NationStates Jolt Archive

So, is this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/democrats/2058907/US-Elections-Hillary-Clinton-to-be-offered-dignified-exit.html) the light at the end of the tunnel?

Either that or Ryouga just punched a hole in the tunnel while passing through...

But seriously, I hope so. I don't think she deserves even a cabinet position at this point(given her attitude and the way she's been acting she deserves to be tossed out on her ass for good) but I'll take it if it means this stupid shit'll stop.

So, is this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/democrats/2058907/US-Elections-Hillary-Clinton-to-be-offered-dignified-exit.html) the light at the end of the tunnel?

So, he's going to offer her HHS Secretary?

So, is this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/democrats/2058907/US-Elections-Hillary-Clinton-to-be-offered-dignified-exit.html) the light at the end of the tunnel?

It bothers me that CTOAN had this so much more closely nailed than I did. I gave her the benefit of the doubt all these months. I think she really is trapped by her own rhetoric. This IS appeasement and it will play as appeasement. It will look bad for his strength. It will look like he's put a woman in "her place". I assume there will be jokes about nursing. It will not address the "you people cheated by not being willing to change the rules until I won" rhetoric.

Frankly, I'd like to believe this will help, but I have to say, I've lost faith in her ability to correct the errors of her campaign at this point.

So, he's hoing to offer her HHS Secretary?

That's what it looks like - either HHS or a legislative management type dealy. That and helping her pay off her campaign debts.

There's also a suggestion there that he'll offer Edwards the AG slot and Biden SecState, with a quote from Obama regarding Lincoln's having brought his contenders into the cabinet.

I'd rather not see her (or Richardson) anywhere near the White House, but HHS I can go with. Richardson could make a good SecState as well, IMO. Maybe Richardson as SecState and Biden as NSA.

And to top it all off with another Lincolnesque move, Hagel as VP. :D

That's what it looks like - either HHS or a legislative management type dealy. That and helping her pay off her campaign debts.

There's also a suggestion there that he'll offer Edwards the AG slot and Biden SecState, with a quote from Obama regarding Lincoln's having brought his contenders into the cabinet.

I'd rather not see her (or Richardson) anywhere near the White House, but HHS I can go with. Richardson could make a good SecState as well, IMO. Maybe Richardson as SecState and Biden as NSA.

And to top it all off with another Lincolnesque move, Hagel as VP. :D

He could reach out to the other party and offer a slot to Lieberman.

All this has done in the end is cost Obama any chance of winning Michigan in November, and with it the election.
I agree.

I am infuriated. I see this as a contravention of the democratic process. If Obama is the nominee, I am prepared to throw my support to John McCain.

You've said this already. That thing play any other tunes?

I agree.

It's interesting how your conclusion is always the same no matter how much the landscape changes. I wonder if that's coincidence or if it's because the evidence has nothing to do with what conclusion you'll offer.

Sorry, I'm just kidding. I don't actually wonder.

It bothers me that CTOAN had this so much more closely nailed than I did. I gave her the benefit of the doubt all these months. I think she really is trapped by her own rhetoric.

I started to say I never gave her the benifit of the doubt, but I did. For example, I'm still quite surprised by the racism.

This IS appeasement and it will play as appeasement. It will look bad for his strength. It will look like he's put a woman in "her place". I assume there will be jokes about nursing. It will not address the "you people cheated by not being willing to change the rules until I won" rhetoric.

Well, this is polyticks. When one gets down in the mud to wrestle, one will get a bit dirty. I expect this tine of Morton's Fork is better than the alternative... And enough of her supporters are rational actors who will get over it.

Frankly, I'd like to believe this will help, but I have to say, I've lost faith in her ability to correct the errors of her campaign at this point.

Ya know, back in January, I didn't think it would be possible for my opinion of her to go any lower, yet it did, dramatically so.

You mixed up many dates, made claims which were false ("all SurveyUSA"), and felt that it was okay to suggest that it was I who was being "intellectually dishonest", not once but twice. You can't see the disconnect?


One thing about Vegas though, is that the odds are constantly changing, depending where the money is going. The odds will change and McCain will be favoured before this election is over.


You got that wrong....Obama is the one that is done.

Really? So Obama will not be moving on (he already has) to the General election? Is that how he's done? Obama is getting attacked b y Hillary and McCain right now and Vegas still has him as the favorite. Hillary's 15-1 at this point. She's finished. The Supers will seal it right after June 3rd. So tell me more about how Obama is finished.

He could reach out to the other party and offer a slot to Lieberman.

LOL - actually I was wondering if McCain'd be doing that, as it's been banmdied about. The RINO and the DINO would make a good ticket. ;)

I'll say that I like Hagel as the VP for his stance on Iraq, which has been the driving force between my politics that last several years.

What kills me is one of the many changes in tune, she said she'd fight for the states and what they wanted. Well, Florida wanted a pass, but after that fell the vote was near unanimous for the half vote. Michigan's proposal was accepted and that's the one she's upset about.

She can't say it's about the will of the state, because that is what the state brought forth. She can't say it's about the will of the voters because she wants to pretend that 40% of the voters really had no preference.

Why would she insist that undecided be undecided when in all likely hood that would mean that the delegates would vote for Obama anyway? Or that it still wouldn't close the gap enough even if she ran unopposed in the next three elections?

Remember that popular vote argument? Yeah, well, if you give the unassigned delegates to Obama you essentially validate those popular votes for Obama, and suddenly, bye bye popular vote argument. That's it. That's the brass ring she's hoping for. She has to paint this like 2000, but she can't do that if you validate in some way the uncommitted votes in Michigan. There is no argument left, the supers are politicians, they know better than to read polls taken during a contested primary five months before the election as gospel, especially when what they show is that it is a wide open race. The only thing, the only weakness, is that they don't want to be seen usurping the electorate.

She had 13 supporters on that committee. Only 8 voted against the Michigan compromise. Even her supporters aren't necessarily buying it.

But she didn't take into account that this argument she was taking to the supers was in front of her supporters. She didn't take into account that it might not work. She didn't take into account that once you whip up a mob it's nearly impossible to unwhip them.

She's screwed herself and the party. She may try and fall in line, try and campaign for Obama, but if her die hard supporters torpedo the party it will be for naught, she'll be done in the party and she'll have soiled her husbands legacy beyond recovery. I could be wrong, I was wrong about the revotes. I've never wanted to be wrong more. I just don't see an out, I don't see a way to turn this narrative around for her. The only silver lining, and it's about as slim as they come, is in the end whose fault this is will be crystal clear.

Uh...RCP average indicates an Obama victory in Ohio as well as in Pennsylvania. Now can I see proof to back this up?
Wrong. RCP's collection of polls indicate that he might win or he might lose:

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

And some here question SurveyUSA.

This is why I state that RCP is junk science. Here we have a case of two pollsters showing that McCain is favoured over Obama in Ohio, but one poll shows that Obama is favoured over McCain, how can it be possible that one poll somehow negates the other two?

Now, which poll is more relliable, the one that sampled 1,244 Ohio voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percent; or the one that sampled 600 voters, with a Margin of Sampling Error: ± 4.1%, or the one that sampled 500 voters with a margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4?

How can anybody just lump these 3 polls together and state "RCP average indicates an Obama victory in Ohio"?

Yup....junk science.

Wrong. RCP's collection of polls indicate that he might win or he might lose:

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

And some here question SurveyUSA.

How do you do it? How do you manage to be wrong even when you're right? Seriously, I want to know. That is an amazing skill. Really, I'm being honest, I'm in awe.

Corny is right, the average does show him winning. An average takes a collection and then...ah screw it, this has been explained to you so many times that we can just say that math simply is not your thing.

But I handed you this bone a page or so ago when I talked about this very poll. In fact, we spent page after page explaining how to read this, and even though I outlined this specific problem for you, you still fuck it up. Monumental.

Because it's not SurveyUSA per se, but when they step out of the plurality of the other polls making it more likely that their sample population was flawed. Like in this case, where their numbers are at their closest 10 points away. Three polls is not enough to determine outliers, but you can look at the three numbers and start humming "One of these things does not belong..." It isn't as likely that SurveyUSA got the right sample and the other two got the exact same wrong sample, so it's reasonable to throw that number out, or at least take it with a grain of salt.

That being said, the remaining polls still put Obama within the margin of error, and certainly puts the state in play. I'll say it to you like I said it to Shal, if a 4% lead in a poll 5 months away for the election makes you concede the state as lost, you do not have the stomach for politics.

How do you do it? How do you manage to be wrong even when you're right? Seriously, I want to know. That is an amazing skill. Really, I'm being honest, I'm in awe.

Corny is right, the average does show him winning. An average takes a collection and then...ah screw it, this has been explained to you so many times that we can just say that math simply is not your thing.

But I handed you this bone a page or so ago when I talked about this very poll. In fact, we spent page after page explaining how to read this, and even though I outlined this specific problem for you, you still fuck it up. Monumental.

Because it's not SurveyUSA per se, but when they step out of the plurality of the other polls making it more likely that their sample population was flawed. Like in this case, where their numbers are at their closest 10 points away. Three polls is not enough to determine outliers, but you can look at the three numbers and start humming "One of these things does not belong..." It isn't as likely that SurveyUSA got the right sample and the other two got the exact same wrong sample, so it's reasonable to throw that number out, or at least take it with a grain of salt.

That being said, the remaining polls still put Obama within the margin of error, and certainly puts the state in play. I'll say it to you like I said it to Shal, if a 4% lead in a poll 5 months away for the election makes you concede the state as lost, you do not have the stomach for politics.

Sesame Street has a game that teaches you how to view data. Seven-year-olds learn it rather quickly.

"One of these things is not like the other. One of these things is not the same."

Again, he's not analyzing data. He's just reporting data that agrees with him and complaining when it doesn't. The sad bit is that every once in a while one of the guys here gives him an argument that would be dramatically easy to win, but he paints himself into corners by the way he attacks polls. It makes it so he can't even use a reliable poll to prove someone wrong because five pages earlier he was attacking the same pollster.

The best example is how he says "some say that SurveyUSA isn't reliable." That some was HIM.

Canuck, your candidate's campaign is dead. History, kaput. Stop fucking arguing she should win. She won't, she can't, and she'd damn well better drop out and play nice for once in her life.

You can't win any argument you're bringing. God knows you've proven that time and time again. At this point I'd call your constant bullshit trolling. You're just out to stir up shit. You know Hillary is history, hopefully history judges her for how she's acted this year.

To add some content to this thread: Young Hillary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAu39I5QOUc). Apologies if it's already been posted.

Canuck, your candidate's campaign is dead. History, kaput. Stop fucking arguing she should win. She won't, she can't, and she'd damn well better drop out and play nice for once in her life.

You can't win any argument you're bringing. God knows you've proven that time and time again. At this point I'd call your constant bullshit trolling. You're just out to stir up shit. You know Hillary is history, hopefully history judges her for how she's acted this year.

To add some content to this thread: Young Hillary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAu39I5QOUc). Apologies if it's already been posted.

Hopefully history judges Obama for the damage he's done this year to the Party. Clinton is our best shot to take back the White House. We were not taken in by the glitz and glamor of Mr. Obama. Behind that polish is a deeply flawed candidate, and that will become apparent when he gets into the general and loses Michigan, Florida, and God-knows what else to John McCain.

More troubling will be the split in the Party that will persist for probably some years to come. Obama is not being fueled by the centrist Democrats. He's a product of the left-wing of the Party, and you can see that in the really vicious, bitter attacks waged against Clinton by his supporters. The centrist-Democrats are a prize waiting to be snapped up by McCain in the fall.

He could reach out to the other party and offer a slot to Lieberman.

That would be neat.

Hopefully history judges Obama for the damage he's done this year to the Party. Clinton is our best shot to take back the White House. We were not taken in by the glitz and glamor of Mr. Obama. Behind that polish is a deeply flawed candidate, and that will become apparent when he gets into the general and loses Michigan, Florida, and God-knows what else to John McCain.

More troubling will be the split in the Party that will persist for probably some years to come. Obama is not being fueled by the centrist Democrats. He's a product of the left-wing of the Party, and you can see that in the really vicious, bitter attacks waged against Clinton by his supporters. The centrist-Democrats are a prize waiting to be snapped up by McCain in the fall.

Uh huh, buh bye now.

Ya know, back in January, I didn't think it would be possible for my opinion of her to go any lower, yet it did, dramatically so.

Heck, back in January I was neutral towards her and now I hate her utterly and completely.

Hopefully history judges Obama for the damage he's done this year to the Party.

Hopefully, history judges Clinton for the damage she's done this year to the party.

Clinton is our best shot to take back the White House.

Not according to the vote totals.

We were not taken in by the glitz and glamor of Mr. Obama. Behind that polish is a deeply flawed candidate, and that will become apparent when he gets into the general and loses Michigan, Florida, and God-knows what else to John McCain.

There were two fully flawed candidates in this Election! McCain and Clinton.

More troubling will be the split in the Party that will persist for probably some years to come.

Thanks to the bitch you support.

Obama is not being fueled by the centrist Democrats. He's a product of the left-wing of the Party, and you can see that in the really vicious, bitter attacks waged against Clinton by his supporters. The centrist-Democrats are a prize waiting to be snapped up by McCain in the fall.

I doubt he'll be able to do so.

Hopefully, history judges Clinton for the damage she's done this year to the party.



Not according to the vote totals.



There were two fully flawed candidates in this Election! McCain and Clinton.



Thanks to the bitch you support.



I doubt he'll be able to do so.


That is flamebaiting, and I am logging off before I get really angry and say something that I will regret later on.

Hopefully history judges Obama for the damage he's done this year to the Party. Clinton is our best shot to take back the White House. We were not taken in by the glitz and glamor of Mr. Obama. Behind that polish is a deeply flawed candidate, and that will become apparent when he gets into the general and loses Michigan, Florida, and God-knows what else to John McCain.

More troubling will be the split in the Party that will persist for probably some years to come. Obama is not being fueled by the centrist Democrats. He's a product of the left-wing of the Party, and you can see that in the really vicious, bitter attacks waged against Clinton by his supporters. The centrist-Democrats are a prize waiting to be snapped up by McCain in the fall.

"Boo-hoo, Obama is evil and damaged the party by running against Clinton, boo-hoo, you are all sexist meanies when you say anything about her that isn't a compliment, but I can say anything about that fucking n*gger without it being racism, boo-hoo, Obama attacked us for trying to change the rules only in ways that we saw fit, boo-hoo, Clinton lost because she ran a shoddy campaign."

Stop playing the victim. The only one History will judge for splitting the party is HRC. Obama is the victim here, not Clinton.

That is flamebaiting, and I am logging off before I get really angry and say something that I will regret later on.

Perhaps we could get a mod to rule on that? Or you're just deciding that any criticism of her is flamebaiting?

Edit: Corny, TG.

That is flamebaiting, and I am logging off before I get really angry and say something that I will regret later on.

I would love to know what was the part that was flaimbating.

Hopefully history judges Obama for the damage he's done this year to the Party. Clinton is our best shot to take back the White House. We were not taken in by the glitz and glamor of Mr. Obama. Behind that polish is a deeply flawed candidate, and that will become apparent when he gets into the general and loses Michigan, Florida, and God-knows what else to John McCain.


what terrible thing has mr. obama done outside of winning the nomination?

what terrible thing has mr. obama done outside of winning the nomination?

He ran a campaign, he competed against Hillary, he was a better candidate, he raised more money, he won more states, he won more delegates, he won more votes, he...

I would love to know what was the part that was flaimbating.

Failure to bow to the superiority of Hillary!

He ran a campaign, he competed against Hillary, he was a better candidate, he raised more money, he won more states, he won more delegates, he won more votes, he...

he used the rules and structure of the nomination process to get enough delegates to win.

the bastard.

Perhaps we could get a mod to rule on that? Or you're just deciding that any criticism of her is flamebaiting?

Edit: Corny, TG.

Accusations of flamebaiting are the last resort of people who are losing arguments on NS General.

Accusations of flamebaiting are the last resort of people who are losing arguments on NS General.

Sounds like the first resort here.

By the way, you're flamebaiting me if you disagree. ;)

Hopefully history judges Obama for the damage he's done this year to the Party. Clinton is our best shot to take back the White House. We were not taken in by the glitz and glamor of Mr. Obama. Behind that polish is a deeply flawed candidate, and that will become apparent when he gets into the general and loses Michigan, Florida, and God-knows what else to John McCain.

More troubling will be the split in the Party that will persist for probably some years to come. Obama is not being fueled by the centrist Democrats. He's a product of the left-wing of the Party, and you can see that in the really vicious, bitter attacks waged against Clinton by his supporters. The centrist-Democrats are a prize waiting to be snapped up by McCain in the fall.

