cheering her on in her run for President.

Will Obama believe the hype and ignore half the party? It can only hurt him.

The last month or so he's been bending over backwards like a contortionist trying to placate the Hillary supporters. He's clearly taking nothing for granted.

"'bad' joke/pun", a la osama = king/terrorist

Hai, wakatta. Arigatou.

Sore de, Clinton no chansu wa... shinda. :D

Here is where experience will count and inexperience will hurt. Obama has just squeaked by in the nomination process. He hasn't had a sweeping mandate from the Democratic party, only from enough to get by. In fact, if Clinton had not taken the nomination for granted, he would probably be cheering her on in her run for President.

Will Obama believe the hype and ignore half the party? It can only hurt him.

Looks like they're starting to get behind him (with the exceptions of a few die hard loud mouths who're being left behind...)

June 4, 2008
Obama celebrates with Clinton backers
Posted: 09:00 AM ET

(CNN) — In what may be a sign the Democratic Party is already unifying behind Barack Obama, the Illinois senator celebrated his presidential primary victory Tuesday night with several of Hillary Clinton's supporters.

According to one participant, Minnesota City Council member Gary Schiff, Obama spent approximately 30 minutes with some of the New York senator’s most prominent backers in Minnesota, including elected officials, local activists, and fundraisers. A second source confirms the event was organized by St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman, who is a co-chairman of Clinton's campaign.

Obama posed for pictures and promised to visit the state early and often as he now turns his attention to the general election and John McCain.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/04/obama-celebrates-with-clinton-backers/

The last month or so he's been bending over backwards like a contortionist trying to placate the Hillary supporters. He's clearly taking nothing for granted.

And maybe it will work for him. Let's just remember how many past candidates have fared... Personally, I think he needs a big gesture to even things up with the Clintonites. Not big words, mind you, a big deed.

Here is where experience will count and inexperience will hurt. Obama has just squeaked by in the nomination process. He hasn't had a sweeping mandate from the Democratic party, only from enough to get by. In fact, if Clinton had not taken the nomination for granted, he would probably be cheering her on in her run for President.

Will Obama believe the hype and ignore half the party? It can only hurt him.

Obama hasn't been "ignoring half the party" at all. He's been ridiculously patient, tactful, and concilliatory. I don't see any reason why this would change. As a matter of fact, I think most of the anger from Hillary fans is directed at Obama simply because it has to be directed at someone. Add to that the fervor that Obama fans (not Obama himself) have stirred up, often leading to trying to beat Clintonites down instead of having mutual respect, and you have a clear formula for the scenario we have on our hands right now. But none of this reflects one way or the other on Obama or how he's run his campaign. I think that he will garner the support of any reasonable Clinton supporters by doing exactly what he's been doing: showing humility and a willingness to reach out, regardless of the other side's willingness to accept it.

Not yet, but there have been plenty of past occasions, where the nominee couldn't pull the rest of the party in behind him. It's something to watch out for.

Well I will agree that if Hillary decides to tell her supporters not to back Obama, he'll be in a world of hurt but if that happens she's basically committing career suicide unless she wants to go back to being a Republican. Then she'll probably be held up as a hero.

And maybe it will work for him. Let's just remember how many past candidates have fared... Personally, I think he needs a big gesture to even things up with the Clintonites. Not big words, mind you, a big deed.

If they're angling for VP I dearly hope Obama doesn't cave to her and her raving lunatics.

You can be cute/funny, whatever you wish, but I sincerely meant what I stated. I have seen so many vile comments directed towards Hillary Clinton by Obama supporters here and on numerous weblogs that I question the direction of the Democratic party in the US. The future of the party looks bleak.

Attacks on candidates always happen. Sometimes, people get incredibly mean with them.

But some Clinton supporters have constantly attacked Obama supporters. Not the candidate, but the people who support him. I see that as a bit more divisive.

Clearly 50% of the votes went to Clinton in the nomination process, and yet the Obama supporters seem to believe that they can magically get by without her supporters.

Really? Who said that?

