The Shia majority of both countries belie that argument. If we pull out with the government as weak as it is, Sadr will rise to prominence and he spends more time in Iran than he does in Iraq. Iran will have NO problem subduing Iraq since it will have absolutely no qualms when it comes to civilian casualties that we have.
Hillary Clinton just won't quit!
- Thread starter ravdin
- Start date
The Shia majority of both countries belie that argument. If we pull out with the government as weak as it is, Sadr will rise to prominence and he spends more time in Iran than he does in Iraq. Iran will have NO problem subduing Iraq since it will have absolutely no qualms when it comes to civilian casualties that we have.
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
Doc, I've learned quite a bit ago to refrain from watching CNN (Commentary, Not News) or going to their Webby if I can help it (typically I can). You should too.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
I'm going by what I know of Hillary Clinton, and she won't be running as an independent. That's the key, not what some of her fans desire.
You see what's happening here? For the first time in American history - because of the innernetz - the ease of private contributions to political campaigns is giving contributors and supporters a palpable sense of entitlement. It's like buying stocks - the public wants their investments to pay out. Many people want something other than: "Well, we gave it a good shot, but it's winner take all. Sorry folks!" Doesn't sit well with many, especially for those who maybe have contributed even more than they had anticipated.
Hey - anything can happen, right? Lots of things, political-wise, have been seriously out of whack over the last decade or so. But my read is that the likelihood of Hillary running as an independent is a big fat zero percentage. Would make absolutely no political sense for her to do that.
Last edited:
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
Unbelievable.You are really John Laroquette, star of Night Court, aren't you??
TAM
Outed - on the publick innernetz. And by a Canadian!
I'll never live this down - ever.
I think a lot of young Obama supporters see what Hillary is doing is unprecedented. That is far from the truth. The last example of a brokered convention was when Ted Kennedy took Carter all the way to the convention and IIRC Carter didn't win the nomination until the 3rd vote. Kennedy was not villified by the party, in fact he is lionized by the democratic left. What I find amusing is that Ted is a leading voice in trying to get Hillary to quit. Brokered conventions were the rule not the exception for many many elections.
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
No - you know who goes home with the prom queen? The turd-bully-athlete-jock, that's who. Because in high school - the foxiest women are generally more attracted to these disgusting bozos. Thank God some of these young women eventually learn how to more intelligently evaluate us men-types.
I think a lot of young Obama supporters see what Hillary is doing is unprecedented. That is far from the truth. The last example of a brokered convention was when Ted Kennedy took Carter all the way to the convention and IIRC Carter didn't win the nomination until the 3rd vote. Kennedy was not villified by the party, in fact he is lionized by the democratic left. What I find amusing is that Ted is a leading voice in trying to get Hillary to quit. Brokered conventions were the rule not the exception for many many elections.
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
Yep. Right again, Tex. And of course Mr. Teddy is defining just exactly what politicians are: Rats. It was okay for him to drive the thing as far as it could possibly go, in 1980. But that behavior is not allowable for Hillary. And she has a helluva bigger chance of prevailing than he ever did.
You know ConspiRaider, you keep saying how Hillary has more chance of "prevailing" in the general election, but I have a question for you. If this is true, why aren't the superdelegates (who exist precisely because they can sway the nomination "the right way" if they think it's better for the party) endorsing Clinton? Aren't they supposed to be among the US political elite? In fact, the exact opposite is happening: almost all superdelegates endorsements are for Obama. Why? Are the superdelegates just stupid? Can't they see Obama obvious (to you) failings? Or are they just not really believing in the whole "Obama can't win" line of arguments, and you are the one who is wrong?
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
A bit out of context there, Zou. What I said concerning Hillary's chances of prevailing was comparative to Ted Kennedy's chances of prevailing over Carter in 1980. He (Kennedy) had that heeeuuuge Chappaquiddick deal hanging around his neck, a showstopper if ever there was one. That the primary of 1980 was close at all is a testament to the weakness of the Carter presidency.
I agree with you that for reasons wild-guessed at and even completely unbeknownst to us - the superdelegates are going to throw in with Obama. I think the pressures swirling around this whole scenario are focusing them to that end. What I think - and it has no bearing - is that Hillary is the best opponent to McCain in November. But no one is pressuring me to the extent that the superdelegates are being wooed and cajoled and schmoozed and pressured. I have read ruminations from other political writers that even though some superdelegates feel Obama may lose in November as the nominee - they'll keep the peace and go with him regardless.