I don't agree with some of the replies you've gotten. I think they were unnecessarily vitriolic. However, I do take exception to the denial of repeated and fair requests that you explain how Obama divided the party. And I do exception to the denial of repeated and fair requests that you explain how he is flawed.

I assume you have something that qualifies that statement and I'll wait for it to arrive in thread.

As far as whether he draws centrist or not he does as well or better than Hillary with independents.

Accusations of flamebaiting are the last resort of people who are losing arguments on NS General.

Well, that and conspiracy theories about how NSG is full of X kind of people and that's why one can't win an argument. Of late it seems to be that the accusation is that the evil liberal NSG conspiracy makes it impossible to offer up a good argument. You know, cuz who you're arguing against affects your ability to offer your argument on a web forum.

Hopefully history judges Obama for the damage he's done this year to the Party.

As I said before, history will judge the Unmentionable One and supoporters like you for the blood on your hands if indeed you manage to screw Obama.

Clinton is our best shot to take back the White House.

No. Just straight no.

Obama was the candidate that brought me back to the Dems after the Unmentionable One and her husband were part of what kept me away.

We were not taken in by the glitz and glamor of Mr. Obama.

Indeed no. Instead, you were taken in by a cheating slime ball, who's stooped lower step by step.

I look at Obama and the Unmentionable One side by side and I see a decent guy and a slime ball who I've despised for twenty years.

Behind that polish is a deeply flawed candidate, and that will become apparent when he gets into the general and loses Michigan, Florida, and God-knows what else to John McCain.

I look at posters like you and see someone who's willing to put to US service men and women to death because you didn't get your way.

More troubling will be the split in the Party that will persist for probably some years to come.

That split appears to have already existed. And it has been exploited by your candidate. That she's seemingly willing to exploit it and persue her defeat til August for her own selfishness speaks volumes.

Obama is not being fueled by the centrist Democrats. He's a product of the left-wing of the Party, and you can see that in the really vicious, bitter attacks waged against Clinton by his supporters. The centrist-Democrats are a prize waiting to be snapped up by McCain in the fall.

Mmmm... Yes. That's right. I was a left wing Dem when I voted for GHWBush twice, Bob Dole, and GWBush once. Oops.

The increased disgust I have at the Unmentionable One has nothing to do with her racist attacks, dirty rules breaking campaign, or her chutzpah for claiming she's been cheated when the rules she agreed to were broken in her favor.

And your claim that disagreement with you is somehow flamebating takes an equal amount of chutzpah.

However, I do take exception to the denial of repeated and fair requests that you explain how Obama divided the party.

Frankly, I do not think you'll ever see an answer to that, because he's not the candidate who's done so. Shal is unwillining admit that it's his candidate that's done so.

As far as whether he draws centrist or not he does as well or better than Hillary with independents.

As part of that "'left wing' of the Dem party" who support Obama after having voted GOP for four of the last five elections, uhmmm... say what?

Canuck, your candidate's campaign is dead. History, kaput. Stop fucking arguing she should win. She won't, she can't, and she'd damn well better drop out and play nice for once in her life.
This is a free forum? Freedom of speech is the pinnacle of democracy? She is STILL in the race and I fully support her candidacy. You have a problem with Hillary and have for quite some time...that is your problem.

You can't win any argument you're bringing. God knows you've proven that time and time again. At this point I'd call your constant bullshit trolling. You're just out to stir up shit. You know Hillary is history, hopefully history judges her for how she's acted this year.
You have your opinion and I have mine, and I will continue to express my opinion. Hillary has the best shot at winning for the Dems. The very least that she should get out of this process is the VP slot.

Now....why is it that you support Obama?

Obama I don't know, but hell he seems less slimy than her.
Interesting. :p

Interesting. :p
To be fair, and this is coming from outside of the bizarre polarised world of US political supporters (Not satisfied with dividing the country into two camps of Democrat vs. Republican? Why not divide the Democrats too!!) Clinton's conduct after it became clear she wouldn't have an easy ride to the nomination has been appalling.

Not that Obama's camp hasn't used some fairly underhand methods also, but he Clinton campaign reeks of tired spin.

This is a free forum? Freedom of speech is the pinnacle of democracy? She is STILL in the race and I fully support her candidacy.

No she's not. Just can't push her out, or it'll be the evil sexists doing it. Don't dare piss off her professionally and perpetually offended followers. Fucking persecution complex with the whole lot of you.

Mmmm... Yes. That's right. I was a left wing Dem when I voted for GHWBush twice, Bob Dole, and GWBush once. Oops.

The increased disgust I have at the Unmentionable One has nothing to do with her racist attacks, dirty rules breaking campaign, or her chutzpah for claiming she's been cheated when the rules she agreed to were broken in her favor.

I find it amusing Clinton supporters are now using Liberal as an insult. I guess I'm another ultra liberal. I mean I grew up in a red state in a town of 1,000 people. Weeee! LIBERAL!


:rolleyes:

See the coordinates for my location, that's where I fucking grew up.

I find it amusing Clinton supporters are now using Liberal as an insult. I guess I'm another ultra liberal. I mean I grew up in a red state in a town of 1,000 people. Weeee! LIBERAL!


:rolleyes:

See the coordinates for my location, that's where I fucking grew up.

Well, my dear little bro did send me an email Yesterday accusing me of being "just another damned commie".

OTOH, I just now got an email from him saying how the South Africans he's instructing at the moment are "viciously slamming" the Unmentionable One.

Note to the supporters of the Unmentionable One: When people in such a despicable place as SA are slaming your candidate for racism, maybe, just maybe you should take notice....

I love how people have been calling her a communist for years, and now all of a sudden she's a centrist.

I love how people have been calling her a communist for years, and now all of a sudden she's a centrist.

She always has been. The communist label has always been innacurate. Before she decided to be a wedge in the party and was 'innevitable' they had to paint her as a 'communist' because if anyone thought about her positions they would find out that she's a lot closer to their candidate and some of those people might actually vote for her. She was a good candidate. Her strength in the primary was valid. Ultimately it was things like transparency and diplomacy that made the difference. Her biggest problem came when she started to lose and she started setting fire to the building.

She always has been. The communist label has always been innacurate. Before she decided to be a wedge in the party and was 'innevitable' they had to paint her as a 'communist' because if anyone thought about her positions they would find out that she's a lot closer to their candidate and some of those people might actually vote for her. She was a good candidate. Her strength in the primary was valid. Ultimately it was things like transparency and diplomacy that made the difference. Her biggest problem came when she started to lose and she started setting fire to the building.

^this

I think all sides have reason to be upset with current events, which suggests we've arrived at a fair solution.

I, personally, had to take a break because I find the threats to be fairly upsetting given what is at stake. If staying calm isn't something you can do and still post, then it's a good idea to take a similar break. Go for a walk. See a movie. Steal a toy from a child. Do something. The "unmentionable one"/"bitch"/"whore"/"n-----" comments and the accusations aren't helping anyone.

It's one thing to get into spirited debate, but some of this stuff cuts off debate before it begins. Are people supposed to debate whether she is unmentionable?

*looks in the mirror* Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. What do you know? Nothing happened.

She always has been. The communist label has always been innacurate. Before she decided to be a wedge in the party and was 'innevitable' they had to paint her as a 'communist' because if anyone thought about her positions they would find out that she's a lot closer to their candidate and some of those people might actually vote for her.

I'll agree there. While a lot of the negatives that have been cast her way were accurate and well deserved, and have been reinforced and magnified during this campaign, the "HRC is da commy!" idiocy is exactly that - idiocy.

She was a good candidate.

This is where I'm going to have to part ways with you. The strong degree of personal negative baggage she carried made her a bad candidate from the get go.

Her strength in the primary was valid. Ultimately it was things like transparency and diplomacy that made the difference.

Her racist pandering, aka straight up racscm, didn't help.... Nor did baseless claims of sexism. Note for future campaigns: if you want to claim sexism, have actual sexism to show.

Her biggest problem came when she started to lose and she started setting fire to the building.

IMO, her "difficulties"/deficiencies were fully realised, full blown and established well before this campaign season.

I think all sides have reason to be upset with current events, which suggests we've arrived at a fair solution.

Heh. Probably quite true.

The "unmentionable one"/"bitch"/"whore"/"n-----" comments and the accusations aren't helping anyone.

Would you rather I use terms fully expresive of my disregards rather than "the Unmentionable One"?

Doing so would most likely garner an enforced "vacation"....

I'll agree there. While a lot of the negatives that have been cast her way were accurate and well deserved, and have been reinforced and magnified during this campaign, the "HRC is da commy!" idiocy is exactly that - idiocy.



This is where I'm going to have to part ways with you. The strong degree of personal negative baggage she carried made her a bad candidate from the get go.



Her racist pandering, aka straight up racscm, didn't help.... Nor did baseless claims of sexism. Note for future campaigns: if you want to claim sexism, have actual sexism to show.



IMO, her "difficulties"/deficiencies were fully realised, full blown and established well before this campaign season.
I'll agree that she came fully packed before the campaign began, but for me a while ago I decided I was no longer going to vote against a candidate. There would be candidates that I didn't vote for-I will not vote for McCain for reasons I've outlined before. In the analysis of the Democratic contenders I wasn't looking for reasons to not vote for any of them, but reasons to vote for one of them. Clinton didn't regret the authorization for war, just who she gave it to. I didn't buy the build up for war and neither did Obama. But being right about the war wasn't enough. I felt very strongly that diplomacy was the thing most sorely needed in the next president. It's why I leaned to Richardson early on, and why I leaned Obama when it was clear Richardson was out. (I should say again, I never dug deep enough on him to know if I would have fully supported him, but when I looked at the diplomatic chops of the candidates he is the one who stood out). Clinton had baggage but a lot of that came from her being the boogeyman of the Republicans since her husband took office and often had as much substance as the 'communist' claim.

That didn't dissuade me, again, I do not want to vote against a candidate. I chose who I chose based on what I said, transparency and diplomacy. The major negatives for Clinton didn't emerge until after she started to lose. I don't care if Celtlund thought she was a commie, or if talk radio thought she was evil, or whatever. I don't respect their opinion on anything else so there's no reason for me to change that tune. But the desperation moves, the constantly changing goal posts, the specious accusations, not being able to see that she's created a monster she can no longer control, these didn't really emerge until after she started to lose. It's not because she's a woman, they're long overdue. It's not because her supporters are nutty or some perceived slight, read through the comments sections of any of the articles linked here and you'll see plenty of nutty and assholery to go around. She will not be able to 'game' the general election. There has been sexism and there has been racism, and there will be for any female or black candidate who runs for office for some time. If the candidate can't deal with it and overcome it, then there will never be a female or black candidate. You can bitch about it or you can say 'Fuck you, I'm sitting in the front of the bus anyway and you can just deal.'

You know, I literally just woke up and I kinda lost track of where I was going with this, I've been typing for the last few minutes hoping I'd magically come to the point. I'm going to stop now...

She always has been. The communist label has always been innacurate. Before she decided to be a wedge in the party and was 'innevitable' they had to paint her as a 'communist' because if anyone thought about her positions they would find out that she's a lot closer to their candidate and some of those people might actually vote for her. She was a good candidate. Her strength in the primary was valid. Ultimately it was things like transparency and diplomacy that made the difference. Her biggest problem came when she started to lose and she started setting fire to the building.

Oh, I understand that. I was never one of the people that did the communist name-calling. I just find it all a bit amusing that supporters of a woman who's been falsely labeled "communist" for the better part of 20 years have started throwing around "liberal" as if it were an insult.

Young Hillary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAu39I5QOUc). Apologies if it's already been posted.
That is a horridly unfair parody, and yet it's hilarious. I shouldn't be laughing, but I am.

To be fair, and this is coming from outside of the bizarre polarised world of US political supporters (Not satisfied with dividing the country into two camps of Democrat vs. Republican? Why not divide the Democrats too!!) Clinton's conduct after it became clear she wouldn't have an easy ride to the nomination has been appalling.

Not that Obama's camp hasn't used some fairly underhand methods also, but he Clinton campaign reeks of tired spin.
I suspect that many Democrats WILL divide come November.....not into a new party, but their votes will show up in the Ralph Nader tick box.

In regards to Hillary running as an independent (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/38_of_democrats_want_clinton_to_drop_out):

However, if Clinton does not win the Democratic Party nomination, 29% of Democrats say she should run an Independent campaign for the White House. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Democrats disagree. Clinton supporters are evenly divided on the question.
More interesting stuff from that article, which shows a severe party riff:

By a 67% to 20% mark, Obama supporters say that Clinton should leave the race. But, just 4% of those who support Senator Clinton agree. Forty-four percent of Clinton supporters believe Obama should drop out while 42% disagree.

I'll agree that she came fully packed before the campaign began, but for me a while ago I decided I was no longer going to vote against a candidate. There would be candidates that I didn't vote for-I will not vote for McCain for reasons I've outlined before. In the analysis of the Democratic contenders I wasn't looking for reasons to not vote for any of them, but reasons to vote for one of them. Clinton didn't regret the authorization for war, just who she gave it to. I didn't buy the build up for war and neither did Obama. But being right about the war wasn't enough. I felt very strongly that diplomacy was the thing most sorely needed in the next president. It's why I leaned to Richardson early on, and why I leaned Obama when it was clear Richardson was out. (I should say again, I never dug deep enough on him to know if I would have fully supported him, but when I looked at the diplomatic chops of the candidates he is the one who stood out). Clinton had baggage but a lot of that came from her being the boogeyman of the Republicans since her husband took office and often had as much substance as the 'communist' claim.

That didn't dissuade me, again, I do not want to vote against a candidate. I chose who I chose based on what I said, transparency and diplomacy. The major negatives for Clinton didn't emerge until after she started to lose. I don't care if Celtlund thought she was a commie, or if talk radio thought she was evil, or whatever. I don't respect their opinion on anything else so there's no reason for me to change that tune. But the desperation moves, the constantly changing goal posts, the specious accusations, not being able to see that she's created a monster she can no longer control, these didn't really emerge until after she started to lose. It's not because she's a woman, they're long overdue. It's not because her supporters are nutty or some perceived slight, read through the comments sections of any of the articles linked here and you'll see plenty of nutty and assholery to go around. She will not be able to 'game' the general election. There has been sexism and there has been racism, and there will be for any female or black candidate who runs for office for some time. If the candidate can't deal with it and overcome it, then there will never be a female or black candidate. You can bitch about it or you can say 'Fuck you, I'm sitting in the front of the bus anyway and you can just deal.'

You know, I literally just woke up and I kinda lost track of where I was going with this, I've been typing for the last few minutes hoping I'd magically come to the point. I'm going to stop now...

I think we all get the gist of what you're saying, and I know I agree with it.

To add some content to this thread: Young Hillary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAu39I5QOUc). Apologies if it's already been posted.

I think there were funny bits but they missed many of the opportunities for parody and beat that one drum pretty badly.

I did laught at the "nobody knows" bit.

I suspect that many Democrats WILL divide come November.....not into a new party, but their votes will show up in the Ralph Nader tick box.

In regards to Hillary running as an independent (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/38_of_democrats_want_clinton_to_drop_out):


More interesting stuff from that article, which shows a severe party riff:

Are you arguing her supporters are deluded? Why on God's green earth would Obama drop out? Only 42% of the people polled think the winner has a right to continue the "race"?

Hillary Clinton has made a grave error. The level of Hillary hate in this country will reach a crescendo if she runs as an independent. She and her team are well aware that doing so would fail and the only reason for doing so would be to prevent Dems from reaching the white house.

Here's the questions that NO ONE will answer.

What exactly has the Democratic party done that was anti-woman? I've heard this claim, someone, anyone support it?

What has Obama done that was divisive? He's been praising Hillary since April when it was no longer necessary to run against her. He's told her that she should, of course, make her own determination of when to leave the race.

What exactly is it that makes it Obama's fault that this happened?

I don't expect an answer. But it's the question that EVERYONE should ask. When Kiki and Ickes show up on television, anchors need to ask what exactly it is that her followers should be agree with Dems and Obama about. The solution to FL and MI had NOTHING to do with the sex of the participants. When you meet people who are still supporting Hillary (I honestly don't know anyone that hasn't said this is pathetic including some strong Clinton supporters) ask them. When you the press encounters them they need to ask. I don't believe there is an answer. I strongly question whether there isn't something ELSE backing these claims.

Are you arguing her supporters are deluded? Why on God's green earth would Obama drop out? Only 42% of the people polled think the winner has a right to continue the "race"?

Hillary Clinton has made a grave error. The level of Hillary hate in this country will reach a crescendo if she runs as an independent. She and her team are well aware that doing so would fail and the only reason for doing so would be to prevent Dems from reaching the white house.

Here's the questions that NO ONE will answer.

What exactly has the Democratic party done that was anti-woman? I've heard this claim, someone, anyone support it?