The fact that so many are levelling racist accussations against the Clintons these days that it is no wonder that many of her supporters are looking to either write Hillary's name on the ballot, vote for Nader, vote for McCain or just stay home on election day.

I think the fact that Clinton tried to use race to her advantage is pretty clear. I also think it is rather clear that it helped her stay in the race, as did her claims that she was losing due to being a woman.

Neither is a tactic that should be praised.

I believe that the damage has been done and the results will be devestating come November.

And yet you insist on laying that damage at the feet of the candidate who didn't engage in divisive tactics.

I also believe that the only probable way of healing some of the enormous amount of damage, would be for Obama to offer Hillary the running mate position. Even then, it might be too late.

That is your opinion. Personally, I think it would only make things worse.

So carry on with the snickering or gloating or whatever else you deem appropriate....I assure you that it doesn't make the situation any better.

And I suppose you will continue on with the victim complex.

Meanwhile, most of us are just looking to what needs to be done for the general.

Here's what rational HRC supporters shou;d be saying right now:
Instead she left her supporters empty, Obama's angry, and party leaders trashing her. She said she was stepping back to think about her options. She is waiting to figure out how she would "use" her 18 million voters.

But not my vote. I will enthusiastically support Barack Obama's campaign. Because I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/i-am-not-a-bargaining-chi_b_105133.html

Damn. That almost made me want to register as a Democrat.

Looks like they're starting to get behind him (with the exceptions of a few die hard loud mouths who're being left behind...)


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/04/obama-celebrates-with-clinton-backers/

There goes Myrm's argument.

Indeed.

Now that the Democrats have voted to jump over the cliff by nominating a far-left lightweight, they should go ahead and change their mascot from the jackass to the lemming. The Lemocrats have set themselves up for another McGovernesque meltdown–exactly the outcome the superdelegate system was created to avoid. Even hard-core libs know it, and they’re already preparing their excuses for why Obama will fail. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, for one, just today chimed in with what will no doubt be the predominant whine of the losers:
It was RRRRrrrrrrRRRRRrrrrRRRRAYYYYY-ssssssism!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060202590.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I am SO going to enjoy watching Obama crash and burn come November. I am going to enjoy even more hearing George Soros, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, the 9/11 Truthers, Hollywood wackos, Michael Moore-ons, Bob Beckel, Babs Boxer, Dingy Harry, San Fran Nan Pelosi and all the rest of the loons on the extra-chromosome left wail and gnash their teeth as they are consigned to outer darkness, powerless, for another four years. Most of all, as I recall the words of Conan the Barbarian on what is best in life, I will enjoy seeing the tears in the eyes of all those young, emotional, idealistic leftie college babies as they see their hopes and dreams crushed into dust and they are forced to confront the harsh reality that adults determine the direction of this country, not them.

But that's just my opinion ;)

Wow, its been some time NM. Your little cornor under the bridge undergoing renovation or something?

These next five months will be the most glorious experiance on NSG, the internet, and in politics. Im going to enjoy the deranged, xenophobic, paranoid, racist ramblings of you and the sociopahts like you about as much as I will enjoy John McCain and his cohorts struggle to defeat a campaign the Republicans have been terrified to face from the start.

Im going to savour your bitter, rage fueled weeping in November when Bush Version 2.0 is soundly beaten, and the neocons are forced from Washington to the sound of cheers and tears of joy, bringing about the end of the worst presidency in the history of th United States. I will then for the next four years relish the tears of unfathomable sadness from the likes of you, Coulter, Bill O'Rielly and all of Faux News and their mindless, scare mongering lackies and drones.

And, I will enjoy calling you all unpatriotic America-haters who embolden the enemy whenever you attack the new president, much as you all did to those of us with the sense to question and rail against the raping of this country.

Yes, these next four years will be the greatest political experiance for me for some times to come.

Just remember pal. The more you taunt now, the more glorious your defeat will be.

Wow, its been some time NM. Your little cornor under the bridge undergoing renovation or something?

