Hillary Clinton just won't quit!

[Pookster]

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.

She is? I've played softball since I was a little girl. I can't recall a game where the person who won 2 out of 3 innings was considered winning ... unless they were winning.

Also, you've got a little spittle on your chin there.

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.

I keep hearing this argument. Even with ignoring that Barack is biracial, it just doesn't wash. Blacks aren't machines that will do as instructed. Jesse Jackson would've been more successful if that were the case. While race is playing a role, so is gender for Hillary. However, I'd never be foolish to suggest that the vast majority of women will vote for a woman because she is a woman. I, for one, didn't.

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.

So, if I claim that it's a fact that the vast majority of women will vote for Hillary because the is a woman, will that make it so? Of course, not. Women vote for who they feel is the best candidate for them as an individual, just as men do. Don't you? I did. So, why is your "fact" a fact and not a racist statement?

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.

I didn't say she can't win. I said she can't win in any realistic way. And given what she would have to do over the next three weeks to win the nomination, it's not realistic to think she could. But it's a possibility, just not a realistic one.

Spurned lover? Are you kidding?

No.

That sounds sexist, and yet watch how the women of JREForum won't nail you for that.

Why does it sound sexist? Being a woman, I've seen more than a few males that were spurned lovers. I've even been the cause of a few guys feeling that way. I've also seen girls/women that the label applied to as well. In what way do you see it as sounding sexist of me?

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.

So cool.

Hillary IS winning.

See above.

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.

Sounds like more excuses to me. But, no matter. If the above were actually true, then Hillary was the weakest candidate to begin with. If she can't even beat Obama because of the Republicans, why should we expect her to beat McCain? I don't buy the above though. I mean, you did say above that ...

"(i)t 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."

So is your fact a fact or not? Did they vote for Obama because he's Black or because the Republicans got them to commit mutiny against Hillary?

Again, it just reads as excuses. And just to add something I've heard said a few times -- losers make excuses; winners go home with the prom queen. Just sayin'

 

[varwoche]

"Aheadness" is a relative, nebulous term in this particular rollycoaster Democratic candidate selection process of 2008.

While I agree it's been a roller-coaster ride, and while it's certainly been a close race, it is an indisputable fact that Obama is slightly ahead. Enough ahead that it's clear to me (and to most observers) that -- barring a May surprise -- he's got the nomination locked up.

Obama does better in the non-secret-ballot caucuses, where peer pressure comes into play.

I have no way of knowing if peer pressure is a factor or not and don't much care, at least as pertaining to this election cycle. There is a nomination system in place and Obama is winning it, period. (Looking forward, I don't mind one bit if caucuses are scrapped.)

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.

True.

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.

The same can be said of every nomination cycle. This one is no more or less screwed up than prior ones, with the notable exception of Florida and Michigan of course -- a situation that Clinton (and all of the candidates) endorsed because of the ludicrous pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire that takes place every four years. (This too is something that should be changed. The sequence should be determined by lottery.)

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Alright, how long do you bet it will take for her to say that she will "stay the course"?

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

You are really John Laroquette, star of Night Court, aren't you??

TAM

 

[Pookster]

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.

Agreed. The only real objective measure for a campaigner is to look at the results. If it had been just a few primaries/caucuses, then I'd wonder if the best candidate won or not. But this has covered dozens of elections over five months. On paper, Hillary could well be considered the "best" as far as experience and skill. But as a famous ESPN personality has said ... that's why they play the game.

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.

If it had been anyone other than Obama, Hillary would've cake walked to the nomination. He's a fresh face with a fresh voice. He seems to know what people want to hear as well. As you mentioned, Hillary's strength is also her biggest weakness. People know her too well.

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.

She's been very effective as a Senator. Sen. Graham caught some serious heat back here in SC when he worked with her on some legislation a few years back. And when I say serious, I mean serious heat from his own state party members. People have generally made up their minds long ago about Hillary. For most, they either love her or hate her. There's not much in between for her to convince to vote for her. Obama's going to have a big challenge ahead of him though. If he lets the Republicans define him, then he's done for. So far, he's held his own pretty good. I mean, for all intents, he's just defeated one of the best campaign teams you'll ever find to win the nomination -- the Clintons. Not bad for a rookie.

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.

For the most part, Hillary isn't doing any harm. I posted elsewhere that it's no big deal if she keeps on campaigning through June 3. Actually, it's working well for the party. Record numbers of people are registering to vote as a Democrat in the contested States. Who knows how that might help in November in some close States.

