Hillary Clinton's Only Remaining Hope: Steal This Election | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)
Full of it (none / 0)
Cenk

Neither candidate is going to get the votes necessary to win the nomination out right. The super delegates will have to decide this.

You bragged the other day about how Obama beat Clinton (delegate count) in Texas. This despite her winning the popular vote. (no concern for the will of the people there huh)

Caucuses only represent 10% of the electorate (example only a little over 7,000 people voted in the Wyoming primary) Where is the concern for the will of the people.

Mich & Fla (shouldn't those voters have a say). Note: I do not believe that they should just be given to Hillary.

How about "weighted districts" that's fair too right?

Whenever I raise these questions I am told (by Obama Supporters) them the rules. Except when it comes to Super delegates. Super delegates are suppossed to vote for the candidate that they believe has the best chance to win in November, otherwise the candidate with the most delegates would automatically win.

If the super delegates feel that Clinton is the best choice to run against McCain and choose her then they are (according to you) violating the will of the people.

It is amazing how the will of the people only matters when it helps your candidate.

It is quite possible that Hillary could lose in delegates and win in popular vote, What then?

You would think, after the 2000 election, we would have our shit together. THIS ISN'T OBAMA'S FAULT AND IT ISN'T CLINTON'S FAULT. This mess was created by the DNC and never fixed.

What you should be pointing out is this whole system is unfair to the Dem. voters (how are Pubs and Inds voting in our primaries?)

The truth is, the winner will be decided by the super delegates and that we should unite behind whoever that cabdidate is period.

Then we should fix this mess, No caucuses, no weighted districts, No cross filings and NO super delegates. Only primaries where the voters thenmselves decide who our candidates should be

by LORD FOUL on 03/12/2008 12:55:43 PM EST

Start thinking about establishment approval polls (none / 0)

"If the super delegates feel that Clinton is the best choice to run against McCain and choose her then they are (according to you) violating the will of the people."

His point is that if they do this they are taking a terrible chance of alienating a  large chunk of voters.  Stop and think about something just a second.  Opinion polls show that people are enormously unsatisfied with congress and the senate.  It shows in every poll taken where the question is asked.  There is a reason for that.  People are sick to death of the old guard way of doing business.  They're furious that congress and the senate haven't stood up to the thugs.  Those same people who are now in such disfavor with Americans are the people that constitute a large part of the superdelegates.  Are these insiders going to take their 20something% approval rating out for a spin by cramming Hillary down the throats of a majority of voters who have indicated they are fed up with the Washington crowd?

That would be a huge mistake.  You can't skate on 25% ice.  It isn't smart. 

by bfaul on 03/12/2008 02:19:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Pols (none / 0)
Polls don't count for shit until November for any candidate in any race. Gore, Kerry, Dukakis all led at one point durring their campaigns. Most voters have no idea who or what is a super delegate.

We don't even know what the split is going to be going into the convention. Like I said what if Clinton leads in popular vote and Obama leads in delegate votes what then?

Like the language though "cramming down the throats" they almost have the same amount of popular votes, how is that cramming?  but this really ain't about the will of the people is it? It is about what you want.

Live by the rules die by the rules

I want to win period and I will support whoever the Dem candidate is in Novemeber because that is what is truely important. (my candidate was already knocked out)


by LORD FOUL on 03/12/2008 02:49:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It may not be big percentage wise but (none / 0)
isn't Obama ahead by over half a million popular votes? It's not a huge lead or anything, but it's not chump change either.

by ihavenobias on 03/12/2008 02:57:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Like i said (none / 0)
We don't know what the split may be.

I am sorry if I offend but this isn't about Obama or Clinton.

It is about us winning in November.

by LORD FOUL on 03/12/2008 03:21:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're twisting what I said (none / 0)

"Polls don't count for shit until November for any candidate in any race."

Did I quote polls for a certain candidate?  No.  I just used the poll numbers to indicate how badly people despise the current crop of congressmen and senators.  In that respect do polls count?  You bet your ass they do.  It indicates an undercurrent of dissatisfaction that is primed and ready to be tapped.  I'm convinced that these numbers are directly related to Obama's popularity.  The establishment people keep wondering "what's he got?".  He has an ability to put his finger on the problem, while the Hillarys of the world tap dance around it and put on a show, then vote only whatever they think is politically "safe".   People won't be happy if they think they've been thwarted by people they despise, that's all I'm saying. 

If Obama didn't already have a significant lead I would not be making the argument in his favor, even though I prefer him.   I'd still vote for Hillary over McCain.

by bfaul on 03/12/2008 04:25:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
TWIST AND SHOUT (none / 0)
Not trying to twist your words. We are all victims to this lunacy set up back in the 80s

Never trust in a poll, they can be deceiving. Not eight months ago Clinton was the INEVITABLE candidate (not so much now).

The people are tired of the war and the economy.

As to what Obama has, he has what? What risk has he taken? What problem has he solved? Especially since his election to the Senate. What tough vote has he taken? What tough election has he won? (his election to the Senate was virtually unopposed).

Please explain something to me. People (on the left) hate Clinton because he compromised with Republicans (Isn't that bipartisanship?) Even though he compromised with them they attacked him mercilessly. Obama supporters claim he can end the partisanship and get Pubs and Dems to work together Really?
In order to have bipartisanship you need to compromise, if Obama compromises with the Pubs doesn't make him just like Clinton? Do you really think the Pubs are not going to attack Obama, especially after Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry?




by LORD FOUL on 03/12/2008 06:37:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hillary is not a Democrat (none / 1)
Thats why I dont like her.

by Chinese Democracy on 03/12/2008 08:27:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the difference (none / 0)

"People (on the left) hate Clinton because he compromised with Republicans (Isn't that bipartisanship?)"