These next five months will be the most glorious experiance on NSG, the internet, and in politics. Im going to enjoy the deranged, xenophobic, paranoid, racist ramblings of you and the sociopahts like you about as much as I will enjoy John McCain and his cohorts struggle to defeat a campaign the Republicans have been terrified to face from the start.

Im going to savour your bitter, rage fueled weeping in November when Bush Version 2.0 is soundly beaten, and the neocons are forced from Washington to the sound of cheers and tears of joy, bringing about the end of the worst presidency in the history of th United States. I will then for the next four years relish the tears of unfathomable sadness from the likes of you, Coulter, Bill O'Rielly and all of Faux News and their mindless, scare mongering lackies and drones.

And, I will enjoy calling you all unpatriotic America-haters who embolden the enemy whenever you attack the new president, much as you all did to those of us with the sense to question and rail against th raping of this country.

Yes, these next four years will be the greatest political experiance for me for some times to come.

I like you. Would you like to be my sidekick? :D

Wow, its been some time NM. Your little cornor under the bridge undergoing renovation or something?

These next five months will be the most glorious experiance on NSG, the internet, and in politics. Im going to enjoy the deranged, xenophobic, paranoid, racist ramblings of you and the sociopahts like you about as much as I will enjoy John McCain and his cohorts struggle to defeat a campaign the Republicans have been terrified to face from the start.

Im going to savour your bitter, rage fueled weeping in November when Bush Version 2.0 is soundly beaten, and the neocons are forced from Washington to the sound of cheers and tears of joy, bringing about the end of the worst presidency in the history of th United States. I will then for the next four years relish the tears of unfathomable sadness from the likes of you, Coulter, Bill O'Rielly and all of Faux News and their mindless, scare mongering lackies and drones.

And, I will enjoy calling you all unpatriotic America-haters who embolden the enemy whenever you attack the new president, much as you all did to those of us with the sense to question and rail against the raping of this country.

Yes, these next four years will be the greatest political experiance for me for some times to come.

Just remember pal. The more you taunt now, the more glorious your defeat will be.

Wise man once said. "Don't let your opponent drag you down to his level. He'll beat you with experience.".

Well I will agree that if Hillary decides to tell her supporters not to back Obama, he'll be in a world of hurt but if that happens she's basically committing career suicide unless she wants to go back to being a Republican. Then she'll probably be held up as a hero.

Considering how much more antipathy the GOP has towards the Clintons, it's doubtful. She'd be tossed aside like a used tissue.

If they're angling for VP I dearly hope Obama doesn't cave to her and her raving lunatics.

That time passed a while back. The HHS and campaign debts payoff might be in play til the end of this week... After that you can expect the Clinton brand to be about as popular as the Bhopal brand...

Damn. That almost made me want to register as a Democrat.

:)

There goes Myrm's argument.

:)

Is it sour?

yeah, and it burns

Damn!!

Oh and as a side note, it was part of 2000. It was not until 2002 that there truly was a 1 party rule. Remember. At the end of the 2000 campaign, it was a 50-50 split but then one republican became an independent. making it 50-49-1 Democrat in the Senate.

You are correct Sir.

yeah, and it burns

Yeah, acid will sorta do that.

I'll let this incendiary bit speak for itself

Among the party leaders Mr. Clinton alienated over time by his angry tirades was South Carolina's Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking House leader and a civil-rights-movement veteran.

Before South Carolina's primary, Mr. Clyburn admonished Sen. Clinton for suggesting President Johnson deserved more credit than Martin Luther King Jr. for civil-rights laws. On primary night, Mr. Clinton called Mr. Clyburn and they spoke for 50 minutes. "Let's just say it wasn't pleasant," Mr. Clyburn says.

Mr. Clinton called Mr. Clyburn an expletive, say Democrats familiar with the exchange. Mr. Clyburn's office would confirm only that the former president used "offensive" words. Some day soon, the congressman says, he'll write about the incident. On Tuesday, he endorsed Mr. Obama for president.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121252558317842545.html?mod=blog

If there was so much animosity between him and the Clintons, why did he wait so long to pledge for Obama, I wonder?