What has Obama done that was divisive? He's been praising Hillary since April when it was no longer necessary to run against her. He's told her that she should, of course, make her own determination of when to leave the race.

What exactly is it that makes it Obama's fault that this happened?

I don't expect an answer. But it's the question that EVERYONE should ask. When Kiki and Ickes show up on television, anchors need to ask what exactly it is that her followers should be agree with Dems and Obama about. The solution to FL and MI had NOTHING to do with the sex of the participants. When you meet people who are still supporting Hillary (I honestly don't know anyone that hasn't said this is pathetic including some strong Clinton supporters) ask them. When you the press encounters them they need to ask. I don't believe there is an answer. I strongly question whether there isn't something ELSE backing these claims.
I've been dying to know why this is Obama's fault.

I've been dying to know why this is Obama's fault.

Don't you understand? He ran against Clinton!

So I was just talking to my brother who I just found out WAS a Clinton supporter. For the relevance of this, though, let me add that he thinks ANYONE who didn't stand up before MI and FL and say this is a stupid idea and I'm campaigning anyway betrayed those two states. So he is mad at both camps for not standing up for those states but also hold that neither election had any real value.

My brother is also a veteran of Iraq I. He's poor (makes about 20K a year) and has a son with a woman he didn't know well at the time and doesn't really get along with. He pays child support religiously.

So poor, white veteran male, if there is a need to classify.

My brother suggested healing the party is relatively easy:

Clinton: "I came into this election with the mindset that in order to beat the Republicans we had to be better at their game that they are. I think that everyone here will agree that I'm a better candidate than McCain and that I ran a harder campaign that employed every strategy the Republicans will ever be able to try. And guess what? Obama beat me. Obama beat someone you all agree was a better candidate than McCain. I've proved that I'll throw everything at you including the kitchen sink and Obama's candidacy is still standing.

It's time to get behind him. He's won the right to run as the Democratic candidate and I support him in this. He's proven to be a strong, resillient, intelligent candidate. It's clear that on many issues we agree. We voted the same 95% of the time in Congress. It's clear that he has the right position on these issues and it's clear that if we wish to stop our country from continuing on the current path that Barack Obama needs our help.

Obama for President in 2008. Thank you."

i think that doing that is her only chance at a future win of the democratic presidential nomination. sour grapes now makes her a dick and dooms her chances in the future

I don't know. It doesn't address the out of control narrative that this was stolen from her. I don't know that she can find a way to make the case for Obama's strength when she's staked and stoked so much this notion that she lost in spite of his weakness because of some perceived conspiracy.

I don't know. It doesn't address the out of control narrative that this was stolen from her. I don't know that she can find a way to make the case for Obama's strength when she's staked and stoked so much this notion that she lost in spite of his weakness because of some perceived conspiracy.

who buys that line outside of her husband and few rabid supporters anyway?

who buys that line outside of her husband and few rabid supporters anyway?

oh ya. and mr ickes

Ooops, wrong campaign's chant...(watching her victory speech...crowd started chanting "Yes We Can" )

It looks like the count will be about 300K votes. So much for the ludicrous predictions that if she gets 2 mill out of PR she's actually be ahead in the (nonexistent) popular vote.

That said, she won and won big. But what I found interesting is the CNN exit poll had 59% (read that twice) of the people voting on gender. Holy crap. 6 in 10 people voted based on gender. And a full 4 in 10 said it was the most important thing to vote on (of which three quarters voted for clinton). The overall people who voted on gender went only slightly higher to clinton than the general outcome, but wow. Just wow.

How do you overcome something like that? When 4 in 10 people suggest you pick a candidate on their parts? When 3 in 10 people say they'll vote for a woman because her being a woman is the most important thing?

I never calculated it out before, but about half of the current difference in popular vote can be directly attributed to people who voted for her because of her being a woman.

The win in Puerto Rico is huge. Not for the delegates it grants (which will not make up the deficit between Clinton and Obama). But because it demonstrates that despite Obama's efforts to shove her out of the race, she remains viable.

It also appears that she will pick up 100,000 votes on him, pushing that all-important popular vote calculation harder.

Now we move onto the next round of primaries and see if we can't chip into Obama's substantial leads in those contests. If we can narrow the gap sufficiently, we'll be in a position to make the argument to the superdelegates.

It looks like the count will be about 300K votes. So much for the ludicrous predictions that if she gets 2 mill out of PR she's actually be ahead in the (nonexistent) popular vote.

That said, she won and won big. But what I found interesting is the CNN exit poll had 59% (read that twice) of the people voting on gender. Holy crap. 6 in 10 people voted based on gender. And a full 4 in 10 said it was the most important thing to vote on (of which three quarters voted for clinton). The overall people who voted on gender went only slightly higher to clinton than the general outcome, but wow. Just wow.

How do you overcome something like that? When 4 in 10 people suggest you pick a candidate on their parts? When 3 in 10 people say they'll vote for a woman because her being a woman is the most important thing?

I never calculated it out before, but about half of the current difference in popular vote can be directly attributed to people who voted for her because of her being a woman.

Let us not forget that 91% of blacks in North Carolina voted for Barack Obama. If you're going to take a shot at women for voting "Hillary" because she's a woman, you should also frown on the fact that blacks are voting for Obama because he's black.

The win in Puerto Rico is huge. Not for the delegates it grants (which will not make up the deficit between Clinton and Obama). But because it demonstrates that despite Obama's efforts to shove her out of the race, she remains viable.

It also appears that she will pick up 100,000 votes on him, pushing that all-important popular vote calculation harder.

Now we move onto the next round of primaries and see if we can't chip into Obama's substantial leads in those contests. If we can narrow the gap sufficiently, we'll be in a position to make the argument to the superdelegates.

Why won't you address the questions you were asked? Do you not have answers?

What exactly has the Democratic party done that was anti-woman? I've heard this claim, someone, anyone support it?

What has Obama done that was divisive? He's been praising Hillary since April when it was no longer necessary to run against her. He's told her that she should, of course, make her own determination of when to leave the race.

What exactly is it that makes it Obama's fault that this happened?

Obama hasn't EVER tried to push her from the race. He has supported her continued candidacy.

T But because it demonstrates that despite Obama's efforts to shove her out of the race,

Such as...

Let us not forget that 91% of blacks in North Carolina voted for Barack Obama. If you're going to take a shot at women for voting "Hillary" because she's a woman, you should also frown on the fact that blacks are voting for Obama because he's black.

I'm not taking a shot at women. These are voters who said the gender of the candidate is most important. Women voting for a woman doesn't mean it's based on gender. 4 in 10 voters said it was the most important factor.

She gained 60K popular votes as a result of people who voted this way.

Show me the exit poll that shows 60% of voters supporting Obama because he's black. I'd love to see it.

Let us not forget that 91% of blacks in North Carolina voted for Barack Obama. If you're going to take a shot at women for voting "Hillary" because she's a woman, you should also frown on the fact that blacks are voting for Obama because he's black.

Black people weren't overwhelmingly pro-Obama until the Clinton campaign started pulling the racism card, until they started dismissing Obama's wins as being "because the blacks." The overwhelming black support for Obama is not (entirely, anyway-- I won't deny that some exists) a result of racism on their part, but because of a self-fulfilling prophecy from the Clinton campaign.

I'm not taking a shot at women. These are voters who said the gender of the candidate is most important. Women voting for a woman doesn't mean it's based on gender. 4 in 10 voters said it was the most important factor.

She gained 60K popular votes as a result of people who voted this way.

its interesting that this late in the game its the most important factor for 40% of the voters.

as americans, its tradition to vote for the guy who is going to win. its what we DO. yet they voted not for "the winner" but for the person with the correct gender. its odd.

So I was just talking to my brother who I just found out WAS a Clinton supporter. For the relevance of this, though, let me add that he thinks ANYONE who didn't stand up before MI and FL and say this is a stupid idea and I'm campaigning anyway betrayed those two states. So he is mad at both camps for not standing up for those states but also hold that neither election had any real value.

My brother is also a veteran of Iraq I. He's poor (makes about 20K a year) and has a son with a woman he didn't know well at the time and doesn't really get along with. He pays child support religiously.

So poor, white veteran male, if there is a need to classify.

My brother suggested healing the party is relatively easy:

Clinton: "I came into this election with the mindset that in order to beat the Republicans we had to be better at their game that they are. I think that everyone here will agree that I'm a better candidate than McCain and that I ran a harder campaign that employed every strategy the Republicans will ever be able to try. And guess what? Obama beat me. Obama beat someone you all agree was a better candidate than McCain. I've proved that I'll throw everything at you including the kitchen sink and Obama's candidacy is still standing.

It's time to get behind him. He's won the right to run as the Democratic candidate and I support him in this. He's proven to be a strong, resillient, intelligent candidate. It's clear that on many issues we agree. We voted the same 95% of the time in Congress. It's clear that he has the right position on these issues and it's clear that if we wish to stop our country from continuing on the current path that Barack Obama needs our help.

Obama for President in 2008. Thank you."

Sorry, Eric, but that's just a pipe dream. I've run the numbers again(with double checking to make sure I didn't somehow screw the math up again) and Obama's not going to have 2,118 delegates after Tuesday, because he needs at least twenty from Puerto Rico AND every delegate from Montana and South Dakota, and that's not happening.

Now, obviously, we all know this doesn't really matter. But Senator Clinton's going to leap on this with a fury and she's not going to let go.

Black people weren't overwhelmingly pro-Obama until the Clinton campaign started pulling the racism card, until they started dismissing Obama's wins as being "because the blacks." The overwhelming black support for Obama is not (entirely, anyway-- I won't deny that some exists) a result of racism on their part, but because of a self-fulfilling prophecy from the Clinton campaign.

i dont think they were overwhelmingly pro-obama until they got to know him and realized that he had a good chance. the clintons held their loyalty until then.

its interesting that this late in the game its the most important factor for 40% of the voters.

as americans, its tradition to vote for the guy who is going to win. its what we DO. yet they voted not for "the winner" but for the person with the correct gender. its odd.

Well, I'd suggest if the opposite were occurring, the Clinton campaign would be OUTRAGED. It is not, however.

She also got a huge boost by the popularity of her husband.

As a feminist, I don't like the narrative that promotes voting for a woman BECAUSE she's a woman and you really liked her husband.

Sorry, Eric, but that's just a pipe dream. I've run the numbers again(with double checking to make sure I didn't somehow screw the math up again) and Obama's not going to have 2,118 delegates after Tuesday, because he needs at least twenty from Puerto Rico AND every delegate from Montana and South Dakota, and that's not happening.

Now, obviously, we all know this doesn't really matter. But Senator Clinton's going to leap on this with a fury and she's not going to let go.

There's nothing to not let go of when Obama has enough Supers. It's going to be a avalanche on Wednesday. When he has 2200 delegates, what argument can she make?

There's nothing to not let go of when Obama has enough Supers. It's going to be a avalanche on Wednesday. When he has 2200 delegates, what argument can she make?

There was supposed to be an avalanche several times in this campaign already, and it didn't materialize.

We'll fight until the bitter end.

She always has been. The communist label has always been innacurate. Before she decided to be a wedge in the party and was 'innevitable' they had to paint her as a 'communist' because if anyone thought about her positions they would find out that she's a lot closer to their candidate and some of those people might actually vote for her. She was a good candidate. Her strength in the primary was valid. Ultimately it was things like transparency and diplomacy that made the difference. Her biggest problem came when she started to lose and she started setting fire to the building.

Agreed.

There's nothing to not let go of when Obama has enough Supers. It's going to be a avalanche on Wednesday. When he has 2200 delegates, what argument can she make?

I don't doubt it will, but you can bet at this point she's going to try and push it all the way to the convention. This means she's going to have to be told to get out, which means everyone's going to see it as her being forced out, which means pandemonium come August. I'm not exactly inclined to see my favorite city torn up in riots but I'm afraid that's what's going to happen.

There was supposed to be an avalanche several times in this campaign already, and it didn't materialize.

We'll fight until the bitter end.

Clinton was over a hundred supers ahead before Super Tuesday. Whats the count now?

Let us not forget that 91% of blacks in North Carolina voted for Barack Obama. If you're going to take a shot at women for voting "Hillary" because she's a woman, you should also frown on the fact that blacks are voting for Obama because he's black.

I'm fairly certain that Jocabia frowns on all instances of racism and sexism.

In NC, a full 20% voted at least partially based on race, and Obama did get the majority of those votes. Yes, that is a problem.

Of course, Clinton has benefited from racism herself in many states, generally to higher margins than those seen in NC. She has also benefited from sexism more often.

And she's still behind.

In Peurto Rico, a full 59% of voters claimed that gender was important in their voting. 59%. And Clinton took the overwhelming majority of the sexist vote. (not to mention the majority of the racist vote, which came in at 31%).

Well, I'd suggest if the opposite were occurring, the Clinton campaign would be OUTRAGED. It is not, however.

She also got a huge boost by the popularity of her husband.

As a feminist, I don't like the narrative that promotes voting for a woman BECAUSE she's a woman and you really liked her husband.

me either.

i would love to have a woman as president but not mrs clinton.

although if she had won the nomination i would have supported her.

There was supposed to be an avalanche several times in this campaign already, and it didn't materialize.

We'll fight until the bitter end.
What an appropriate description. The avalanche was stayed by the decision to count Michican and Florida. What will stay the avalanche at this point?

There have already been small avalanches. Obama only needs 30 supers at MOST. He got two since yesterday. The news teams said that many, many supers have already said they are just waiting to declare until after the final contest. This has been held by many supers for a very long time. No one wants to be 2119, the super that doesn't matter.

Again, why are you not willing to explain your claims? What is it that makes the division Obama's fault? What precisely did he do?

EDIT: By the by, the popular vote lead, if one tries to count it, is still 150K for Obama after PR. That's even including the beauty contest in FL.

It looks like the count will be about 300K votes. So much for the ludicrous predictions that if she gets 2 mill out of PR she's actually be ahead in the (nonexistent) popular vote.

That said, she won and won big. But what I found interesting is the CNN exit poll had 59% (read that twice) of the people voting on gender. Holy crap. 6 in 10 people voted based on gender. And a full 4 in 10 said it was the most important thing to vote on (of which three quarters voted for clinton). The overall people who voted on gender went only slightly higher to clinton than the general outcome, but wow. Just wow.

How do you overcome something like that? When 4 in 10 people suggest you pick a candidate on their parts? When 3 in 10 people say they'll vote for a woman because her being a woman is the most important thing?

I never calculated it out before, but about half of the current difference in popular vote can be directly attributed to people who voted for her because of her being a woman.

Sad ain't it? :(

The win in Puerto Rico is huge. Not for the delegates it grants (which will not make up the deficit between Clinton and Obama). But because it demonstrates that despite Obama's efforts to shove her out of the race, she remains viable.

Only because of her gender according to the exit polls.

It also appears that she will pick up 100,000 votes on him, pushing that all-important popular vote calculation harder.

She's still losing that.

Now we move onto the next round of primaries and see if we can't chip into Obama's substantial leads in those contests. If we can narrow the gap sufficiently, we'll be in a position to make the argument to the superdelegates.

Which will go for Obama and finally end this contest that has been over for weeks.

It is interesting to me that none of the Clinton supporters who threaten to vote for McCain can answer what it is that OBAMA did that would make such spite appropriate. The only complaint has been SOME Obama supporters. Why is it such a scary question? Certainly, the Obama transgressions must be truly heinous that you would punish the country for his candidacy. What are these transgressions?

It is interesting to me that none of the Clinton supporters who threaten to vote for McCain can answer what it is that OBAMA did that would make such spite appropriate. The only complaint has been SOME Obama supporters. Why is it such a scary question? Certainly, the Obama transgressions must be truly heinous that you would punish the country for his candidacy. What are these transgressions?

He's not a white female with the last name Clinton?

He's not a white female with the last name Clinton?

Okay, I'll be right back, I gotta have a gender reassignment surgery, change my name legally, and run for Senate.

Okay, I'll be right back, I gotta have a gender reassignment surgery, change my name legally, and run for Senate.

:D

:D

Beats being an unemployed deadbeat* discussing in forums with people who defend the indefensible and call themselves victims of the vast Right-wing/Left-wing/Obama-wing conspiracy.

*: Me.

I saw a news article saying that a COMMUNIST BAND had opened for Obama. This band turned out to be called The Decemberists.

This shocked me. I kind of like The Decemberists. I've seen The Decemberists play live. I wasn't aware they were communists.

But obviously they were. It was printed on a website. And websites never lie. I leapt to action, grabbed a brick and began the process of whacking the communist lies out of me. I then took a series of showers while singing The Star Spangled Banner over and over again.

But I kind of feel stupid now. Wasn't it obvious that they were communists? I mean, as the article points out, their very name is a reference to an 1825 Russian revolt. In 1825, Karl Marx was seven. Which as we all know is the most communist age.