... 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.

I agree.

 

[joobie]

The New York Giants didn't get it either. And look what it got THEM.

yeah, but which of them would you pick in FOOTBALL?

(i picked the giants - it got ME a lot!)

 

[joobie]

She IS winning, you Obamaniac!.

by what metric that matters - popular vote? amount of delegates? superdelegates?

 

[Hokulele]

What, so 21 is old now?

Flattery will get you everywhere.

 

[T.A.M.]

CS:

Remember earlier we were discussing whether Hillary would run as an independent, and you said it showed how little I knew about American Politics, and the Clintons.

Well I dunno about the Clintons, and I will be impressed if she sticks behind Obama, but look at the postings by Hillariacs over on CNN, and look at the number of them calling for her to RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/10/d-day-in-west-virginia/#comments

TAM

 

[TheJim]

I really get a kick out of the Clinton supporters throwing around terms like Obamabots and cult members in reference to Obama supporters and than cry that Obama supporters don't sit back and take it or if Clinton does not win they will take there ball and vote for McCain. I am sure if Obama was behind in popular vote, elected delegates, super-delegates in the Senate, and states won they would be threating to take the ball and go home too. But as the polls show it is Clinton supporters that show this behavior at higher numbers. She could have won this thing if she reached out to young college educated women by addressing her Iraq war vote or making different decisions on her Iran bomb bomb nuke away policy but instead she ran to the center assuming she would get this vote.

I love the Clinton supporter dismissal that Obama will not win 85 percent of the D vote in the fall because they are staying home and pouting while Hillary will get all of the black vote to turn out in the fall at numbers similar to the last 2 elections after her latest comments. To me is why Clinton lost the election she has has expected everyone to vote for her instead of making a case for herself.

Her supporters also love to point out that she is the better general candidat again assuming that she will get all the Kerry states. She might very well do that but she is putting into play Washington, Oregon, Minn, and Wis. She is doing better in Ohio, Penn, and NJ than Obama while he is doing better in Mich and NM. So its not like she is a slam dunk in the fall if she is putting 40 EV into play. The thing about Ohio she will need the black vote which was about 18 percent of the D vote last election but will turn out be for her? What new states can she put into play outside of WV, Ark, and Florida that Obama does not put into play? She is not putting CO, VA, NC, or ND into play.

 

[shuize]

...What new states can she put into play outside of WV, Ark, and Florida that Obama does not put into play? She is not putting CO, VA, NC, or ND into play.

Yeah. Like Florida could ever matter ...

 

[TheJim]

Yeah. Like Florida could ever matter ...

Florida is vastly overrated as a swing state for the Democrats and a necessity for the republicans much like Ohio in reality. In the 2000 election if Gore won any other state even ND or Alaska he would have won. Obama is stronger with Gore's states on a whole than Clinton is plus he is likely to win Colorado and put into play other states than Clinton is. Clinton is polling good in Florida right now but she has not had the nonstop Élan commercials on yet either.

 

[Kestrel]

You do realize that maybe the people really don't want to surrender this war don't you? Liberals make a grave mistake if they believe the US populous, frustrated as they are with Iraq, are ready to see this country repeat the humiliation of VietNam all over again along with the same blood bath that ensued after we cut and ran. I can tell you this, if Obama is elected and he follows through on his promises to the left he is going to own the results and God help him if his direct talks with Iran give it cover to actually get their bomb along with their unopposed control of Iraq. His "hope and change" is a nice slogan for an after school special but it is not an effective foreign policy for the United States. Both Clinton and McCain understand that.
I will butt out of your intraparty squabble but I will do everything I can as a citizen to prevent this man from becoming POTUS. The stakes are just too high.

Still thinking of the Vietnam war as if it was a damn high school football game? You should have noticed by now that Vietnam is no longer our enemy, the country has become a trading partner and a tourist destination.

Sometimes walking away from a war is the right thing to do.

 

[Kestrel]

I keep hearing this argument. Even with ignoring that Barack is biracial, it just doesn't wash. Blacks aren't machines that will do as instructed. Jesse Jackson would've been more successful if that were the case. While race is playing a role, so is gender for Hillary. However, I'd never be foolish to suggest that the vast majority of women will vote for a woman because she is a woman. I, for one, didn't.