If there was so much animosity between him and the Clintons, why did he wait so long to pledge for Obama, I wonder?

Because not everyone (unlike a few Clinton supporters on here) votes out of spite.

If there was so much animosity between him and the Clintons, why did he wait so long to pledge for Obama, I wonder?

A lot of the highest ranking Democrats waited. They didn't want to be seen as unduly affecting the results. He may have had more support for Obama from that moment, but wouldn't necessarily voice it.

If there was so much animosity between him and the Clintons, why did he wait so long to pledge for Obama, I wonder?

That is indeed a good question.

I see someone did not hear Obama's speech. If he had, he would realize that he was reaching out to Hillary's supporters.

Even more so he was reaching out to Bill. He credited both Bill and Hillary with great things. Bill is probably the more jilted of the two. I think it was a lesson is swallowing your pride and recognizing the good in your opponent.

There goes Myrm's argument.
Y'all don't get it yet, do you? There's two things -- don't believe your press clippings and it's not what's happening today that's important. It's what will happen two or three months down the road that will make the election.

Okay, I'm pretty much done with politics until after the conventions. Have fun patting yourselves on the back, but don't forget there's a lot of campaign left to go.

Y'all don't get it yet, do you? There's two things -- don't believe your press clippings and it's not what's happening today that's important. It's what will happen two or three months down the road that will make the election.

Okay, I'm pretty much done with politics until after the conventions. Have fun patting yourselves on the back, but don't forget there's a lot of campaign left to go.

If you'd read the thread, at all. You'd see most Obama supporters have been saying that for well over a week. We're acutely aware of how much time there is left. The Clinton fans seem to be of the impression that election day is tomorrow.

Y'all don't get it yet, do you? There's two things -- don't believe your press clippings and it's not what's happening today that's important. It's what will happen two or three months down the road that will make the election.

Okay, I'm pretty much done with politics until after the conventions. Have fun patting yourselves on the back, but don't forget there's a lot of campaign left to go.

Don't get all huffy. We're all friends here. ;)

And yes, there is still a ton of time left. But we should be able to pat ourselves on the back; our candidate got through the first step in his bid for the White House. This really is an exciting occasion for us Obama supporters, but also for the country in general. (I'll direct you to the other thread for that discussion, however.) I for one am very excited to see how things start unfolding now that the campaigning machines are getting up and running. I think we can both agree that the dynamics are going to rapidly and drastically shift now that we have both candidates. Let's all just relax and enjoy one of the most exciting election years in recent history.

*Offers handshake*

Don't get all huffy. We're all friends here. ;)

And yes, there is still a ton of time left. But we should be able to pat ourselves on the back; our candidate got through the first step in his bid for the White House. This really is an exciting occasion for us Obama supporters, but also for the country in general. (I'll direct you to the other thread for that discussion, however.) I for one am very excited to see how things start unfolding now that the campaigning machines are getting up and running. I think we can both agree that the dynamics are going to rapidly and drastically shift now that we have both candidates. Let's all just relax and enjoy one of the most exciting election years in recent history.

*Offers handshake*
No huff here... Patting yourself on the back is a good thing sometimes. Obama has created a watershed event in American politics and proved that America is ready for a black President. The question still remains if Obama is ready for America.

Y'all don't get it yet, do you? There's two things -- don't believe your press clippings and it's not what's happening today that's important. It's what will happen two or three months down the road that will make the election.

Okay, I'm pretty much done with politics until after the conventions. Have fun patting yourselves on the back, but don't forget there's a lot of campaign left to go.

I've already congratulated Barack Obama and I wish him luck in the General. I know full well how much time is left till november. Maybe you should learn how to comprehend reading. They teach you that in school.

I've already congratulated Barack Obama and I wish him luck in the General. I know full well how much time is left till november. Maybe you should learn how to comprehend reading. They teach you that in school.
I'll tell you what... I'll take a reading comprehension class if you learn statistics.

Don't get all huffy. We're all friends here. ;)

Uhm, okay, while I admire your capacity to argue and to discuss, I'd like to point out that some people here really, REALLY aren't friends with some other people. :p

Mind you, I'm not saying that about anyone specifically, but the forum isn't necessarily friendly.