And the partner story to this is that these Communists were the reason Obama drew 75,000 and the lefty media didn't bother to report it because they've been so darn nice to him and they wouldn't want to ruin it now. And it makes sense. When I saw The Decemberists at the aforementioned gig, there were 800 people there. 800 to 75,000 is a small step.

And, of course, the fact that 75,000 communists have just sprung up out of nowhere doesn't seem to concern these right wing patriots just shows that they're arguing from an unbiased non-partisan point of view.

I saw a news article saying that a COMMUNIST BAND had opened for Obama. This band turned out to be called The Decemberists.

This shocked me. I kind of like The Decemberists. I've seen The Decemberists play live. I wasn't aware they were communists.

But obviously they were. It was printed on a website. And websites never lie. I leapt to action, grabbed a brick and began the process of whacking the communist lies out of me. I then took a series of showers while singing The Star Spangled Banner over and over again.

But I kind of feel stupid now. Wasn't it obvious that they were communists? I mean, as the article points out, their very name is a reference to an 1825 Russian revolt. In 1825, Karl Marx was seven. Which as we all know is the most communist age.

And the partner story to this is that these Communists were the reason Obama drew 75,000 and the lefty media didn't bother to report it because they've been so darn nice to him and they wouldn't want to ruin it now. And it makes sense. When I saw The Decemberists at the aforementioned gig, there were 800 people there. 800 to 75,000 is a small step.

And, of course, the fact that 75,000 communists have just sprung up out of nowhere doesn't seem to concern these right wing patriots just shows that they're arguing from an unbiased non-partisan point of view.
So that's why there were all these communist manifestos handed out when I saw them. Can't believe I could be so blind. If you please excuse me, I'll go have myself be reeducated now.

Beats being an unemployed deadbeat* discussing in forums with people who defend the indefensible and call themselves victims of the vast Right-wing/Left-wing/Obama-wing conspiracy.

*: Me.

You're an unemployed deadbeat? How do you manage to go on the internet, net?

...

Er, then?

I saw a news article saying that a COMMUNIST BAND had opened for Obama. This band turned out to be called The Decemberists.

This shocked me. I kind of like The Decemberists. I've seen The Decemberists play live. I wasn't aware they were communists.

But obviously they were. It was printed on a website. And websites never lie. I leapt to action, grabbed a brick and began the process of whacking the communist lies out of me. I then took a series of showers while singing The Star Spangled Banner over and over again.

But I kind of feel stupid now. Wasn't it obvious that they were communists? I mean, as the article points out, their very name is a reference to an 1825 Russian revolt. In 1825, Karl Marx was seven. Which as we all know is the most communist age.

And the partner story to this is that these Communists were the reason Obama drew 75,000 and the lefty media didn't bother to report it because they've been so darn nice to him and they wouldn't want to ruin it now. And it makes sense. When I saw The Decemberists at the aforementioned gig, there were 800 people there. 800 to 75,000 is a small step.

And, of course, the fact that 75,000 communists have just sprung up out of nowhere doesn't seem to concern these right wing patriots just shows that they're arguing from an unbiased non-partisan point of view.

lol

what the hell kind of newspaper have you been reading and are you PAYING for it?

You're an unemployed deadbeat? How do you manage to go on the internet, net?

...

Er, then?

I'm not only an unemployed deadbeat, I'm an unemployed deadbeat who lives with his mother.

The win in Puerto Rico is huge. Not for the delegates it grants (which will not make up the deficit between Clinton and Obama). But because it demonstrates that despite Obama's efforts to shove her out of the race, she remains viable.

It also appears that she will pick up 100,000 votes on him, pushing that all-important popular vote calculation harder.

Now we move onto the next round of primaries and see if we can't chip into Obama's substantial leads in those contests. If we can narrow the gap sufficiently, we'll be in a position to make the argument to the superdelegates.

Who is this we that you keep referring to? If I say we on this forum it usually relates to other posters here. I do not declare all Obama supporters to be like me, therefor I do not say we to talk about a large group as if they were homogeneous. This mindset perplexes me. I love baseball and I am a Yankees fan my whole life. I don't describe a win by the Yankees by saying, "yeah, we won that one." They, the Yankees won the game. I didn't do shite but drink some lemonade and stare at a box.

As for your post, how does this mean anything really? Every time she wins a state (even those she was expected to like today) you say the same crap. "This is the one! This is the one that puts her over the edge. Come on Hillary! Make a speech and say 'It's time we got this thing started."
The supers decide this by the 4th.

I'm not only an unemployed deadbeat, I'm an unemployed deadbeat who lives with his mother.

Yeah, me too. Till November anyway.

Yeah, me too. Till November anyway.

Then presidency!

Then presidency!

Heh.

So, assuming Senator Clinton does not relent and has to be forced out, per se, how do you think it will be done?

Heh.

So, assuming Senator Clinton does not relent and has to be forced out, per se, how do you think it will be done?
It's going to be nearly impossible. Really, they've been handling her with kid gloves so far because of the Clinton name and she still claims she was mistreated. When they get into the actual process of having to move past her, with the narrative she's created, it's impossible to do without a good deal of damage. She's at the point now where she's standing in the door way with a bomb strapped to her "Give me the nomination or else!" and I don't know that anyone knows who has the trigger.

Heh.

So, assuming Senator Clinton does not relent and has to be forced out, per se, how do you think it will be done?

Either backstage or the Dems will bend over for the hag once more and let her bring the house down with her by not telling her (or "it") to quit.

It's going to be nearly impossible. Really, they've been handling her with kid gloves so far because of the Clinton name and she still claims she was mistreated. When they get into the actual process of having to move past her, with the narrative she's created, it's impossible to do without a good deal of damage. She's at the point now where she's standing in the door way with a bomb strapped to her "Give me the nomination or else!" and I don't know that anyone knows who has the trigger.

I can fathom a comparison between her and a terrorist, I really can.

I can fathom a comparison between her and a terrorist, I really can.

In retrospect, that probably wasn't the best way to have put it...I expect that'll come back to bite me.


The resolution they're going to have to go with is the "well you can't have that, but you can pick any toy you want in exchange." And to a certain degree, recent behavior not withstanding, she has deserved that. If you step back from the infuriating things she's done, she ran a very tight campaign and mobilized a remarkable amount of people for the party. You don't do something like that and then get put on the curb. She deserves it, even if it's hard to relate that when she's being so destructive at the end. So her and Bill will have to decide what their legacy is going to be and she'll get just that. Dean didn't get close and he got to be party chair. I wouldn't put that position past her-to get past this they will give her whatever she wants short of the candidacy.

The trick is if she can call off the riot, a feat I'm not sure has ever been done once the shots are fired.

In retrospect, that probably wasn't the best way to have put it...I expect that'll come back to bite me.


The resolution they're going to have to go with is the "well you can't have that, but you can pick any toy you want in exchange." And to a certain degree, recent behavior not withstanding, she has deserved that. If you step back from the infuriating things she's done, she ran a very tight campaign and mobilized a remarkable amount of people for the party. You don't do something like that and then get put on the curb. She deserves it, even if it's hard to relate that when she's being so destructive at the end. So her and Bill will have to decide what their legacy is going to be and she'll get just that. Dean didn't get close and he got to be party chair. I wouldn't put that position past her-to get past this they will give her whatever she wants short of the candidacy.

The trick is if she can call off the riot, a feat I'm not sure has ever been done once the shots are fired.

Quite frankly, I don't think she deserves anything. She infused her supporters with a sense of pseudo-victim-hood that screwed over the Party, and essentially threw a tantrum.

And she screwed me over, too, given that that "2" by my name wouldn't be there today if it wasn't for the hag's victimization narrative. So I resent her personally, too.

I began the year not minding her. Now I hate her. I hate her with every fiber of my being, I HATE HER. For what she's done to the Party, for what she may do to the world and for the shaft I got. I hate her. HATE.

After she ceases being useful for Obama, I hope she fades into obscurity where she belongs. There are other things I hope for her, too, but I don't know how rules-friendly it would be.

I can fathom a comparison between her and a terrorist, I really can.

That's outrageous and beyond the pale. I mean, I just sit here, flabbergasted at the mere suggestion.

That's outrageous and beyond the pale. I mean, I just sit here, flabbergasted at the mere suggestion.

I said I can fathom. I didn't even make it. But the fact remains that she is willing to bring the house down with her and sacrifice her future to make some sort of point. So, you tell me what she looks like.

That's outrageous and beyond the pale. I mean, I just sit here, flabbergasted at the mere suggestion.

Consider: If she persues the course of action that CTOAN laid out, she will in essence be holding a gun to the head of the US military. Those are real lives. Hostage taking is a common terrorist tactic. The comparisson is clear and apt to me.

That's outrageous and beyond the pale. I mean, I just sit here, flabbergasted at the mere suggestion.
Have you noticed that you reply to all of the rude comments but you refuse to answer fair questions?

Have you noticed that you reply to all of the rude comments but you refuse to answer fair questions?

That's mostly because there aren't any recent ones. I did answer CH a few times.

At any rate, all that could have been said has been said. Now I just want to drive home the points, remind people that I'm right, and that I was right about Iraq, and ponder why is Hillary such a megalomaniac moron.

Edit: In retrospect, are you sure that message was to me? o_O

Quite frankly, I don't think she deserves anything. She infused her supporters with a sense of pseudo-victim-hood that screwed over the Party, and essentially threw a tantrum.

And she screwed me over, too, given that that "2" by my name wouldn't be there today if it wasn't for the hag's victimization narrative. So I resent her personally, too.

I began the year not minding her. Now I hate her. I hate her with every fiber of my being, I HATE HER. For what she's done to the Party, for what she may do to the world and for the shaft I got. I hate her. HATE.

After she ceases being useful for Obama, I hope she fades into obscurity where she belongs. There are other things I hope for her, too, but I don't know how rules-friendly it would be.
Oh whoop de shit.

She doesn't deserve hate. She deserves, at most, pity. She's screwed over a lot, yeah, but she's hardly cost Obama the Presidency--so far--and she is far from truly despicable in the sense of, say, a murdering dictator. Really, you're wasting your energy hating her.

(I'd add that hate is never really a good idea anyway and what you really despise is not the person themselves but their actions, but that's my personal philosophy on life that I find very few--if any--agree with, so nevermind that.)

That's mostly because there aren't any recent ones. I did answer CH a few times.

At any rate, all that could have been said has been said. Now I just want to drive home the points, remind people that I'm right, and that I was right about Iraq, and ponder why is Hillary such a megalomaniac moron.

Edit: In retrospect, are you sure that message was to me? o_O

I think the quote button messed up, because your post wasn't there when I hit quote.

Oh whoop de shit.

She doesn't deserve hate. She deserves, at most, pity. She's screwed over a lot, yeah, but she's hardly cost Obama the Presidency--so far--and she is far from truly despicable in the sense of, say, a murdering dictator. Really, you're wasting your energy hating her.

(I'd add that hate is never really a good idea anyway and what you really despise is not the person themselves but their actions, but that's my personal philosophy on life that I find very few--if any--agree with, so nevermind that.)

Sorry, was just venting. But bear in mind that it looks a tad more serious to those of us outside the US, because, should McCain win, the White House will continue acting like a psychopath in an amusement park regarding foreign policy. As long as there's a Republican in the White House, no other country is safe. And Hillary could cost Obama the Presidency.

(That and my previous account had one of the best cultures in the world...)

I think the quote button messed up, because your post wasn't there when I hit quote.

I, too, think CTOAN makes a good point, Corny.

( :p )

Sorry, was just venting. But bear in mind that it looks a tad more serious to those of us outside the US, because, should McCain win, the White House will continue acting like a psychopath in an amusement park regarding foreign policy. As long as there's a Republican in the White House, no other country is safe. And Hillary could cost Obama the Presidency.

(That and my previous account had one of the best cultures in the world...)
I realize this. I realize how important it is for you. It's pretty damned important to me too. As I've said before, I'm choosing my Commander-in-Chief.

And believe me, I understand the value of venting. I just think you need to cool off a little and not let yourself get so worked up the way you are. Not that it's not a big deal, but it's just not worth the energy.

I can fathom a comparison between her and a terrorist, I really can.

In retrospect, that probably wasn't the best way to have put it...I expect that'll come back to bite me.


That's outrageous and beyond the pale. I mean, I just sit here, flabbergasted at the mere suggestion.

You know, just once I'd like to call something good and have it happen...

I realize this. I realize how important it is for you. It's pretty damned important to me too. As I've said before, I'm choosing my Commander-in-Chief.

And believe me, I understand the value of venting. I just think you need to cool off a little and not let yourself get so worked up the way you are. Not that it's not a big deal, but it's just not worth the energy.

Meh. There may be a few other reasons for me to react this way. I was bullied once. I was the victim once. And I got squat for it. Yet now here we see Hillary acting like the victim, acting like she's been bullied, her followers doing the same... And... She gets something for it. And she keeps complaining.

Heck, I wish there were a group named "ACTUAL bullying victims for Obama".

You know, just once I'd like to call something good and have it happen...

Poor, hapless guy. ;)

I said I can fathom. I didn't even make it. But the fact remains that she is willing to bring the house down with her and sacrifice her future to make some sort of point. So, you tell me what she looks like.

And not just her future but the future of the party as well.

And not just her future but the future of the party as well.

That was sorta implied in the "house" part. ;)

The win in Puerto Rico is huge. Not for the delegates it grants (which will not make up the deficit between Clinton and Obama). But because it demonstrates that despite Obama's efforts to shove her out of the race, she remains viable.

It also appears that she will pick up 100,000 votes on him, pushing that all-important popular vote calculation harder.

Now we move onto the next round of primaries and see if we can't chip into Obama's substantial leads in those contests. If we can narrow the gap sufficiently, we'll be in a position to make the argument to the superdelegates.

Where are you pulling the up by 100,000 votes from? I mean I suspect it's your ass, but I want to know what kind of mathematical gymnastics you're using to get there.

Looks like Hillary is going to ask for an appeal of the current delegate deal on Michigan and Florida, which probably will take it all the way to the convention floor.

Her supporters were chanting "McCain, McCain" and "Denver, Denver".

Your worst nightmare is now coming true.

Looks like Hillary is going to ask for an appeal of the current delegate deal on Michigan and Florida, which probably will take it all the way to the convention floor.

Her supporters were chanting "McCain, McCain" and "Denver, Denver".

Your worst nightmare is now coming true.

Oh that's not remotely close to my worst nightmare. Though McCain going senile and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and god knows how many Americans.

Oh that's not remotely close to my worst nightmare. Though McCain going senile and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and god knows how many Americans.

If you haven't noticed, the surge seems to be working, and Iraq is getting a lot quieter.

Invading Iran, on the other hand, would be a disaster. However, there are ways to prosecute a war in Iran that doesn't involve any US casualties - nuking the Natanz facility, for instance.

If you haven't noticed, the surge seems to be working, and Iraq is getting a lot quieter.

Invading Iran, on the other hand, would be a disaster. However, there are ways to prosecute a war in Iran that doesn't involve any US casualties - nuking the Natanz facility, for instance.

The war in Iraq was wrong and you need to get the hell out.

Pursuing war with Iran, by any means, is just as wrong.

And if Clinton tries that much to bring the house down with her, all the deaths caused by McCain's decisions if that evil, senile, excuse for a human being of a moron becomes President are on her tab.

If you haven't noticed, the surge seems to be working, and Iraq is getting a lot quieter.

Invading Iran, on the other hand, would be a disaster. However, there are ways to prosecute a war in Iran that doesn't involve any US casualties - nuking the Natanz facility, for instance.

O rly?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/us-troop-deaths-in-iraq-a_n_99364.html
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

Though it does seem to be trending downward, slowly. Mostly we're just not hearing about casualties anymore.

One thing just occurred to me.

Clinton's acting erratically. VERY erratically, and with delusions as well.

These sometimes are symptoms of some brain issue. A tumor, an aneurysm...

I have to wonder...

O rly?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/us-troop-deaths-in-iraq-a_n_99364.html
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

Though it does seem to be trending downward, slowly. Mostly we're just not hearing about casualties anymore.

First, the Huffington Post is not even remotely a credible source. While you're at it, quote Rush Limbaugh or something. Maybe Keith Olbermann, who now rants more like a lunatic than Rush does.

According to NPR this morning, Basra is now a quiet place.

al-Masri got al-Sadr to make a deal about the Shiite militias, therefore negating the last major problem.

And al-Qaeda in Iraq is essentially driven to a small pocket near the Syrian border.

The casualty rate has plummeted. Substantially.

This article cites a sharp drop in casualties - not the "slow trend you're wishing for.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/12/ST2008031203721.html

One thing to notice - as the casualty rate plummeted, the news coverage also plummeted in exact lock step.

There's a reason Obama doesn't want to go to Iraq - because he'll be forced to say that it's gotten quiet.

