Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
I resemble that remark.
(And no, regardless of what happens with the Democratic nominee, I will not be flocking to McCain.)
Hillary Clinton just won't quit!
- Thread starter ravdin
- Start date
I resemble that remark.
(And no, regardless of what happens with the Democratic nominee, I will not be flocking to McCain.)
So, we need another 8 years of pandering to business, relaxed regulations that lead to short-term booms, 8 years of destroying the military via budget and niggling sorts of cuts, 8 years of tepid support for a weak scientific research program?
No, I don't think so.
Obama, at least, says the right things about things like reserach, etc.
The Hil3ary supporters who are now stumping wholesale for McCain, and that is what you're doing, are doing their best to ensure at least 4 more years of failed warmongering politics.
And I sorta like McCain, he does look like a saint next to Huckleberry and Paul.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Well that's awfully self-fulfilling, isn't it? "My candidate deserved to be nominated because she's the only one who can win against the GOP. To prove it, I'm not going to vote for the guy who beat her to the nomination."
What exactly are you protesting? That more people voted for the other guy?
Go on. Take your ball and your Kool-Aid and go home.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
There are many people who feel quite the opposite.
Bill Clinton. The guy on whose own party he has recently turned with a vengeance.
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
Elphaba has spoken.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
A common cry of the third-party candidates is that "There is no difference between the Dem's and the Reps!" I thought that was wrong when Nader said it about Gore and Bush and I think it is wrong now. Maybe you won't discern the difference until it gets down to brass tacks, but I think you will eventually see it. Better if you could see it now while you still have a chance to do something about it.
I dont' doubt that every candidate has some associations that are, to be kind, unsavory. Such is the nature of US politics. I'm really not in favor of "showstopper" issues. Big picture, that's what's important. We need to temper outrage with common sense.
This is just politics as usual. All candidates will say that you should vote for them because they have the best chance to win. Right now, it's anybody's race. The presidency will be decided by what happens in the next five months. I wish that Americans had better memories, but nothing can be done about that. They will insist on letting the "issue of the day" rule their decisions.
Mine too. (Sigh) Alabamians. What are you gonna do? Plus I work for an oil company, so you can imagine that they are pretty solidly Republican. I'm pretty much a political outcast except for here.
But though I am almost certain to vote for the Democratic candidate, I will say that McCain is by far the best candidate the Republicans had to offer. I would feel a lot more comfortable with him than someone like Huckabee or Romney. Still, I don't think he has enough skills. He's not that smart, finishing next-to-last at West Point, and he didn't prove to be a very good pilot. He can't even follow through on his highly admirable campaign finance reform. Yes, he would be many orders of magnitude better than Bush, but then, so would broccoli.
Pookster
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,786
I keep hearing this. I keep hearing Clinton say it herself. So, why isn't she winning? If she's so good and the toughest, why is she losing? If she can't beat Obama, why should anyone expect her to beat McCain? The walk isn't matching the talk.
It doesn't matter, unless her intent is to hurt Obama. Remember, she is a member of the Democratic Party. Therefore, it's not just her "business" what she does now. Sure, she has the right to keep running. While she can't win in any realistic way, she can certainly do harm to the Democratic Party's candidate. I would think even the non-idiotic Obamaniac fools could see that.
Again with this "they KNOW Hillary is the best choice". Why isn't Hillary winning then? If Obama is such a weak candidate, why isn't Hillary mopping up the floor with him? This sounds more like talk from a spurned lover than anything else.
Also, where did you get your mindreading skills at? Should Randi be worried about his million?
Well, it's at least nice of you to offer a turn ...
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
She IS winning, you Obamaniac! Does something happen to short-term memory when a person decides to become an Obamaniac? She just won 2 of the last 3 primaries. And why didn't she win North Carolina? Because 9 out of 10 black people in North Carolina threw their votes to the black candidate, and there is a large black population in North Carolina. That's the main reason. It is a generally true statement that Obama, because he is black, is going to garner the vast majority of black votes. That's no racist statement. That's a fact. Primary election results bear it out. I suppose if a Slovenian guy or girl was running for Prez, I'd be out there holding $1000 a foot Slovenian Folk Dancing fundraisers for him and/or her.