Uhm, okay, while I admire your capacity to argue and to discuss, I'd like to point out that some people here really, REALLY aren't friends with some other people. :p

Mind you, I'm not saying that about anyone specifically, but the forum isn't necessarily friendly.

Well, it should be. ;)


*Takes off pants* There. Now we're all reeeal friendly.

Well, it should be. ;)


*Takes off pants* There. Now we're all reeeal friendly.

o_O

What's your gender?

Stick your hand out, and learn....

o_O

What's your gender?

Sexy.

Stick your hand out, and learn....

Uhm... Corny! I have a favor to ask you! :p

o_O

What's your gender?

Easy slugger, it's the internet. You know the rules...;p

Sexy.

Mmm. Yeah, well... I'll pass.

Easy slugger, it's the internet. You know the rules...;p

What happens online stays online? :p

*Takes off pants* There. Now we're all reeeal friendly.
Sounds fun.

Uhm... Corny! I have a favor to ask you! :p

:confused:

Sounds fun.

Feel free to do it. :p

:confused:

*Takes Corny to GA* Now... You'll find out some things about him/her for me...

*Takes Corny to GA* Now... You'll find out some things about him/her for me...

*throws Heikoku to the ground*

Do it yourself coward.

*throws Heikoku to the ground*

Do it yourself coward.

But I don't wanna! :p

Man, the general election is going to be awesome- (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/obama.wednesday/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)
On Wednesday, Obama's next challenger, Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, congratulated Obama on his victory and immediately challenged him to 10 town hall meetings before the two parties' conventions in late August and September.

Speaking in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, McCain cited a 1963 agreement between President Kennedy and Barry Goldwater to hold such debates as part of the 1964 campaign. Kennedy was assassinated before the campaign began.

"What a welcome change it would be were presidential candidates in our time to treat each other and the people they seek to lead with respect and courtesy as they discussed the great issues of the day, without the empty sound bites and media-filtered exchanges that dominate our elections," McCain said in a letter to Obama released by McCain's campaign.

Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, reaffirmed his candidate's interest in a series of debates, but said the Obama campaign wanted to draw on an even older precedent for the format.

"As Barack Obama has said before, the idea of joint town halls is appealing and one that would allow a great conversation to take place about the need to change the direction of this country," Plouffe said. "We would recommend a format that is less structured and lengthier than the McCain campaign suggests, one that more closely resembles the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.
advertisement

"But, having just secured our party's nomination, this is one of the many items we will be addressing in the coming days and look forward to discussing it with the McCain campaign," he said.

Regular joint appearances with Obama could help McCain compensate for the Democrat's fundraising success by providing him regular free media exposure.

Man, the general election is going to be awesome- (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/obama.wednesday/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)

I'd be good with this. It would be nice to see the candidates standing side by side, patting each other on the back, having a well-meaning debate as opposed to mercilessly trashing each other from afar.

Sexy.

Another reason for Hillary to finally get it together and make a concession speech: then Ardchoille would finally get to lock this thread! You know how badly Ard has been wanting to do that :D

I'd be good with this. It would be nice to see the candidates standing side by side, patting each other on the back, having a well-meaning debate as opposed to mercilessly trashing each other from afar.

Pretty much yeah. Surrogates and unhinged supporters are going to be what they are. I've already seen a MoveOn.org ad that used the theme to the Patty Duke Show "Beeeecause they're cou-sins, i-dentical cousins in every way, they walk alike, they talk alike etc." to tie Bush and McCain together, and they'll be critical of each others plans, experience, etc. But comparatively, we might actually get fucking civil discourse from our candidates. What will we do with ourselves? (probably make too much of surrogates, like the ol' swift boat folk...)

EDIT: Here it is. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUBDM16ylvU) Making a bit much about McCain playing with his mic. Really unneeded.

i do hope they stay far away from their "he's inexperienced" and "he's Bush III" rhetoric

Man, the general election is going to be awesome- (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/obama.wednesday/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)
This would be great if we can get a real diversity of politicians and of voters. And not screen the voters and questions beforehand.