We're losing around 7 people a night in Washington DC alone from gang-related violence. It's more dangerous at this time than Baghdad.

I might add that the most credible source is on the ground in Iraq, and his name is Michael Yon. First hand reporting that you aren't getting anywhere else, because the other news services are too chickenshit to go outside of the Green Zone.

The war in Iraq was wrong and you need to get the hell out.

Pursuing war with Iran, by any means, is just as wrong.

And if Clinton tries that much to bring the house down with her, all the deaths caused by McCain's decisions if that evil, senile, excuse for a human being of a moron becomes President are on her tab.

Clinton has won the popular vote unless Barack Obama does something really dramatic in the last two primaries:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

If the Party nominates Barack Obama even if Clinton wins the popular vote, then I am quitting the Party. I will throw my support behind John McCain and do everything I can to ensure Barack Obama's defeat in November. I will not be a party to some odd re-hash of the 2000 election where one guy won more votes but ended up losing the election.

I'd also like to note that the Wall Street Journal for today came out with a graph on the front page showing that Clinton consistently leads McCain in the general, but that shows that Obama splits 50/50 with McCain. She is, without doubt, more electable in the general.

Clinton has won the popular vote unless Barack Obama does something really dramatic in the last two primaries:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

If the Party nominates Barack Obama even if Clinton wins the popular vote, then I am quitting the Party. I will throw my support behind John McCain and do everything I can to ensure Barack Obama's defeat in November. I will not be a party to some odd re-hash of the 2000 election where one guy won more votes but ended up losing the election.

Clinton did NOT win the popular vote, she's acting crazy in trying to destroy the Party this way, and at this point I think there's a reason, namely a symptom of something that's BAD for her, that she's doing it.

And your willingness to put people to death over your petty little spite over NOTHING says a lot about you. None of it good.

I'd also like to note that the Wall Street Journal for today came out with a graph on the front page showing that Clinton consistently leads McCain in the general, but that shows that Obama splits 50/50 with McCain. She is, without doubt, more electable in the general.

You keep acting like only YOUR sources matter, when most have Obama leading McCain by more than the hag is. Furthermore, the WSJ is a conservative rag.

Clinton did NOT win the popular vote, she's acting crazy in trying to destroy the Party this way, and at this point I think there's a reason, namely a symptom of something that's BAD for her, that she's doing it.

And your willingness to put people to death over your petty little spite over NOTHING says a lot about you. None of it good.

Acting crazy is an understatement. Look, if the Democratic Party is unified, they'll win in a walk.

If they have a floor fight, it will be like the election of Nixon in 1968...

There's a reason Obama doesn't want to go to Iraq - because he'll be forced to say that it's gotten quiet.

Even if that's true, a big if, it's not about it being quiet, the war was wrong!

Acting crazy is an understatement. Look, if the Democratic Party is unified, they'll win in a walk.

If they have a floor fight, it will be like the election of Nixon in 1968...

As I said, there are some physical issues, physiological ones, that cause this, mostly related to serious diseases in the brain.

Even if that's true, a big if, it's not about it being quiet, the war was wrong!

It may have been wrong, but the war is over. What is there now is OK by the UN.

We're trying to keep the place from falling apart, and it looks like we're succeeding there.

As I said, there are some physical issues, physiological ones, that cause this, mostly related to serious diseases in the brain.

Which is why Ted is having that brain surgery now.

Clinton did NOT win the popular vote, she's acting crazy in trying to destroy the Party this way, and at this point I think there's a reason, namely a symptom of something that's BAD for her, that she's doing it.

And your willingness to put people to death over your petty little spite over NOTHING says a lot about you. None of it good.

The numbers are quite clear, Heikoku. When Florida and Michigan are added, Clinton wins. When the caucus state totals are added, she still wins. When they give ALL of Michigan's uncommitted voters to Obama, she still wins. The breakdown of all the scenarios is right there for you to review if you refuse to take my word for it.

Furthermore, this isn't just "spite". I'm saying she's a better shot for us in the general. And I'm saying we should observe a democratic principle, which is to say that the person with the most votes wins. The Barack Obama camp is all big about preaching sermons on the rules of the election...except when the rules don't help them. There have been several states where Clinton got more votes but Obama got more delegates total. I don't hear a clamor on Barack Obama's side to apportion those delegates based on the popular vote. Nor do I hear anything other than, "We have more delegates! We should win!".

The fact is that neither of them will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates will decide... and right now, Clinton has the popular vote in her favor AND she is more competitive in the general election. She has two of the three big arguments. She should be the nominee.

The numbers are quite clear, Heikoku. When Florida and Michigan are added, Clinton wins. When the caucus state totals are added, she still wins. When they give ALL of Michigan's uncommitted voters to Obama, she still wins. The breakdown of all the scenarios is right there for you to review if you refuse to take my word for it.

Furthermore, this isn't just "spite". I'm saying she's a better shot for us in the general. And I'm saying we should observe a democratic principle, which is to say that the person with the most votes wins. The Barack Obama camp is all big about preaching sermons on the rules of the election...except when the rules don't help them. There have been several states where Clinton got more votes but Obama got more delegates total. I don't hear a clamor on Barack Obama's side to apportion those delegates based on the popular vote. Nor do I hear anything other than, "We have more delegates! We should win!".

The fact is that neither of them will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates will decide... and right now, Clinton has the popular vote in her favor AND she is more competitive in the general election. She has two of the three big arguments. She should be the nominee.

No she doesn't, no she isn't, you're lying through your teeth, SHE agreed and supported the rules before and you still didn't address the issue of your willingness to put people to death over fake spite by voting for the senile moron in General.

Which is why Ted is having that brain surgery now.

Well, no, Ted had a seizure. But Hillary's case, if there's one, may or not induce them.

Clinton has won the popular vote unless Barack Obama does something really dramatic in the last two primaries:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

If the Party nominates Barack Obama even if Clinton wins the popular vote, then I am quitting the Party. I will throw my support behind John McCain and do everything I can to ensure Barack Obama's defeat in November.

Oh sweetness, I hate to break it to you, but if you'll look at the numbers there Obama is winning the "popular" vote. When providing a source you probably ought make sure it backs up your argument.

You keep acting like only YOUR sources matter, when most have Obama leading McCain by more than the hag is. Furthermore, the WSJ is a conservative rag.

Whenever you misrepresent the facts, I am going to call you out. My sources are mainstream. I do a lot of figuring from Rasmussen. In addition, while the Wall Street Journal DOES take a pro-business approach to their news, I don't believe they've been accused of painting a false electoral picture. WSJ's assessment concurs with electoral-vote.com and Rasumussen, both of whom indicate that Clinton has an edge in the general election. She has an edge because she is currently beating McCain in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and takes Florida AND Arkansas out of the Republican column. This makes sense, because she won each of those states by large numbers in the primary.

Furthermore, I do not call Mr. Obama anything other than, "Mr. Obama". You could show a little respect by referring to her as Hillary Clinton and not "the hag" or "the bitch".

Oh sweetness, I hate to break it to you, but if you'll look at the numbers there Obama is winning the "popular" vote. When providing a source you probably ought make sure it backs up your argument.

Khadgar, it might be worth pointing out that the Democratic nomination is not decided by the popular vote, but by the delegate count.

It's in the rule book. *volunteers Khadgar to visit Hillary and explain this*

Oh sweetness, I hate to break it to you, but if you'll look at the numbers there Obama is winning the "popular" vote. When providing a source you probably ought make sure it backs up your argument.

Only if you don't count Florida and Michigan. The current tally shows her winning by 65,000 votes, and is situated second from the bottom.

Furthermore, I do not call Mr. Obama anything other than, "Mr. Obama". You could show a little respect by referring to her as Hillary Clinton and not "the hag" or "the bitch".

In a conversation here in DC with some senior Air Force officers (the ones who are in the group that flies Air Force One) there's active talk of changing the name of Air Force One (unofficially) to Broom One if Hillary somehow manages to get elected.

Whenever you misrepresent the facts, I am going to call you out. My sources are mainstream. I do a lot of figuring from Rasmussen. In addition, while the Wall Street Journal DOES take a pro-business approach to their news, I don't believe they've been accused of painting a false electoral picture. WSJ's assessment concurs with electoral-vote.com and Rasumussen, both of whom indicate that Clinton has an edge in the general election. She has an edge because she is currently beating McCain in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and takes Florida AND Arkansas out of the Republican column. This makes sense, because she won each of those states by large numbers in the primary.

Furthermore, I do not call Mr. Obama anything other than, "Mr. Obama". You could show a little respect by referring to her as Hillary Clinton and not "the hag" or "the bitch".

First of all, that is right now. Second of all, Obama's leading McCain in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states he, too, puts in play.

Also, you see, I won't. Because Obama is acting like "Mr. Obama". She is acting like a hag. And I didn't call her a bitch.

Though she's acting like one.

Respect is earned.

In a conversation here in DC with some senior Air Force officers (the ones who are in the group that flies Air Force One) there's active talk of changing the name of Air Force One (unofficially) to Broom One if Hillary somehow manages to get elected.

Which in and of itself is offensive to Wiccans, I think. Wiccans are gentle people, Hillary's a hag.

Only if you don't count Florida and Michigan. The current tally shows her winning by 65,000 votes, and is situated second from the bottom.

You mean the Michigan tally that didn't have Obama's name on the ballot? Or the Florida one in which they didn't campaign? Both elections are meaningless without an actual competition, and you know that.

No she doesn't, no she isn't, you're lying through your teeth, SHE agreed and supported the rules before and you still didn't address the issue of your willingness to put people to death over fake spite by voting for the senile moron in General.

If you think unilaterally pulling out of Iraq immediately saves lives in any way then you're either ignorant or willfully callous.

There's no question that Hillary Clinton can no longer win the election, too much bad blood, but if you think that Senator Obama is a clean sweep then you're deluded. He's not only one of the most liberal senators in the US, he's also the most liberal and black senators in the US.

Either on prejudice or issues, he has problems.

Personally, I think he can overcome both these problems, especially given the weak candidacy of John McCain but absolutely don't discount the issues and certainly don't discount the prejudice - and that comes from other minorities, from Latinos to Jewish people - and you should realise that if you truly want the Republicans to lose then you should be reaching out to the natural supporters of Hillary Clinton, not abusing them.

Only if you don't count Florida and Michigan. The current tally shows her winning by 65,000 votes, and is situated second from the bottom.

Hillary picked up 328,000 votes in a state where she was the only one on the ballot. If you suggest that's fair then I suggest you ought be a used car salesman. A profession where changing the numbers to your benefit is expected.

Clinton has won the popular vote unless Barack Obama does something really dramatic in the last two primaries:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Enough intellectual dishonesty. Clinton only leads in the popular vote if:
1) Obama gets no votes from Michigan
2) Obama gets no votes from Caucuses

Both of which would be tantamount to what you've been claiming to be against for some time now: disenfranchisement. How you can go so strongly against your own stated principles I do not know.
Further, the popular vote is meaningless in this contest, because of how it is structured. Using the popular vote disenfranchises every person in a caucus state, even if you include the states, because caucuses are smaller than primaries.

There is no way to determine a "popular vote" that is fair.

This has been pointed out several times, yet you intentionally ignore this.


If the Party nominates Barack Obama even if Clinton wins the popular vote, then I am quitting the Party. I will throw my support behind John McCain and do everything I can to ensure Barack Obama's defeat in November. I will not be a party to some odd re-hash of the 2000 election where one guy won more votes but ended up losing the election.

So, you will condemn thousands more soldiers and civilians to death in Iraq; you will tell women that they have no right to their own bodies with a court decision that will take decades to fix; you will risk a war with Iran; you will allow our economy to strive further into the gutter as the rich-poor divide grows and the middle class disappears; you will allow millions to go without the access to health care; you will allow torture to continue in Gitmo; you will allow our constitutional principles to further erode; you will allow teenagers to be taught lies instead of sex education, so that fewer will be responsible. You will do all these things out of vengeance?!

If so, you disgust me. You are want all these things to happen out of nothing more than a thirst for vengeance, for spite.

I hope, when you pull the lever for McCain, you can look the people you condemn to death, poverty, sickness, torture, and rape (as forced pregnancy would amount to) in the eyes. Look at every one of them right in the eye and say "I'm voting for you to lose those rights."
Could you do it?

Remember, your actions have consequences, and those consequences should determine your actions. Are you ready to deal with the huge negative consequences of Bush III?

I'd also like to note that the Wall Street Journal for today came out with a graph on the front page showing that Clinton consistently leads McCain in the general, but that shows that Obama splits 50/50 with McCain. She is, without doubt, more electable in the general.

Polls said John Kerry would win. Polls said Dukakis would win. They were wrong.

Furthermore, you intentionally ignore the fact that Barack Obama is currently running against 2 candidates, both of which are attacking him. Hillary is running against nobody: Obama won't attack her or Hillary supporters will complain; the Republicans are actually trying to support her so that this primary will drag on. In the general, the Republicans won't continue to do that.

Why do you ignore this time and time again?

Which in and of itself is offensive to Wiccans, I think. Wiccans are gentle people, Hillary's a hag.

I would agree on that. But I've met very few military officers (O-5 and above) who have even the slightest respect for the Clintons, unless they are schmoozing to get that fourth star.

Most talk openly of passive-aggressive refusal to directly obey orders, or talk of sedition. It's so common, that I wouldn't want a Clinton in the White House, because if someone attacked the US, I'm not sure the military would do what the Clintons asked. There's a lot of distrust since the Somalia thing, and they've not forgotten that Bill played golf and didn't want to take the phone call when he heard that the Rangers were getting beaten up in Somalia. His SecDef then refused the Rangers gunship support (which had been refused in advance by Bill as well).

The numbers are quite clear, Heikoku. When Florida and Michigan are added, Clinton wins. When the caucus state totals are added, she still wins. When they give ALL of Michigan's uncommitted voters to Obama, she still wins. The breakdown of all the scenarios is right there for you to review if you refuse to take my word for it.
Yeah...if you give the uncommitted and include the caucus states-
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,961,368 48.8% 17,916,763 48.7% Obama +44,605 +0.1%
The numbers are clear-you have to fudge them to make Clinton the 'winner.'

Furthermore, this isn't just "spite". I'm saying she's a better shot for us in the general. And I'm saying we should observe a democratic principle, which is to say that the person with the most votes wins. The Barack Obama camp is all big about preaching sermons on the rules of the election...except when the rules don't help them. There have been several states where Clinton got more votes but Obama got more delegates total. I don't hear a clamor on Barack Obama's side to apportion those delegates based on the popular vote. Nor do I hear anything other than, "We have more delegates! We should win!".
What do you mean "except when the rules don't help them." What rule are you talking about here? And 'several states'? Texas and Nevada? And both those were under the rules...I don't know what the fuck you're talking about here. You're going to have to clarify. What rules were being broken?

The fact is that neither of them will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates will decide... and right now, Clinton has the popular vote in her favor AND she is more competitive in the general election. She has two of the three big arguments. She should be the nominee.
Yeah...she doesn't have the popular vote lead, and that's never been a metric-if it was then the caucus states wouldn't be 'estimates,' in fact-caucus states wouldn't exist. It's a false and desperate metric from a campaign that has created every measure under the sun. It's not uncommon for a candidate that has won the nomination to lose some of the last primaries, it happened to Reagan and it even happened to Bill Clinton. Clinton's strength over Obama in the 'general' is fractional and fueled not a little by the fact that no one at this point is running against her. If you have to look at it, she has a marginal lead now-she had an enormous lead in January and squandered it while Obama was behind and usurped a candidate with the best brand name in the Democratic party. I'm going to have to go with the one who has demonstrated that he can run a more stable and effective campaign. Oh, and since 'electability' has torpedoed the party in two straight elections against a fucking moron, I'm going to go with the guy whose policies I agree with because Clinton is not going to be able to 'game' the general election. She can have her press conference on November 5th saying she should be president because she won the states that mattered, but she'll be drowned out by chants of 'scoreboard!'

If you think unilaterally pulling out of Iraq immediately saves lives in any way then you're either ignorant or willfully callous.

There's no question that Hillary Clinton can no longer win the election, too much bad blood, but if you think that Senator Obama is a clean sweep then you're deluded. He's not only one of the most liberal senators in the US, he's also the most liberal and black senators in the US.

Either on prejudice or issues, he has problems.

Personally, I think he can overcome both these problems, especially given the weak candidacy of John McCain but absolutely don't discount the issues and certainly don't discount the prejudice - and that comes from other minorities, from Latinos to Jewish people - and you should realise that if you truly want the Republicans to lose then you should be reaching out to the natural supporters of Hillary Clinton, not abusing them.

Obama has never abused Clinton nor Clinton supporters. If anything he's treated her with deference and respect. All he's getting in return is attacks, racism and calls of sexism. Now, I think he's being remarkably calm about it. I'd come unhinged on the woman.