No. Hillary's intent is to be the next President of the United States, carrying her Democratic ideals with her into office. A majority of Democrats in Pennsylvania and a majority of Democrats in Indiana said: Hillary - we want YOU! So her next logical step is to quit. I see. Oh - she can't win in any realistic way? Is that a fact? She just won 2 of the last 3 primary elections and she cannot win? That's good twoofer logic there, Pookster.
Spurned lover? Are you kidding? That sounds sexist, and yet watch how the women of JREForum won't nail you for that. Hillary is a politician, therefore a rat in my book. But of all the rats in the race this year, she is less rodenty than the rest of the lot. Ya gotta support somebody if you care at all about politics, so I'm supporting her. Okay sure we dated back in the 70s but that was over with after I suspended myself from wires and flew over her courtroom, showering her with pink Nerf gavels (they had little locked-hearts on the handles) while court was in session. She never completely forgave me for that stunt.
Hillary IS winning. But when the mass media in this country is majority owned by Republicans and they decide to turn their battlewagon broadsides upon you, day and night; when you still manage to maneuver your ship through the fusillade of shells and stay afloat; when the Repubs acknowledge that they cannot sink you but they sure as living hell can turn your crew mutinous against you; and when your new-kid-on-the-block wet-behind-the-ears opponent decides, as a campaign strategy, to hint that you're racist, against his race: It's an awfully tall order, to prevail against odds like that. Could you? I doubt I could.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Because the best don't always win. Her experience is also her baggage. Also, it depends on what you mean by "best". A person who might be the best president is not always the best campaigner. Obama is a much more polished speaker than her, and while that may be important, it is hard to say how important it is. Certainly the ability to communicate is a talent that a president should have (which makes GWB's two terms even more unfathomable) but it is no substitute for good decision-making skills.
I've seen Hillary work across party lines in Congress and I know she has more policy experience than either Obama or McCain, but that won't do a damn bit of good if she can't get elected. Electability is where her critical weakness lies, in my opinion.
I'm not sure it's that big of a deal. I doubt that Hillary is saying anything about Obama that the Republicans wouldn't find out for themselves. In fact, getting these things out of the way early, rather than being blindsided by them at the last moment, may prove to be a good thing. When she (finally) drops out and swings her political machine behind Obama, I think you'll see a sharp turnaround in the polls.
And I'm not sure that having two viable candidates isn't a good idea for the Dems. Suppose, for example, one of them made a crucial mistake, one that was so bad that it would make them unelectable. If that were the case, then having a more electable candidate waiting in the wings might be a good thing for the Dems.
As it looks now, it is going to be a close election. I think that McCain has more places he can be hurt than either Clinton or Obama, but I have learned never to underestimate the Republican Smear Machine. When it comes to gutter fighting, they are the experts.
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
What, so 21 is old now?
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Right. That perfectly explains why she is 180 delegates behind. Because she's winning.
Oh, and for the record, I think Hillary would have made the best president of the lot, but she can't win now.
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
10-roger that, Trick. It factors into the mosaic of recent history as to why the Repubs have prevailed in Presidential bids more often than the Dems. There is essentially nothing they won't do. Anyone who doesn't know this should immediately purchase All The President's Men and The Final Days and get down to some good ole readin'.
And of course the other big reason they prevail is that they are better readers of what the American electorate really wants from a Chief Executive, and they play right to it. Americans will generally go dead-on centerline, or right of center, in their presidential ideal. Not left. Not ever left. And that is Obama's HUGE disadvantage. The perception is that he is pretty well gone to the left. Americans certainly get people on the left into the halls of Congress, but the Oval Office? Nope.
UserGoogol
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,074
That seems like a rather strained interpretation of the facts. Each primary is not a statistically random sampling of the Democratic population. Different states have different sorts of demographics, and different demographics vote differently, statistically speaking. (Black people are more united behind a particular candidate than others, but they aren't an entirely exceptional phenomena.) That Indiana would go to Clinton and North Carolina would go to Obama is something that could have been predicted a long time ago. You have to look at the big picture. And in that picture, Obama has more delegates (both pledged and total, although Clinton still has a two vote lead in the supers alone), and he has more votes, even if you include Florida and Michigan. To consider the last three and note that Clinton has won 2/3 is rather myopic, especially when you consider that the net delegate movement over the course of those elections has largely been a wash.