Not me, that's one of the things I always liked about Bill Clinton.  He was skillful at give and take, and was able to get a lot accompished even with a fairly hostile opposition congress.  His wife, I find, does not fully understand the nature of compromise.   She caves where she ought to stand firm, and worse, she tries to play a bipartisan game against people who have zero interest in bipartisanship.  They shake her hand in public and then snicker to each other about how weak she is when she steps across the isle.  There is a time to be centrist, and a time to stand and fight for what you believe.  I no longer trust her ability to differentiate between the two.  She did that to herself, it had nothing to do with Obama.

She's fighting a ruthless battle against Obama, no doubt about it, but where was this ruthlessness when it really counted in the senate?  If only she were so ruthless against the Republicans. 

But look, really, after all this argument, we're still left with the simple fact that she really has almost no chance to win, and she's doing all this damage for nothing. 

"Do you really think the Pubs are not going to attack Obama, especially after Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry?"

They attack everyone, absolutley everyone, this is not news to anyone.  The problem with Gore and Kerry is that when they ran for office they toned things down out of caution.  Look at how much more passionate Gore became after the 2000 election.  Kerry has posted some fairly passionate entries on the Huffington Post, and people have often responded by asking him:  Where was all this passion when you ran for office?

For me, this is what Obama has that Hillary lacks.  She will likely try to be all things to all people, speaking from calculation rather than from the heart, and they will smell that like dogshit on the bottom of someone's shoe. 

by bfaul on 03/13/2008 11:56:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Confusion (none / 0)
One minute Hillary is the bitch who fights back, who fights dirty, who will do anything to win. The next she lacks the passion needed to win in Nov?

Based on track record, I know Hillary will do whatever it takes to win and that is what we need.

You believe that Obama has the "passion" necessary to win in Nov. great, I hope he does but what is your faith based on? what tough campaign has he fought?

Every Obama post I read talks about how his campaign is different, a new type of politics. How he won't resort to Clinton type tactics. How he will stay above the fray.

The unwillingness to fight is exactly the reason we lose presidential elections. Let me ask you are you proud of the positive campaigns of Dukakis, Gore & Kerry. Are you proud they wouldn't resort to "those" types of tactics. or are you like me pissed at the blown opportunity.

Perfect example today ABC ran a story about Obama's pastor. It was most unflattering. A spokesperson for Obama tried to distance the Senator from the pastors remarks and pointed out that nobody is looking at the pastors of other candidates. NOT GOOD ENOUGH

Obama knew this story was coming. He should have used this opportunity to attack McCain and his crazy pastor, along with his acceptance of the Hagee endorsement. His team should have clips prepared to give to the media showing the comments of McCains' Pastor. Ending the session stating I have disavowed the statements of my pastor, as a GOOD christian McCain should do the same.

If Obama does not forcefully respond to this now, they will drape his pastor around his neck. I can see the ads now, this is why Obama hates America.

I hope you are right.

by LORD FOUL on 03/13/2008 04:43:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow, this is awesome (none / 0)
Super delegates are suppossed to vote for the candidate that they believe has the best chance to win in November

Man, I love you Clintonistas.  WHY is this desirable?

by jarett on 03/12/2008 02:52:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wha? (none / 0)
1)First of all I am not a Clinton Supporter.

2)I suppose you are joking but I like winning.

by LORD FOUL on 03/12/2008 03:24:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're not an Obama supporter (none / 0)
(not even close) and you think Hillary has a better chance of winning. Oh, and you don't like McCain.

If someone had to describe your position, I think "Clinton Supporter" is the most logical choice.

by ihavenobias on 03/12/2008 05:00:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
support (none / 1)
Words mean nothing, I have said numerous times that I am a supporter of Edwards. He was our best chance to win.

Personally it would not break my heart to see the DNC step in and make Edwards or Gore the nominee, both would have a better chance to win in November.

Clinton has two important edges over Obama and those are experience fighting Pubs and appealing to the middle of the GENERAL electorate.

My concern with Clinton isn't the hatred of the right but the hatred of the left (many might stay home rather than vote for her)

My concerns with Obama are these

What experience does he have "running" against the Pub machine? Is he willing to fight fire with fire? I have seen the race card and little else.

Dems never seem to learn from history. Election after election the Dems have taken the high road and have gotten creamed under the avalance of smear thrown at them by the Pubs. Obama is a candidate running a "new" type of campaign, playing a new type of politics. (taking the high road). If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it

by LORD FOUL on 03/12/2008 07:40:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0)
So your argument why Obama can't beat McCain is that the DNC nominating him is too ethical to work?

PS:  Words mean everything; that's why we use 'em.

by richardshort2001 on 03/13/2008 10:46:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
spin cycle (none / 0)
I was talking about my words, I answer a question and it gets asked it again. I write a sentence and it gets twisted

Please read what I wrote.

I never said Obama can't win nor did I say that the DNC nominating him would be too ethical.

Can I make it any simpler.

1) Obama has no experience at fighting the Pubs at this level.
2) Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry all ran ethical positive campaigns. they all share another thing in common THEY ALL LOST. their unwillingness to fight back, their unwillingness to really go negative cost them election after election. The only exception was Clinton and that was because he was willing to fight back.

History teaches us that when Dems take the high road they lose and when Dems fight fire with fire they win.

You can't change washington unless you are IN washington

Are you proud of the campaigns run by Cater, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry? I'm not

Obama can win in November but only if he is A) willing to fight back and B) willing to get his hands dirty.

by LORD FOUL on 03/13/2008 12:38:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Hillary Clinton's Only Remaining Hope: Steal This Election | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)