I would agree on that. But I've met very few military officers (O-5 and above) who have even the slightest respect for the Clintons, unless they are schmoozing to get that fourth star.

Most talk openly of passive-aggressive refusal to directly obey orders, or talk of sedition. It's so common, that I wouldn't want a Clinton in the White House, because if someone attacked the US, I'm not sure the military would do what the Clintons asked. There's a lot of distrust since the Somalia thing, and they've not forgotten that Bill played golf and didn't want to take the phone call when he heard that the Rangers were getting beaten up in Somalia. His SecDef then refused the Rangers gunship support (which had been refused in advance by Bill as well).

You do realize that, under Bush, the Army got used like a toilet paper for nothing, too...?

Obama has never abused Clinton nor Clinton supporters. If anything he's treated her with deference and respect. All he's getting in return is attacks, racism and calls of sexism. Now, I think he's being remarkably calm about it. I'd come unhinged on the woman.

Obama's been remarkable nice. There have been a few Obama supporters, however...

Then again, there have been quite a few Hillary supporters...

*starts selling rocks*

You do realize that, under Bush, the Army got used like a toilet paper for nothing, too...?

At least they were allowed to use the weapons they wanted to kill their enemies with.

The Rangers were given a long list of "you're forbidden to..."

And then they were abandoned.

If you think unilaterally pulling out of Iraq immediately saves lives in any way then you're either ignorant or willfully callous.

There's no question that Hillary Clinton can no longer win the election, too much bad blood, but if you think that Senator Obama is a clean sweep then you're deluded. He's not only one of the most liberal senators in the US, he's also the most liberal and black senators in the US.

Either on prejudice or issues, he has problems.

Personally, I think he can overcome both these problems, especially given the weak candidacy of John McCain but absolutely don't discount the issues and certainly don't discount the prejudice - and that comes from other minorities, from Latinos to Jewish people - and you should realise that if you truly want the Republicans to lose then you should be reaching out to the natural supporters of Hillary Clinton, not abusing them.

1- If McCain gets elected, there won't BE a pullout from Iraq in any way.

2- Clinton has mistreated Obama in every step of the way. Obama, meanwhile, has been a Gandhi regarding Clinton.

Obama's been remarkable nice. There have been a few Obama supporters, however...

Then again, there have been quite a few Hillary supporters...

*starts selling rocks*

Ack, an evil arms dealer!

Best sell us the good pointy rocks.

At least they were allowed to use the weapons they wanted to kill their enemies with.

The Rangers were given a long list of "you're forbidden to..."

And then they were abandoned.

So, the Army gets more offended at not being allowed to kill in certain ways than at being used in a wrong war that gets way more of them dead? :confused:

First of all, that is right now. Second of all, Obama's leading McCain in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states he, too, puts in play.

Also, you see, I won't. Because Obama is acting like "Mr. Obama". She is acting like a hag. And I didn't call her a bitch.

Though she's acting like one.

Respect is earned.

That is a lie.

Obama is not leading McCain in Ohio. I should know, as I live in Ohio and we have daily access to this information. It is neck and neck here, statistical dead heat. In such situations, it is logical to look at a state's past voting history to determine what the outcome might be. The past two elections Ohio came down on George W. Bush's side. I am confident that it will side with McCain. You will certainly lose Florida, and you have at best a 50/50 shot in Ohio. If Ohio also goes to McCain, I would like to see you present me with a scenario in which Barack Obama can win, because snatching a Nevada or a Colorado out of the Republican column will not compensate for twin defeats in Florida and Ohio.

We've had this argument before, and I would think the math would be obvious.

I would agree on that. But I've met very few military officers (O-5 and above) who have even the slightest respect for the Clintons, unless they are schmoozing to get that fourth star.

Most talk openly of passive-aggressive refusal to directly obey orders, or talk of sedition. It's so common, that I wouldn't want a Clinton in the White House, because if someone attacked the US, I'm not sure the military would do what the Clintons asked. There's a lot of distrust since the Somalia thing, and they've not forgotten that Bill played golf and didn't want to take the phone call when he heard that the Rangers were getting beaten up in Somalia. His SecDef then refused the Rangers gunship support (which had been refused in advance by Bill as well).
We're just going to go ahead and dismiss your anecdotal tales given your track record. Thanks all the same...

Ack, an evil arms dealer!

Best sell us the good pointy rocks.

That was sweet. ;)

That is a lie.

Obama is not leading McCain in Ohio. I should know, as I live in Ohio and we have daily access to this information. It is neck and neck here, statistical dead heat. In such situations, it is logical to look at a state's past voting history to determine what the outcome might be. The past two elections Ohio came down on George W. Bush's side. I am confident that it will side with McCain. You will certainly lose Florida, and you have at best a 50/50 shot in Ohio. If Ohio also goes to McCain, I would like to see you present me with a scenario in which Barack Obama can win, because snatching a Nevada or a Colorado out of the Republican column will not compensate for twin defeats in Florida and Ohio.

We've had this argument before, and I would think the math would be obvious.

Obama is WINNING Ohio and I presented you several scenarios in which he can afford to lose both Ohio and Florida. You have no point.

So, the Army gets more offended at not being allowed to kill in certain ways than at being used in a wrong war that gets way more of them dead? :confused:

It gets offended at not being allowed to defend itself.

In terms of casualty rates, the Iraq War is a lower "rate" of casualties than Somalia. If we were incurring casualties at the rate of Somalia (which was thankfully short), we would have as many dead as the Vietnam War.

A war, which you may note, was also fought with a list of "you are forbidden to..."

The Iraq War wasn't fought with too many restrictions. And at this point, the majority of the fighting is over - the Iraqi Army is actually taking over the job, and the US is only fulfilling a UN mandate at this point.

That is a lie.

Obama is not leading McCain in Ohio. I should know, as I live in Ohio and we have daily access to this information. It is neck and neck here, statistical dead heat. In such situations, it is logical to look at a state's past voting history to determine what the outcome might be. The past two elections Ohio came down on George W. Bush's side. I am confident that it will side with McCain. You will certainly lose Florida, and you have at best a 50/50 shot in Ohio. If Ohio also goes to McCain, I would like to see you present me with a scenario in which Barack Obama can win, because snatching a Nevada or a Colorado out of the Republican column will not compensate for twin defeats in Florida and Ohio.

We've had this argument before, and I would think the math would be obvious.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

The Iraq War wasn't fought with too many restrictions. And at this point, the majority of the fighting is over - the Iraqi Army is actually taking over the job, and the US is only fulfilling a UN mandate at this point.

It was NOT a UN mandate.

February '07 I posted this, February '07 - call me Cassandra.

Not being American I can't vote however:

I wouldn't say the Republican victory has been incinerated. If their current strategy is to escalate Iran then a: Iran backs down and the R's say their strategy in Iraq has worked as nations are beginning to comply or b: Iran doesn't back down and the R's say 'see, we're in real danger'

Meanwhile, the D's tear themselves apart over voting for a female or a black president.

Then comes the curveball, China wipes the floor in terms of gold medals in the Olympics, held just 2 months before the US elections.

America goes paranoid and turns back to the R's.

I'd say it was lining up nicely.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

What is this supposed to prove? It's just a national poll average. Furthermore, your link shows Clinton leading McCain by an average of 2, whereas Obama leads him by an average of 1. Furthermore, Clinton is winning in four of the five averages whereas Obama is only winning three of the five. Didn't you just essentially prove my point?

It was NOT a UN mandate.

After the war, the UN had a resolution authorizing us to clean up our own mess.

After the war, the UN had a resolution authorizing us to clean up our own mess.

Ah.

Ah.

I do think it's important to clean up our own mess, don't you? And it seems like we're making good progress now... so maybe we can leave sooner...

What is this supposed to prove? It's just a national poll average. Furthermore, your link shows Clinton leading McCain by an average of 2, whereas Obama leads him by an average of 1. Furthermore, Clinton is winning in four of the five averages whereas Obama is only winning three of the five. Didn't you just essentially prove my point?

If you think showing that a candidate no one is running against isn't doing significantly better than a candidate beset on all sides by attackers proves your point then fine. Point proven. Hillary is a nigh godlike candidate and we're all very sorry we didn't vote for her. It's an absolute pity there's no way in hell she can win short of killing Obama.

I mourn her loss.

I do think it's important to clean up our own mess, don't you? And it seems like we're making good progress now... so maybe we can leave sooner...

There's a better way to clean up your own mess than by staying there.

Obama is WINNING Ohio and I presented you several scenarios in which he can afford to lose both Ohio and Florida. You have no point.

You are INCORRECT. Rasmussen polls show the state as a Tossup-State. RealClearPolitics lists this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ohio.html

STATE OF OHIO:
Obama leading by 1.3 and Clinton leading by 8.3 percent. 1.3 percent is a statistically insignificant lead (it is within the margin of error).

Furthermore, you're also wrong if you think you can afford to lose Florida AND Ohio and still win the Presidency. Those two states alone have 47 electoral votes. Ohio is the single largest tossup state in the Rasmussen study.

I demand that you show me your scenario for how you would win assuming Ohio and Florida turn red. As in, show me an electoral map.

Handy tool for you to use:

http://www.270towin.com/

That is a lie.

Obama is not leading McCain in Ohio. I should know, as I live in Ohio and we have daily access to this information. It is neck and neck here, statistical dead heat. In such situations, it is logical to look at a state's past voting history to determine what the outcome might be. The past two elections Ohio came down on George W. Bush's side. I am confident that it will side with McCain. You will certainly lose Florida, and you have at best a 50/50 shot in Ohio. If Ohio also goes to McCain, I would like to see you present me with a scenario in which Barack Obama can win, because snatching a Nevada or a Colorado out of the Republican column will not compensate for twin defeats in Florida and Ohio.

We've had this argument before, and I would think the math would be obvious.

Dude, we did cover this and you cowered away from the argument again and again only to come back to it like we haven't covered it. If you're going to concede a state with a statistically irrelevant lead 5 months before the election from a candidate who has demonstrated a strong ability to campaign, you do not have the sack for politics. You are not going to convince anyone that it's a lost cause when the margin is that small. We keep telling you this, five months is forever in politics. Five months ago Clinton was inevitable. How'd that work out for ya?

So, you will condemn thousands more soldiers and civilians to death in Iraq; you will tell women that they have no right to their own bodies with a court decision that will take decades to fix; you will risk a war with Iran; you will allow our economy to strive further into the gutter as the rich-poor divide grows and the middle class disappears; you will allow millions to go without the access to health care; you will allow torture to continue in Gitmo; you will allow our constitutional principles to further erode; you will allow teenagers to be taught lies instead of sex education, so that fewer will be responsible.

Shal, I must quote myself.

If Obama wins the nomination and you campaign against him, then you are campaigning for all of these things.

If you vote for McCain, then you vote for people dying.
If you vote for McCain, then you vote for women being effectively raped as their bodies are used without consent.
If you vote for McCain, then you vote for millions being denied access to healthcare.
If you vote for McCain, then you vote for an increase of the rich-poor divide, and for the loss of the middle class to poverty.
If you vote for McCain, then you vote for a continuation of torture at Gitmo. (As long as we don't call it torture, it's okay, right?)
If you vote for McCain, then you vote for War with Iran.
If you vote for McCain, then you vote for furthering teen pregnancy with disastrous abstinence-only sex education.

Why would you vote for death, for rape, for disease, for poverty, for torture, for War, for teen pregnancy?

You would vote for all these things, and more--because the other party didn't pick the person you wanted?

Really?

You are INCORRECT. Rasmussen polls show the state as a Tossup-State. RealClearPolitics lists this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ohio.html

STATE OF OHIO:
Obama leading by 1.3 and Clinton leading by 8.3 percent. 1.3 percent is a statistically insignificant lead (it is within the margin of error).

Furthermore, you're also wrong if you think you can afford to lose Florida AND Ohio and still win the Presidency. Those two states alone have 47 electoral votes. Ohio is the single largest tossup state in the Rasmussen study.

I demand that you show me your scenario for how you would win assuming Ohio and Florida turn red. As in, show me an electoral map.

Handy tool for you to use:

http://www.270towin.com/

So MoE only means something when it favors you?

Also:

Obama wins Colorado and either Nevada or New Mexico. Wins Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. PA and NJ are also his. 273-268.

And that's only two of the scenarios.

There's a better way to clean up your own mess than by staying there.

Really, you think it's better to leave Iraq right now to sectarian violence, you think it's better to ignore your responsibilities and leave a nation you invaded to its own devices, to strip a dictator, no matter how heinous the decision, from power and then leave a vacuum.

I know you're not American, it's not your problem but it is a problem for the Iraqis and, to be honest, it's a problem for the world.

The one thing that will give hope to insurgents is the knowledge that soon there'll be an opportunity for power, an unprotected nation.

The world is real, countries have real interests over and above complying with talk and treaties and 'let's all sit around and chat' politics.

The world is not run on hope, sustained perhaps but not run.

Yet this is not the issue here, the issue is that Senator Obama's figures for people who will not vote for him is rising by the day, a large part is spurred by gloating - and I can understand the desire to gloat, to dismiss if not diss Hillary Clinton but it's not exactly constructive.

Dude, we did cover this and you cowered away from the argument again and again only to come back to it like we haven't covered it. If you're going to concede a state with a statistically irrelevant lead 5 months before the election from a candidate who has demonstrated a strong ability to campaign, you do not have the sack for politics. You are not going to convince anyone that it's a lost cause when the margin is that small. We keep telling you this, five months is forever in politics. Five months ago Clinton was inevitable. How'd that work out for ya?

I am not conceding it. I am stating, however, that Clinton has a very significant edge in this state whereas Obama has none. Nominating him is a gamble whereas nominating Clinton seems more likely, at present, to return a favorable result.

Really, you think it's better to leave Iraq right now to sectarian violence, you think it's better to ignore your responsibilities and leave a nation you invaded to its own devices, to strip a dictator, no matter how heinous the decision, from power and then leave a vacuum.

I know you're not American, it's not your problem but it is a problem for the Iraqis and, to be honest, it's a problem for the world.

The one thing that will give hope to insurgents is the knowledge that soon there'll be an opportunity for power, an unprotected nation.

The world is real, countries have real interests over and above complying with talk and treaties and 'let's all sit around and chat' politics.

The world is not run on hope, sustained perhaps but not run.

Yet this is not the issue here, the issue is that Senator Obama's figures for people who will not vote for him is rising by the day, a large part is spurred by gloating - and I can understand the desire to gloat, to dismiss if not diss Hillary Clinton but it's not exactly constructive.

I said you could help in other ways.

Also, no, it's not in ANY way a problem for the world. A hurricane is a problem for the world. An earthquake is a problem for the world. A war is a problem for the nation that did the raping.

Also, Obama is doing NOTHING to bother the people that want Hillary in at all costs. It's THEIR fault, not HIS.

I am not conceding it. I am stating, however, that Clinton has a very significant edge in this state whereas Obama has none. Nominating him is a gamble whereas nominating Clinton seems more likely, at present, to return a favorable result.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that many people who wouldn't vote otherwise would brave an asteroid shower to go vote against Clinton.

I am not conceding it. I am stating, however, that Clinton has a very significant edge in this state whereas Obama has none. Nominating him is a gamble whereas nominating Clinton seems more likely, at present, to return a favorable result.

Again, with feeling, she had a signifigant edge in the primaries 5 months ago. How'd that work out for ya?

I am not conceding it. I am stating, however, that Clinton has a very significant edge in this state whereas Obama has none. Nominating him is a gamble whereas nominating Clinton seems more likely, at present, to return a favorable result.

Now I know it's the Clinton philosophy that some states matter and others don't, but uh, there's at last count 49 other states and several territories at stake. Not to mention that there's a long road between here and November. Now with you and your ilk campaigning for McCain it'll be slightly harder, but Obama can win. Well, depending on how many of you go completely off the rails.

I said you could help in other ways.

Also, no, it's not in ANY way a problem for the world. A hurricane is a problem for the world. An earthquake is a problem for the world. A war is a problem for the nation that did the raping.

Also, Obama is doing NOTHING to bother the people that want Hillary in at all costs. It's THEIR fault, not HIS.

It is a problem for the world, like it or not.

...and call a waaa-ambulance - in a nod to the mot du jour - either you're genuine in wanting to keep McCain out or you're more interested in your own ego in proving you're right, which is it?

The vote has been extraordinarily close, there's a number of people passionately invested in Hillary Clinton - one can either reach out or alienate them.

In a nod to a tired meme...

...what would Barack Obama do?

Clinton has won the popular vote unless Barack Obama does something really dramatic in the last two primaries:

Flat out lie.