I'd like to see Bob Barr in the townhalls, if only to have someone representing the idea that the government DOESN'T have to solve every problem.

i do hope they stay far away from their "he's inexperienced" and "he's Bush III" rhetoric

Boy, wouldn't that be amazing?

On the other hand, I may go insane and think that I had somehow crossed a plane into some nonsensical bizarro universe.

i do hope they stay far away from their "he's inexperienced" and "he's Bush III" rhetoric

But he is inexperienced. How can anyone overlook the fact that Obama's yet to finish his first term as senator? :/

But he is inexperienced. How can anyone overlook the fact that Obama's yet to finish his first term as senator? :/

In what ways do you expect that this 'inexperience' will this affect his ability to Preside over the country?

What level of experience is needed exactly?

How do you explain the fuckups of all these so-called experienced politicians that have been POTUS before him?

This would be great if we can get a real diversity of politicians and of voters. And not screen the voters and questions beforehand.

I'd like to see Bob Barr in the townhalls, if only to have someone representing the idea that the government DOESN'T have to solve every problem.

i would love to have the 2 major candidates. i see no reason to hand the libertarians any respect they havent actually earned. it was bad enough in the primaries that those with no chance got to be in the debates long after it was obvious that they were going nowhere. (i was happy to have everyone included in the beginning but as it went on it was taking time away from the competitive candidates)

This would be great if we can get a real diversity of politicians and of voters. And not screen the voters and questions beforehand.

I'd like to see Bob Barr in the townhalls, if only to have someone representing the idea that the government DOESN'T have to solve every problem.

As much as I'd like to agree that questions and/or voters shouldn't be screened, I just can't. If they let anyone in who wanted to go in, the candidates would never get anything accomplished over the crazy folks who just yelled the whole time. It only takes one of them to ruin the whole debate.

But I agree with you in that I'd like to see Barr there, too, if only to lend some credibility to some third party candidate, even if he is a despicable Libertarian. ;)

As much as I'd like to agree that questions and/or voters shouldn't be screened, I just can't. If they let anyone in who wanted to go in, the candidates would never get anything accomplished over the crazy folks who just yelled the whole time. It only takes one of them to ruin the whole debate.

But I agree with you in that I'd like to see Barr there, too, if only to lend some credibility to some third party candidate, even if he is a despicable Libertarian. ;)

agreed

But he is inexperienced. How can anyone overlook the fact that Obama's yet to finish his first term as senator? :/

Well, I think as long as he's been there long enough to have some idea of how things work, that's enough experience, so there's no need to harp on it. What should really matter are things like health care, immigration, etc. After all, experience probably isn't going to change his views on those things.

i do hope they stay far away from their "he's inexperienced" and "he's Bush III" rhetoric

Well, you can't have everything. I'm afraid that'll be the drum beat for a while.

But he is inexperienced. How can anyone overlook the fact that Obama's yet to finish his first term as senator? :/

By pointing to a couple of things:

1.) The amount of shit he got done in the time he was in the Senate. He has gotten a lot of bills through. "Most of his legislative effort has been in the area of Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills), health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills), consumer protection/labor (14 bills), the needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills), Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills), Foreign Policy (10 bills) Voting and Elections (9 bills), Education (7 bills), Hurricane Katrina Relief (6), the Environment (5 bills), Homeland Security (4 bills), and discrimination (4 bills)." (It's off of the Daily Kos, but you can look up the Senate record yourself.)

2.) His bipartisan efforts in the Illinois State Senate.

3.) His volunteer work organizing in Chicago. That's a good, ground level, people experience that he will never forget. He truly worked with the people.

In what ways do you expect that this 'inexperience' will this affect his ability to Preside over the country?

What level of experience is needed exactly?

How do you explain the fuckups of all these so-called experienced politicians that have been POTUS before him?