I would say it's more heteronormative than sexist, in that I can easily imagine someone saying the same exact thing if the genders were flipped and a man was percieved as refusing to acknowledge being beaten by a woman. It's not an entirely politically correct comment, but I wouldn't call it sexist.
I'm totally a dude, though.
Last edited:
Tricky
Briefly immortal
You may be right about that, but I think the playing field has changed. The recent failures of the conservatives in America may have driven the center far to the left. Certainly there are periods when the voting patterns change. The FDR years were one such time. The Reagan years were another. Bill Clinton was sort of an aberration rather than a trend, not to mention the fact that he is as far to the right as many Republicans.
But I'm seeing a change here. Republicans seem to be alienating much of their core constituency, and greatly polarizing some that were on the fence. I've never seen such an outpouring of revulsion for Republicans by Hispanics as I have lately. Economic conservatives are horrified by the way the current administration has mortgaged our future with this stupid war. This could well be a pivotal election in US history. It appears, and I hope appearances are not deceiving, that one of the pivotal changes is going to be the decrease in the power of the religious right.
But frankly, I see some very hard times for whoever gets elected. The economy is a cumbersome beast that will not be tamed by selecting a new whip. Islamic terrorism will continue to be a threat for may years to come. The war in Iraq cannot be turned off like a faucet. Global warming is not going to disappear overnight. It is quite possible that we may view the Bill Clinton years as a golden age when all we had to worry about was the president's... cigar.
Last edited:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Has she been reading "The Secret"?
I don't understand given that Obama's policies are virtually indistinguishable from Clinton's.
Last edited:
Ah, so the last three primaries is now the criterion for who is winning and not the person who is ahead? Greetings from my universe to the parallel one you occupy!
So? Should we discount Clinton's Indiana victory based on whiteness?
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
Good points. It's always possible things may change - but my read is: Don't expect it. Kinda reminds me of '68, all of the hoo-hah going on, and what do people do? Put Nixon in the chair. Then put him there again in '72. Carter barely sneaks in as a rather inert antidote in '76, and then 20 more years of Repubs in the center seat. Bill gets in because he was and is so centrist, so moderate a Democrat. And a tremendously charismatic and skilled politician - huge factor right there.
The score, beginning with the 1952 election, is a 9 and 5 season for the Republicans. With Obama as an opponent, they have a shot at going 10 and 5. With Hillary - and especially before the Hatefest - they were staring 9 and 6 right in the face. I still think - despite the Hatefest - she'd clean McCain's clock.
I absolutely agree that whomever gets the job is going to be up against it, perhaps to a degree that is unprecedented. Which factors into my hope that Hillary gets there - because you get Bill in the deal, in his Hillary-auxiliary role. Some see that as a liability - I don't. I see it as a huge advantage, considering the depth and breadth of issues facing the USA and the world.
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
Hey VW -
The actual job of the Democratic Party in this case is to provide the best overall candidate to whip the Republican candidate in November. It's that simple.
"Aheadness" is a relative, nebulous term in this particular rollycoaster Democratic candidate selection process of 2008. We already acknowledge that Hillary does better when folks get to go into a private booth and pull whatever lever they wish, without anyone looking over their shoulders. Obama does better in the non-secret-ballot caucuses, where peer pressure comes into play. We already acknowledge that a huge block of primary voters - maybe 7 or 8 million Democrats in Michigan and Florida - have to sit on the sidelines for this candidate selection process. They have NO SAY as to who gets to run against McCain. If both those states had decided to pull up at the February 5th starting line and not try to cut to the head of the line, would Hillary or Barack have won them? Split? Who knows? I don't. Because it's the vote then that would have counted.
We Democrats - we saps, that is - screwed up this 2008 candidate selection process, but good. I don't know that anyone can really say with any certainty who is ahead. Who is REALLY ahead. And by that I mean: Who do the majority of voting-eligible Democrats in the entire United States of America think is the best contestant to go up against McCain? I don't know the answer to that. I know who I'm for, but I'm one man, one vote.