If the Party doesn't steal the nomination from Barack Obama even if Clinton wins the popular vote except for the caucus states and counting the disallowed states, then I am quitting the Party. I will throw my support behind John McCain and do everything I can to ensure more deaths in Iraq. I will be a party to a re-hash of the 2000 election where one guy won more votes but ended up losing the election.

Fixed.

Acting crazy is an understatement. Look, if the Democratic Party is unified, they'll win in a walk.

If they have a floor fight, it will be like the election of Nixon in 1968...

And the only person who has that capacity is TUO.

The superdelegates will decide... and right now, Clinton has the popular vote in her favor AND she is more competitive in the general election. She has two of the three big arguments. She should be the nominee.

True, lie, BIG LIE. I've made it clear from the start that the party's lost me, most likely forever, if they nominate your candidate. This goes for a large number of people.

However, at this juncture, I do not believe you care for the party, the country, or the service men and women who's blood will be on your hands because you couldn't bring yourself to vote for a black man..

Enough intellectual dishonesty. Clinton only leads in the popular vote if:
1) Obama gets no votes from Michigan
2) Obama gets no votes from Caucuses

Both of which would be tantamount to what you've been claiming to be against for some time now: disenfranchisement. How you can go so strongly against your own stated principles I do not know.
Further, the popular vote is meaningless in this contest, because of how it is structured. Using the popular vote disenfranchises every person in a caucus state, even if you include the states, because caucuses are smaller than primaries.

There is no way to determine a "popular vote" that is fair.

This has been pointed out several times, yet you intentionally ignore this.


So, you will condemn thousands more soldiers and civilians to death in Iraq; you will tell women that they have no right to their own bodies with a court decision that will take decades to fix; you will risk a war with Iran; you will allow our economy to strive further into the gutter as the rich-poor divide grows and the middle class disappears; you will allow millions to go without the access to health care; you will allow torture to continue in Gitmo; you will allow our constitutional principles to further erode; you will allow teenagers to be taught lies instead of sex education, so that fewer will be responsible. You will do all these things out of vengeance?!

If so, you disgust me. You are want all these things to happen out of nothing more than a thirst for vengeance, for spite.

I hope, when you pull the lever for McCain, you can look the people you condemn to death, poverty, sickness, torture, and rape (as forced pregnancy would amount to) in the eyes. Look at every one of them right in the eye and say "I'm voting for you to lose those rights."
Could you do it?

Remember, your actions have consequences, and those consequences should determine your actions. Are you ready to deal with the huge negative consequences of Bush III?


Polls said John Kerry would win. Polls said Dukakis would win. They were wrong.

Furthermore, you intentionally ignore the fact that Barack Obama is currently running against 2 candidates, both of which are attacking him. Hillary is running against nobody: Obama won't attack her or Hillary supporters will complain; the Republicans are actually trying to support her so that this primary will drag on. In the general, the Republicans won't continue to do that.

Why do you ignore this time and time again?

For the same reasons TUO does so.

It is a problem for the world, like it or not.

...and call a waaa-ambulance - in a nod to the mot du jour - either you're genuine in wanting to keep McCain out or you're more interested in your own ego in proving you're right, which is it?

The vote has been extraordinarily close, there's a number of people passionately invested in Hillary Clinton - one can either reach out or alienate them.

In a nod to a tired meme...

...what would Barack Obama do?

No, it's a problem for America, that CREATED IT.

Also, Obama's been doing nothing BUT reach out to Clinton AND her followers. And Clinton's been doing nothing but train her followers to feel faux-alienation.

Flat out lie.



Fixed.



And the only person who has that capacity is TUO.



True, lie, BIG LIE. I've made it clear from the start that the party's lost me, most likely forever, if they nominate your candidate. This goes for a large number of people.

However, at this juncture, I do not believe you care for the party, the country, or the service men and women who's blood will be on your hands because you couldn't bring yourself to vote for a black man..



For the same reasons TUO does so.

That's outrageous beyond compare, and it only strengthens my resolve to defeat Obama.

That's outrageous beyond compare, and it only strengthens my resolve to defeat Obama.

...being personally responsible for more death, more pain, less enlightenment, less information, more rape, less freedom, more torture, and more evil in the process.

Out of fake spite.

I'm exercising a LOT of self-control in not suggesting things you should go do right now.

No, it's a problem for America, that CREATED IT.

Also, Obama's been doing nothing BUT reach out to Clinton AND her followers. And Clinton's been doing nothing but train her followers to feel faux-alienation.

Oh come on, Barack Obama has played his game very well but it's still a game - never ceases to amaze me that people think a politician is anything but... 'oh but this time it's real!'. Live for more than than 5 presidencies and they're all for change - doesn't magically appear and if you think Barack Obama has had an angelic strategy then you're deluded.

Barack Obama has spun as much as anyone, the main difference is that he's onto a winner right now and so he's not resorting to crying 'racism' because he lost, and I'm not sure he would but his supporters?

...and no, it's a problem for the world to have an unstable Middle East, You think Brazil is free from ME stability?

Think again (http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/9379/).

A stable ME is good for the world, now whether America added to that by invading Iraq is up for debate among future historians but pulling out right now is certainly an irresponsible move.

Oh come on, Barack Obama has played his game very well but it's still a game - never ceases to amaze me that people think a politician is anything but... 'oh but this time it's real!'. Live for more than than 5 presidencies and they're all for change - doesn't magically appear and if you think Barack Obama has had an angelic strategy then you're deluded.

Barack Obama has spun as much as anyone, the main difference is that he's onto a winner right now and so he's not resorting to crying 'racism' because he lost, and I'm not sure he would but his supporters?

...and no, it's a problem for the world to have an unstable Middle East, You think Brazil is free from ME stability?

Think again (http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/9379/).

A stable ME is good for the world, now whether America added to that by invading Iraq is up for debate among future historians but pulling out right now is certainly an irresponsible move.

Obama is the front-runner and he will get the troops out of Iraq. The US created the instability, it's its to solve.

Also, Obama ISN'T crying racism, ISN'T attacking Clinton supporters and IS being nice. What he "would" do be damned.

...being personally responsible for more death, more pain, less enlightenment, less information, more rape, less freedom, more torture, and more evil in the process.

Out of fake spite.

I'm exercising a LOT of self-control in not suggesting things you should go do right now.

If you're going to paint me as a Republican, then I might as well vote like one...

That's outrageous beyond compare, and it only strengthens my resolve to defeat Obama.

I'm reminded of when I use to referee soccer and we'd have these players that would fall to the ground and grab their shins every time someone got the ball from them. We ignored them, the game was slow enough as it is...

If you're going to paint me as a Republican, then I might as well vote like one...

1- You're acting like one. So is Clinton.

2- When DID I paint you like one?

3- That you're willing to get people killed, women raped, people tortured, women unwillingly pregnant, people ignorant, and so on, people that NEVER did a THING to you screwed over, out of false spite, tells volumes about you. Voting for McCain is YOUR decision, and trying to pin it on anyone else is a coward's last refuge.

Obama is the front-runner and he will get the troops out of Iraq. The US created the instability, it's its to solve.

Also, Obama ISN'T crying racism, ISN'T attacking Clinton supporters and IS being nice. What he "would" do be damned.

It's easy to be magnanimous when you're a winner, perhaps you should think about that because it's even easier to gloat, and that achieves nothing.

I've read the debate, I've seen the post-fact opinions stated and the reasoning provided but, as we can all agree, there's no room for 'would', 'could' or 'might'.

Barack Obama has issues in America in winning the presidency, he cannot win alone and perhaps his supporters might show a little of his graciousness in victory rather than drive nails into the coffin, a coffin that could be for him.

The last 50 pages of this thread have been fairly futile, is it really worth hunting down the last Hillary Clinton supporters to prove a point?

Fears grow that Obama can't win (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/01/barackobama.uselections2008)

I don't really subscribe to this view, I'd hope the Democrats are above this and, as you yourself have posted, it's important to you, make it so.

It's easy to be magnanimous when you're a winner, perhaps you should think about that because it's even easier to gloat, and that achieves nothing.

I've read the debate, I've seen the post-fact opinions stated and the reasoning provided but, as we can all agree, there's no room for 'would', 'could' or 'might'.

Barack Obama has issues in America in winning the presidency, he cannot win alone and perhaps his supporters might show a little of his graciousness in victory rather than drive nails into the coffin, a coffin that could be for him.

The last 50 pages of this thread have been fairly futile, is it really worth hunting down the last Hillary Clinton supporters to prove a point?

Fears grow that Obama can't win (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/01/barackobama.uselections2008)

I don't really subscribe to this view, I'd hope the Democrats are above this and, as you yourself have posted, it's important to you, make it so.

Who the hell is gloating? We have two guys pretending to be victims, which cost me an account, we have lots of people trying, in all of the nicest terms, to get them to listen to reason, and all they do is claim we're "flaming" them or whatever!

If you're going to paint me as a Republican, then I might as well vote like one...

yeah, that'll show 'em!

If you're going to paint me as a Republican, then I might as well vote like one...

Listen. I want to appeal to your humanity here. If McCain is elected. People. Will. Die. People will lose their rights to their own bodies. The Middle class will continue to fall into poverty.

Is it worth it? I know you probably don't want these things to happen. So please, if your candidate doesn't win, don't do this to all those people. Even if we have wronged you, those people have not. Do not take your anger out on them.

That's outrageous beyond compare, and it only strengthens my resolve to defeat Obama.

What is outrageous beyond compare is your holding a gun to the heads the US military because you're candidate's not going to be allowed to cheat, lie, and use racism to steal the nomination that she'll loose.

Only if you don't count Florida and Michigan. The current tally shows her winning by 65,000 votes, and is situated second from the bottom.

Popular Vote (w/MI
Uncommitted to Obama)** 17,627,284 48.7% 17,692,901 48.9% Clinton +65,617 +0.2%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,961,368 48.8% 17,916,763 48.7% Obama +44,605 +0.1%

Look right below that one: not when you count both MI/FL and the caucus states

Oh sweetness, I hate to break it to you, but if you'll look at the numbers there Obama is winning the "popular" vote. When providing a source you probably ought make sure it backs up your argument.

No he's not. If you look at the numbers the way Shal (and Clinton) want you to then you must count some votes and discount others. FL and MI are allowed, but those stupid caucus states shouldn't be included. You see, you have to read the math "our" way to make it work. Otherwise you realize she is down by over 100k votes.

Listen. I want to appeal to your humanity here. If McCain is elected. People. Will. Die. People will lose their rights to their own bodies. The Middle class will continue to fall into poverty.

Is it worth it? I know you probably don't want these things to happen. So please, if your candidate doesn't win, don't do this to all those people. Even if we have wronged you, those people have not. Do not take your anger out on them.

No matter who you elect, people will die. It's not like the US President has complete control over life and death around the world.

Right now, the fucking leaders of Myanmar don't give a crap if their own people die of thirst and starvation. Can the US President change that? No...

The numbers of deaths have dropped in Iraq - both civilian and military casualties. The Iraqi Army has taken over most of the country now - so it looks like we'll only have a small presence there inside of a year - no matter who is President. It's not like McCain said, "we'll keep a half million troops there forever". Sheesh.

If you don't do anything about Iran's quest to build ICBMs, nukes, and blow Israel off the map, some day they'll do it - I'm not saying "invade now", but you'll have to do something - either way, "people will die". If we do nothing, probably in the millions, and probably by thermonuclear weapons.

It's not as simple as you think - and the world is not something the US can control - even by sitting something out.

Snip.

More people will die, lose their freedoms, be tortured, etc, if the Republicans win.

More people will die, lose their freedoms, be tortured, etc, if the Republicans win.

All of that would be wiped out when Iran nukes Israel, and Israel nukes Iran back. By far.

No he's not. If you look at the numbers the way Shal (and Clinton) want you to then you must count some votes and discount others. FL and MI are allowed, but those stupid caucus states shouldn't be included. You see, you have to read the math "our" way to make it work. Otherwise you realize she is down by over 100k votes.

Ah, the gymnastics of "winning". All you have to do is squint just right and this number here reads like we're winning!

Who the hell is gloating? We have two guys pretending to be victims, which cost me an account, we have lots of people trying, in all of the nicest terms, to get them to listen to reason, and all they do is claim we're "flaming" them or whatever!

You lost that account for yourself, and you know it.

I'm trying to find the poll but dislike for Barack Obama is growing, and I think, but I need to source, that it's overtaken Hillary Clinton, and I'd say it's fueled in large part by disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters.

That might, and should, change for the actual election but it won't be helped by gloating, something that cost you an account.

All of that would be wiped out when Iran nukes Israel, and Israel nukes Iran back. By far.

Which won't happen in an Obama presidency.

You lost that account for yourself, and you know it.

I'm trying to find the poll but dislike for Barack Obama is growing, and I think, but I need to source, that it's overtaken Hillary Clinton, and I'd say it's fueled in large part by disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters.

That might, and should, change for the actual election but it won't be helped by gloating, something that cost you an account.

I didn't gloat when I lost the account, I was infuriated over Shalrirochia's victim-playing and fell for his bait, all the while HE FLAMED ME FIRST. THAT'S what lost me the account, not some "gloating" you have yet to provide an example of. Clinton supporters keep acting as if they were victims of a massive conspiracy. And those disaffected Clinton supporters need to get the hell over themselves and realize their candidate lost with ALL SORTS of concessions granted to her. If they can't do it, it's THEIR problem.

Which won't happen in an Obama presidency.

He hasn't explained how he'll stop it.

Right now, Iran is now planning to limit its interaction with the IAEA, because the IAEA has reason to believe that the Iranian nuclear program is meant for weapons.

Note that it's the IAEA, not the US, saying that. And to raise suspicion, Iran now wants to say, "fuck you, we'll limit our cooperation and increase our production of enriched uranium".

Plenty of promises from Iran that they'll blow Israel off the map, and eliminate the Jews.

That's not something that can be negotiated. Obviously, negotiation by the IAEA has turned into useless.

What, is Obama Mr. Miracle Jesus, and the Iranians will say, "Oh, we're fools for having hated the Jews (Jews that in black liberation theology, are part of the world's problems - just some Trinity church material there)" and they'll put aside their nuclear ambitions just because Obama said, "Whoa there!" ?

I think not.

It's easy to be magnanimous when you're a winner, perhaps you should think about that because it's even easier to gloat, and that achieves nothing.

I've read the debate, I've seen the post-fact opinions stated and the reasoning provided but, as we can all agree, there's no room for 'would', 'could' or 'might'.

Barack Obama has issues in America in winning the presidency, he cannot win alone and perhaps his supporters might show a little of his graciousness in victory rather than drive nails into the coffin, a coffin that could be for him.

The last 50 pages of this thread have been fairly futile, is it really worth hunting down the last Hillary Clinton supporters to prove a point?

Fears grow that Obama can't win (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/01/barackobama.uselections2008)

I don't really subscribe to this view, I'd hope the Democrats are above this and, as you yourself have posted, it's important to you, make it so.

As it stands right now, there's only one serious obstical to Obama , and it's name is "Hillary is entitled regardless of reality".

I made it very, very clear from the get go that she was unacceptable. A very large majority on people I know IRL are of the same mind.

Allowing her to steal the nomination is the swiftest route to obscurity I can think of for her party and her supporters.

And Tonya Harding Obama's nomination will earn her, the party, and her supporters every single bit of opprobrium that such gross conduct warrents.

I didn't gloat when I lost the account, I was infuriated over Shalrirochia's victim-playing and fell for his bait, all the while HE FLAMED ME FIRST. THAT'S what lost me the account, not some "gloating" you have yet to provide an example of. Clinton supporters keep acting as if they were victims of a massive conspiracy. And those disaffected Clinton supporters need to get the hell over themselves and realize their candidate lost with ALL SORTS of concessions granted to her. If they can't do it, it's THEIR problem.

Gosh, even randomly I can click a page thread...

That's mostly because there aren't any recent ones. I did answer CH a few times.

At any rate, all that could have been said has been said. Now I just want to drive home the points, remind people that I'm right, and that I was right about Iraq, and ponder why is Hillary such a megalomaniac moron.

Edit: In retrospect, are you sure that message was to me? o_O

I don't even need to try.

As it stands right now, there's only one serious obstical to Obama , and it's name is "Hillary is entitled regardless of reality".

I made it very, very clear from the get go that she was unacceptable. A very large majority on people I know IRL are of the same mind.

Allowing her to steal the nomination is the swiftest route to obscurity I can think of for her party and her supporters.

And Tonya Harding Obama's nomination will earn her, the party, and her supporters every single bit of opprobrium that such gross conduct warrents.

But it's more interesting that watching American Idol. It's like Presidential Idol, with an extreme horror twist...

He hasn't explained how he'll stop it.

Has McCain?

Has McCain?

He says the military option is on the table if negotiation fails.

Obama excludes the military option.

If you don't negotiate from a position of strength, they won't take you seriously.