Dammit, I was going to ask this. What is 'enough' experience? He was a state senator and an community activist, he taught constitutional law. What is he supposed to have learned by an extra term or different position? How do you quantify experience and what exactly is it supposed to yield?

i do hope they stay far away from their "he's inexperienced" and "he's Bush III" rhetoric

They might but their supporters won't.

Another reason for Hillary to finally get it together and make a concession speech: then Ardchoille would finally get to lock this thread! You know how badly Ard has been wanting to do that :D

You seem to be assuming this will matter to her die-hards...

As much as I'd like to agree that questions and/or voters shouldn't be screened, I just can't. If they let anyone in who wanted to go in, the candidates would never get anything accomplished over the crazy folks who just yelled the whole time. It only takes one of them to ruin the whole debate.

But I agree with you in that I'd like to see Barr there, too, if only to lend some credibility to some third party candidate, even if he is a despicable Libertarian. ;)
Okay, they need some screening. Maybe just two or three questioners ahead, though -- have a couple screeners working the crowd for the next question that isn't about Uncle Ernie's Social Security check, or Aunt Millie's lost cat.

By pointing to a couple of things:

1.) The amount of shit he got done in the time he was in the Senate. He has gotten a lot of bills through. "Most of his legislative effort has been in the area of Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills), health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills), consumer protection/labor (14 bills), the needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills), Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills), Foreign Policy (10 bills) Voting and Elections (9 bills), Education (7 bills), Hurricane Katrina Relief (6), the Environment (5 bills), Homeland Security (4 bills), and discrimination (4 bills)." (It's off of the Daily Kos, but you can look up the Senate record yourself.)

2.) His bipartisan efforts in the Illinois State Senate.

3.) His volunteer work organizing in Chicago. That's a good, ground level, people experience that he will never forget. He truly worked with the people.
How many of those bills did he introduce? How many did he just co-sponsor? What subcommittee work has he done?

The real answer is that he hasn't done too much on his own. Fine for a junior Senator. Not fine for someone that wants to lead.
The real REAL answer is that he hasn't introduced anything that's passed. Out of 124 bills that he sponsored, NONE have even been voted on, except for amendments. Almost every one has been referred to a committee and died.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/d?d110:0:./temp/~bdsaC6:[[o]]&items=100&|/bss/d110query.html|

She has told some Democrats recently that she wanted Obama to agree to allow a roll call vote, like days of yore, so that the delegates of states she won would cast the first ballot for her at the convention. She said she wanted that for her daughter.

Obama supporters are worried that it’s a trick and she’ll somehow snatch away the nomination. Just as Hillary supporters have hardened toward him, many of Obama’s donors and fans have hardened against the Clintons, saying it would be disillusioning to see them on a ticket that’s supposed to be about fresh politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/opinion/04dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

This is really really fucked up. Clinton shouldn't be allowed to walk in public anymore.

Okay, they need some screening. Maybe just two or three questioners ahead, though -- have a couple screeners working the crowd for the next question that isn't about Uncle Ernie's Social Security check, or Aunt Millie's lost cat.

Yeah, which brings up a point I forgot to address. Another reason you need to screen questions is to ensure that you don't just get a lot of really thinly veiled criticisms all day. Such as, "Hey, how come your policy on x sucks so bad?"

How many of those bills did he introduce? How many did he just co-sponsor? What subcommittee work has he done?

The real answer is that he hasn't done too much on his own. Fine for a junior Senator. Not fine for someone that wants to lead.

The contrary position, of course, is that 'experience' hasn't necessarily done us any favours, and maybe, a little less being tarred by the Washington brush might actually be a point in favour?

The contrary position, of course, is that 'experience' hasn't necessarily done us any favours, and maybe, a little less being tarred by the Washington brush might actually be a point in favour?

4 rilz.

For me, I think the whole experience thing is a bit of a wash. On one hand, it's nice to know what you're getting into when you start a new job. On the other, you're right; experience hasn't brought us a whole lot of positive recently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/opinion/04dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

This is really really fucked up. Clinton shouldn't be allowed to walk in public anymore.

Because of an opinion piece?

Christ, I wish I hadn't read the link... I've read less partisan death-threats.