The last I looked the SD count is just about even. I realize Obama has the momentum but it should give ya'll pause that his REAL support in this primary does not validate the perception that he is dominating the process. It seems to me that many of the SDs are just trying to make this primary stop so they can define McCain. That is going to be a problem since McCain like Hillary is pretty well defined in the public's mind already. Obama is still a blank slate that has not actually had any real punches thrown at him yet and when the ones he has had he has not shown up well. His ABC debate performance was really one rookie mistake after another.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Indeed Obama has momentum in the Superdelegate count.
But it is true that brokered conventions once used to be the rule. I'm not sure why the trend these days is for candidates to drop out as soon as they get behind. John Edwards could have had a powerful hand in deciding who got to be president. But that was then and this is now. The fat lady is clearing her throat for Hillary. Still, I don't think that it is such a big deal that she won't drop out. I mentioned in an earlier thread that I cannot understand how fighting to the end is so admirable in some situations, but apparently not here. She's not hurting Obama. She's training him to take a punch. I disagree with you that Obama hasn't taken a punch yet though. The whole Reverend Wright thing was a viscious uppercut, but he seems to have shaken it off.
Obama got his political legs in the dirty world of Chicago politics. I think that probably trained him to take a punch too.
Oh, I know I was completely out of context. Sorry about that.
Well, there's at least one reason that make perfect sense: that the superdelegates believe Obama can win the election and is a better candidate than Clinton at this point.
I don't think anyone thinks Obama can't lose in November - of course he can lose (and so can Hillary). As for superdelegates being pressured, I would think that the Clinton machine - who have combined decades of experience within the party and who had past working relationship with almost every superdelegates - would be the one with the ability to apply massive pressure and leverage their enormous gravitas. And this may exactly what is happening right now behind the scenes. As for Obama, the only arguments he can give to the hundred of so superdelegates who joined his campaign during the race is precisely that he is leading in all or almost all indicators imaginable. And it seems to work very well.
If the superdelegates really believed Obama couldn't make it, they would be flocking to Clinton, and they would have done it at the first opportunity possible. That's their role. But they have not. I for one don't believe for a minute that a junior senator could blackmail these experienced individuals into supporting him over the obvious establishment nominate. Ergo the superdelegates are doing this for the right reason: because he IS leading, he IS an excellent candidate, and you are wrong in saying that he doesn't have any chance.
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
ravdin
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2005
- Messages
- 4,985
My previous comments about Clinton being dead in the water have nothing to do with my preference between her and Obama. It's a mathematical fact that at this point, she can't win.
Even if you would prefer to see her in the White House next year, you can't dispute that she's in second place in the popular vote, states, pledged delegates, and now superdelegates as well. Sorry, CR. It's over.
Even if you would prefer to see her in the White House next year, you can't dispute that she's in second place in the popular vote, states, pledged delegates, and now superdelegates as well. Sorry, CR. It's over.
Suddenly
No Punting
She is probably going to destroy Obama in West Virginia today.
Part of this is because even though we tend to vote evenly in presidential elections, the vast majority of us are registered democrats because in many places the GOP has no organization and history and the elections are decided by the primary.
So the Democratic party is a bit more conservative here than usual, so it would be expected that the more conservative candidate would have an advantage. Many of those that will vote for Hillary have no intention whatsoever to vote for the Democrat in the general election.
My estimate is to chop off 20% of Hillary's votes to see the real opinion of those likely to vote Democrat.
Part of this is because even though we tend to vote evenly in presidential elections, the vast majority of us are registered democrats because in many places the GOP has no organization and history and the elections are decided by the primary.
So the Democratic party is a bit more conservative here than usual, so it would be expected that the more conservative candidate would have an advantage. Many of those that will vote for Hillary have no intention whatsoever to vote for the Democrat in the general election.
My estimate is to chop off 20% of Hillary's votes to see the real opinion of those likely to vote Democrat.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Not to be pedantic, (okay, just to be pedantic) that's not technically correct. Superdelegates can change their minds on a whim. If some horrible news came out about Obama tomorrow, they could all drop him like a hot potato. That would give the nomination to Hillary.
No, it's not likely, but it appears to be just that sort of miracle that Hillary is hoping (and possibly researching) for.
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
Congrats to Hillary Clinton for her huge margin of victory in West Virginia! WOW!
Stand by for this screeching sound: LIKE, SHE SHOULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE QUIT!
Stand by for this screeching sound: LIKE, SHE SHOULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE QUIT!
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,302
.