I think it's likely that if McCain becomes Presdient, the Natanz facility, and the launch sites in Iran will be hit by Stealth bombers with conventional weapons, and utterly destroyed.

No war, just tidying up.

Is it just me, or is Clinton's only remaining argument a bit weak?

"I'm more electable in some polls taken 5 months before the election when Obama hasn't been able to start his general campaign yet and both McCain and I are actively attacking him and Republicans actively supporting me and while I'm also actively trying to get my supporters not to vote for him which will make me win if I somehow steal the election by overturning the popular vote and pledged delegates and with my history of winning contests where I have huge advantages (cough) and my brilliantly run campaigns (cough, cough) we'll be able to win with just a slight advantage over McCain right now. (insert cough^10)"

Gosh, even randomly I can click a page thread...



I don't even need to try.

You call THAT gloating? :p

You call THAT gloating? :p

From you? No. :)

It's all relative.

Obama excludes the military option.

No war, just tidying up.

1- No he doesn't.

2- If bombing places is your idea of tidying up, I hope you can't vote.

As it stands right now, there's only one serious obstical to Obama , and it's name is "Hillary is entitled regardless of reality".

If you think that's the only obstacle then you, too, are deluded.

He has an extremely liberal voting record against a centrist, he's black against a white - and again, don't think minorities will vote for a minority, it's a competitive field - he's for pulling out of Iraq, against a Vet.

Sure, John McCain is stark raving mad but then so was George Bush for the re-election, hell, so was Reagan throughout his entire presidency - who's more in tune with the majority electorate?

Elections are won on small majorities and if Barack Obama supporters continue to alienate Hillary Clinton supporters - and even if you say 80% are Democrats supporters regardless, that 20% can make the difference - then the issues mount up.

People, this isn't over who won the Democrat nomination - as far as I can read, lay-off notices have been sent to Hillary Clinton staff - it's about a 50/50 chance for presidency.

1- No he doesn't.

2- If bombing places is your idea of tidying up, I hope you can't vote.

Only naive people believe nations can negotiate with each other without the real threat of violence.

But it's more interesting that watching American Idol. It's like Presidential Idol, with an extreme horror twist...

And sadly enough, that's just exactly what CNNj was running yesterday instead of saying anything about the DNC - Larry King's interviews with the American Idol contestants. :rolleyes:

Crap like that makes me wish I got almost anything else, even Fox News, for 24/7 English news.

And sadly enough, that's just exactly what CNNj was running yesterday instead of saying anything about the DNC - Larry King's interviews with the American Idol contestants. :rolleyes:

Crap like that makes me wish I got almost anything else, even Fox News, for 24/7 English news.

**zooms in on video of Daistallia running around the room with hands in the air**

Only naive people believe nations can negotiate with each other without the real threat of violence.

1- That sounds like a catch-phrase.

2- You didn't prove Obama does.

1- That sounds like a catch-phrase.

2- You didn't prove Obama does.

Obama has said he would never attack Iran.

So, any threat he makes now is not credible.

The Iranians will think, "gee, he won't go back on a campaign promise..."

If he does, he'll disappoint you.

if he doesn't, he won't be a credible negotiator with Iran.

Obama has said he would never attack Iran.

When?

Obama has said he would never attack Iran.

So, any threat he makes now is not credible.

The Iranians will think, "gee, he won't go back on a campaign promise..."

If he does, he'll disappoint you.

if he doesn't, he won't be a credible negotiator with Iran.

Bingo - ruling out any attack is giving away a pawn for no reason.

The problem with most Democrat supporters is the idea that sitting down and talking about things will solve all problems. In an ideal world perhaps.

The problem with most Democrat supporters is the idea that sitting down and talking about things will solve all problems. In an ideal world perhaps.

The problem with all Republicans is the idea that destroying the world around, raping countries and killing people will solve all problems. In hell perhaps.

Bingo - ruling out any attack is giving away a pawn for no reason.

The problem with most Democrat supporters is the idea that sitting down and talking about things will solve all problems. In an ideal world perhaps.

The problem with Republican supporters is that they seem to think Iran hasn't learned anything from our folly in Iraq.

The problem with Republican supporters is that they seem to think Iran hasn't learned anything from our folly in Iraq.

That, too. ;)

Obama has said he would never attack Iran.

So, any threat he makes now is not credible.

The Iranians will think, "gee, he won't go back on a campaign promise..."

If he does, he'll disappoint you.

if he doesn't, he won't be a credible negotiator with Iran.

I, too, would like to see where he said this, as I can't recall it. (That's certainly not to say it didn't happen.) As far as I know, Obama has been very careful to make it abundantly clear that military options are a last resort, but I don't recall him ever saying that he would not use military force under any circumstances regarding Iran. He's certainly a diplomacy first kind of candidate, but I'm inclined to believe that he knows military strength is part of diplomacy.

The sad consequence of continuing to campaign is that Hillary Clinton is sucking money out of the Democratic party supporters that will be needed during the election proper.

HC *should* have been able to wipe the floor with Obama in the first couple of months and now appears to be a weak and flawed candidate. This is not the imagine any candidate wants to project, especially not a woman.

HC is the wife of the president who got the Israelis and the PLO to talk to each other, how did she manage to blow the advantage of having Bill Clinton on her side and not win the run-off/nomination race?

The problem with Republican supporters is that they seem to think Iran hasn't learned anything from our folly in Iraq.

That may be true - and history will decide whether Iraq was folly or not, to bring things down to right or wrong is...well... wrong. Any teacher will know that allowing one bad student to disrupt a class brings the whole class down. One might question America's role as teacher but then...who else has the authority?

There's a thousand permutations and standing on a platform of withdrawal of 16 months shuts down options.

My point remains, alienating Hillary Clinton supporters, who are within 100k voters or so among 50M voters is not the best course of action - Barack Obama seems to have got the message, isn't calling Hillary Clinton a 'hag', but seems his supporters have some way to go.

how did she manage to blow the advantage of having Bill Clinton on her side and not win the run-off/nomination race?
She had Bill Clinton on her side.

She had Bill Clinton on her side.

Aye carumba!

Indeed.

My point remains, alienating Hillary Clinton supporters, who are within 100k voters or so among 50M voters is not the best course of action - Barack Obama seems to have got the message, isn't calling Hillary Clinton a 'hag', but seems his supporters have some way to go.

That's because he's far more patient than I am. Because after spending all the election being attacked by her followers and her, you can bet I was gonna go a tad harder on her.

Clinton has won the popular vote unless Barack Obama does something really dramatic in the last two primaries:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

If the Party nominates Barack Obama even if Clinton wins the popular vote, then I am quitting the Party. I will throw my support behind John McCain and do everything I can to ensure Barack Obama's defeat in November. I will not be a party to some odd re-hash of the 2000 election where one guy won more votes but ended up losing the election.

I'd also like to note that the Wall Street Journal for today came out with a graph on the front page showing that Clinton consistently leads McCain in the general, but that shows that Obama splits 50/50 with McCain. She is, without doubt, more electable in the general.

You know, I notice you've continually said you are quitting the party but your reasons keep flipping around. Just say it. Go ahead. We already know. You'll never vote for Obama. You never would have voted for Obama. And at this point you're looking for excuses.

"You MUST count every state... except FOUR!!!" Yeah, that's JUST like 2000.

If you think that's the only obstacle then you, too, are deluded.

He has an extremely liberal voting record against a centrist, he's black against a white - and again, don't think minorities will vote for a minority, it's a competitive field - he's for pulling out of Iraq, against a Vet.


His voting record is 95% identical to Clinton's.

He's for pulling out of Iraq in a nation where 66% or so agree with his policies on that issue.

Clinton has won the popular vote unless Barack Obama does something really dramatic in the last two primaries:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

If the Party nominates Barack Obama even if Clinton wins the popular vote, then I am quitting the Party.

So, if the party follows the rules of the contest, instead of going by a new metric that Clinton through out there in desperation, you'll quit the party.

Good thing you like sore losers, eh?

I will throw my support behind John McCain and do everything I can to ensure Barack Obama's defeat in November.

Ah, yes. That's productive. Punish Obama for following the rules by electing someone opposed to your ideals. That'll show 'em!

Furthermore, this isn't just "spite". I'm saying she's a better shot for us in the general. And I'm saying we should observe a democratic principle, which is to say that the person with the most votes wins.
.....

Just a thought, but if they wanted to decide by direct popular vote, wouldn't the time to decide that have been before the primaries began?

Hillary can pretend all she likes that this is about being democratic. You can pretend all you like that this is about being democratic. It isn't. It's about whatever she thinks might make her win. If she said tomorrow that they should decide who wins by playing a game of darts, I'm quite certain you'd be right behind her cheering her on.

The Barack Obama camp is all big about preaching sermons on the rules of the election...except when the rules don't help them. There have been several states where Clinton got more votes but Obama got more delegates total. I don't hear a clamor on Barack Obama's side to apportion those delegates based on the popular vote. Nor do I hear anything other than, "We have more delegates! We should win!".

They were apportioned based on the popular vote. They were just done by district as well as state. Obama tended to win the larger districts in many states.

Again, if you wanted different rules, the time to decide that was before the contest began, not after your candidate was losing by the actual rules.

The fact is that neither of them will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates will decide... and right now, Clinton has the popular vote in her favor AND she is more competitive in the general election. She has two of the three big arguments. She should be the nominee.

That's your opinion. Not everyone shares it.

But throwing a temper tantrum if things don't go your way isn't going to help anything.

Only if you don't count Florida and Michigan. The current tally shows her winning by 65,000 votes, and is situated second from the bottom.

Erm...that number is without counting anything from the caucus states. Try again.

That's because he's far more patient than I am. Because after spending all the election being attacked by her followers and her, you can bet I was gonna go a tad harder on her.

...and she hasn't?

She hasn't been attacked?

Obamania hasn't been a factor, inspirational speeches by someone who had no real record to be attacked? A natural well of dislike for her reaching back to her first days as a different First Lady, who disparaged the Cookie-baking wives of lore?

He had advantages, as much as people wanted to deny, to remain blind to that is rather naive.

Look, Barack Obama won, and the fact is that he's highly intelligent and has marshaled an extremely strong campaign - there's a nice article here on the failings of Hillary Clinton's (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/uselections2008.hillaryclinton) - but don't let the fact of winning the primaries blind you to the difficulties of winning the actual election.

Don't leave yourself open to looking the fool come January, I think there's a slim chance of that but slim all the same.

...and she hasn't?

She hasn't been attacked?

Obamania hasn't been a factor, inspirational speeches by someone who had no real record to be attacked? A natural well of dislike for her reaching back to her first days as a different First Lady, who disparaged the Cookie-baking wives of lore?

He had advantages, as much as people wanted to deny, to remain blind to that is rather naive.

Look, Barack Obama won, and the fact is that he's highly intelligent and has marshaled an extremely strong campaign - there's a nice article here on the failings of Hillary Clinton's (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/uselections2008.hillaryclinton) - but don't let the fact of winning the primaries blind you to the difficulties of winning the actual election.

Don't leave yourself open to looking the fool come January, I think there's a slim chance of that but slim all the same.

Obama didn't call for the rules to be changed to suit his needs. She did.

Furthermore, I do not call Mr. Obama anything other than, "Mr. Obama". You could show a little respect by referring to her as Hillary Clinton and not "the hag" or "the bitch".

I couldn't agree with you more.

Obama didn't call for the rules to be changed to suit his needs. She did.

Well the rules say that super delegates can vote for whomever they feel has the best chance of winning the election.

Would Barack Obama supporters accept if super delegates overwhelmingly went for Hillary Clinton, even those who've 'pledged' already?

I think not.

Rules are for the winners.

I couldn't agree with you more.

I wouldn't call her a hag if I respected her. I don't; I hate her.

That simple.

Well the rules say that super delegates can vote for whomever they feel has the best chance of winning the election.

Would Barack Obama supporters accept if super delegates overwhelmingly went for Hillary Clinton, even those who've 'pledged' already?

I think not.

Rules are for the winners.

That'd be STUPID, but it'd be within Party rules.

...there's a nice article here on the failings of Hillary Clinton's (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/uselections2008.hillaryclinton)...
Fairly interesting.

That'd be STUPID, but it'd be within Party rules.

...and you'd accept that? Even though you're from Brazil, if you could, you'd vote for her?

I think not.

Have some compassion for those who lie on the other side.

Once more, I stress that I'd rather anything than John McCain to win, but that's the point, anything.

Have you noticed that you reply to all of the rude comments but you refuse to answer fair questions?

You ignore the replies of CTOAN and I but reply to every bit of baiting by anyone who offers it.

You have yet to offer up exactly what it is that OBAMA has done wrong. We've heard about his supporters. We've heard about the DNC. We've heard about the phantom popular vote count (incidentally in a contest where many states don't have a popular vote). We have yet to hear why you think Obama will be such a bad President that you MUST vote for McCain. I'm asking you politely. Is there some reason you fear answering the question? You've already admitted it's not about issues.

<snip>
You're talking to yourself.

Barack Obama has spun as much as anyone, the main difference is that he's onto a winner right now and so he's not resorting to crying 'racism' because he lost, and I'm not sure he would but his supporters?

Perhaps, but then it would actually be true.

Clinton is crying "sexism" over and over despite the fact that she has benefited from sexism (and racism) in this election.


If you're going to paint me as a Republican, then I might as well vote like one...

Shal, I know you think everyone is being mean to you or something, but the only person "paintin you as a Republican" is you. You are the one saying that you'll back the Republican party if the Democrats don't pick your golden girl as the nominee. You are the one seeking to put revenge before issues. You are the one trying to change the rules of the contest because your girl didn't win by the actual rules.

...and you'd accept that? Even though you're from Brazil, if you could, you'd vote for her?

I think not.

Have some compassion for those who lie on the other side.

Once more, I stress that I'd rather anything than John McCain to win, but that's the point, anything.

I don't know about Heikoku, but I'm a fervent Obama supporter, and I'd accept it. Like Heik said, I'd think it was stupid. I'd think it was a blown opportunity to energize a party that really needs it with one of the more exciting candidates in recent history. I'd think it was a clear example of party insiders playing to their loyalties to the establishment rather than moving in a positive direction. I'd think it was a generally misguided move.

I would vote for her, albeit somewhat unenthusiastically, just for the universal health care and the (hopeful) reparation to the international reputation of the US and the struggling economy. I would accept it and move on to support the candidate that, while not exactly in line with my views, is by far the closest.

And I sure as hell would not vote for McCain.

Well the rules say that super delegates can vote for whomever they feel has the best chance of winning the election.

Would Barack Obama supporters accept if super delegates overwhelmingly went for Hillary Clinton, even those who've 'pledged' already?

I think not.

Rules are for the winners.

I would accept it, insofar as I'd vote for Clinton in the upcoming election. I am not a Democrat, however, I would vote against any super (if voting on them came up) who overturned all of the primary elections without good reasons. As that's not happening, it would be hard for me to say what a good reason is.

I can fathom some scenarios, however. For example, if Obama were suddenly damaged in a way that made it obvious he could not compete in the general. For example, if there were a rape scandal that was credible or *gasp* he turned out to be gay.

I strongly suspect in most of those scenarios that Obama would resign, but I will say that short of an excellent reason that the Supers should respect that they are a failsafe. That's what they were designed for. Overturning the delegate election would be a mistake and I think everyone knows it.

You're talking to yourself.

You'd be surprised how often he does that. :D

My point remains, alienating Hillary Clinton supporters, who are within 100k voters or so among 50M voters is not the best course of action - Barack Obama seems to have got the message, isn't calling Hillary Clinton a 'hag', but seems his supporters have some way to go.

Do be fair though. We don't actually have to do anything to alienate Clinton supporters. They come to us already alienated. And when they get on someone's nerves to the point that the person lashes out, they feel justified in their original statement that people were being meanie-heads.

At least, that's what happens around here.

And if you are polite, they don't answer. After all, you can't justify a martyr complex when people aren't being meanie-heads.

Perhaps, but then it would actually be true.

Clinton is crying "sexism" over and over despite the fact that she has benefited from sexism (and racism) in this election.

I have read the posts but really?

Barack Obama won states that count for nothing in the actual election despite the black vote being 80-90% for him?

Prior to Super Tuesday, there's a fair amount of Obamania counting for his varied votes but, as that died down, we saw actual voting patterns and, in states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, where many of you point out, Barack Obama is fighting the relatively racist-free Democrat vote rather than the overall vote - will the majority go for him?

We can read patterns one way or the other, certainly been done, but if you take Democrat votes as, being generous, 60/40 to Barack Obama, that says nothing when you count in base Republican votes, of which a good section is Christian White and even the rest are not likely to vote for a liberal black candidate.

My central point remains, Barack Obama is not a clean sweep and that should be recognised sooner not later.