Earlier today I was at our Congressional District convention, where we chose delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The speech in favor of Obama was given by Federico Peña, the speech for Hillary was given by Wellington Webb. So much for the theory that hispanics only support Hillary and blacks only support Obama. Both candidates had supporters from just about every ethnic group you can imagine. Neither candidate had a preponderance of old or young, men or women delegates.

Both Peña and Webb made it clear they would support whoever the party ended up choosing as it's candidate. Many of the other delegates I talked to made that same point. The last thing they wanted was another 4 years with a Republican in the White House.

 

[Texas]

Still thinking of the Vietnam war as if it was a damn high school football game? You should have noticed by now that Vietnam is no longer our enemy, the country has become a trading partner and a tourist destination.

Sometimes walking away from a war is the right thing to do.

So the Cambodian and South Vietnam 2 million deaths after we left were worth the price for a tourist destination? Is the same fate ok with you in Iraq when Obama pulls the troops after his election?

 

[Kestrel]

So the Cambodian and South Vietnam 2 million deaths after we left were worth the price for a tourist destination? Is the same fate ok with you in Iraq when Obama pulls the troops after his election?

If you paid attention to current events, you should have noticed that the Poll Pot regime was overthrown by the Peoples Republic of Vietnam.

 

[TheJim]

You do realize that maybe the people really don't want to surrender this war don't you? Liberals make a grave mistake if they believe the US populous, frustrated as they are with Iraq, are ready to see this country repeat the humiliation of VietNam all over again along with the same blood bath that ensued after we cut and ran. I can tell you this, if Obama is elected and he follows through on his promises to the left he is going to own the results and God help him if his direct talks with Iran give it cover to actually get their bomb along with their unopposed control of Iraq. His "hope and change" is a nice slogan for an after school special but it is not an effective foreign policy for the United States. Both Clinton and McCain understand that.
I will butt out of your intraparty squabble but I will do everything I can as a citizen to prevent this man from becoming POTUS. The stakes are just too high.

Tell me what is winning in the war in Iraq and i am willing to have this discussion but the stay in Iraq group never says what it is. I mean we took power away than killed Hussain, which i thought the war was about. What is the mission now? How will we ever know if we win? Leaving Iraq is not even the same as leaving Nam, with Nam we at least knew what the mission was where we have no idea what it is in Iraq.

 

[Texas]

If you paid attention to current events, you should have noticed that the Poll Pot regime was overthrown by the People Republic of Vietnam.

Yes and then it proceeded to pick up where Pol Pot left off with re-education camps and slave labor. I lived the current events. You still haven't answered my question. Are you willing to leave the people of Iraq to the same fate? Are you willing leave the Kurds to the tender mercies of the Sunni and Shia extremists? Are you willing to see Iran walk in the day after we withdraw? What is Obama's plan B when that happens?

 

[Texas]

Tell me what is winning in the war in Iraq and i am willing to have this discussion but the stay in Iraq group never says what it is. I mean we took power away than killed Hussain, which i thought the war was about. What is the mission now? How will we ever know if we win? Leaving Iraq is not even the same as leaving Nam, with Nam we at least knew what the mission was where we have no idea what it is in Iraq.

Well we know what leaving means. As to when we win, it is when Iraq has a central government strong enough to stand on its own and able to defend the people. Iraq is having regular elections with popular support in every one.
The US cannot fight the governments battle against Iraqi resistance but it can fight the battles with the foreign fighters broadly known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. Iraq will need several years until its infrastructure, government and security forces are mature enough to function independently OR until the government tells us to leave. The situation is such that without the insurgency and terrorist groups we most likely would be all but gone by now.

One lesson our adversaries learned from Vietnam is that if they just wait us out, spill some blood then the national will is easily broken and we will pack up and leave.

 

[Kestrel]

Yes and then it proceeded to pick up where Pol Pot left off with re-education camps and slave labor. I lived the current events. You still haven't answered my question. Are you willing to leave the people of Iraq to the same fate? Are you willing leave the Kurds to the tender mercies of the Sunni and Shia extremists? Are you willing to see Iran walk in the day after we withdraw? What is Obama's plan B when that happens?

If Iran walked into Iraq, they would also have too much to handle. Iraqi's and Persians have hated each other for centuries. They fought an incredibly bloody war not that long ago. Iran would be in the same situation we are now, fighting an insurgency with no end in sight.