Politics – Barack Obama's landslide victory in the North Carolina Primary, coupled with Hillary Clinton's microscopic win in Indiana settled the outcome of the battle for the Democratic Nomination. The results made it both mathematically and politically impossible for her to wrest the nomination from Obama...
I agree but also suspect Hillary will keep at it if she's got any money(which I hear she doesn't).
It would be wise for Obamas' team to switch strategy and bring McCain back into the limelight.
Hillary just loaned herself $6,500,000. dollars. She is in the game to the bitter end cpme Hell or high water. And she will be a force to be reckoned with at the Convention.
The only thing she will find at the convention is bitter high water. At this point all she can do by upsetting the convetion is destroy any chance she has in 4 or 8 years. AT this point she can only become more negative and in doing so throw away any future chance of anything other than staying in the Senate and she could throw that away as well. I believe she is smarter than to do that but I could be wrong.
You miss the entire point.
This is her ONLY chance. She has to go the limit, despite whatever risk some of the public imagines.
If she doesn't get the prize, she'll go the way of Gore... follow the money! She'll get MUCH more on the lecture circuit, or as an author, or on some board of directors.
Just how far she'll go has yet to be seen. Don't be a fool thinking that Florida and Michigan don't count for anything!
Why won't she just bow out gracefully, and start to support Obama, rather than keep the madness going, plus the financial liability on herself?
I hope that she can consider her future, her dignity and the dignity of the party and respectfully remove herself.
If she continues by attempting back room one on one deals and quiet strong arm methods then she, like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, do not belong in the party.
She may justifiably filled with emotion now, but loom how McCain was able to come back 8 years later, once they neutered him!
The quicker she begins healing the party the longer her political career will be.
(believe me, she won't have to wait to be Golda Meier's age
if she handles herself properly).
This is a test of character and commitment to the party, not a test of how macho she is!
Joe Lieberman? You mean the guy Democrats crapped all over but still won his Senate seat?
Joe, the one issue mistake compounding Lieberman..
They challenged him because he supported Bush's bad Iraq policy, and we all know what a mistake THAT was, don't we??
By the way, have we chased Al Quaida away from Iraq??
You know, the ones we were supposed to draw in, because we ALL know that if we went there they'd follow us instead of coming over here, right?
Yeah, him...
Cause now the threat (according to him,) isn't them anymore it's Iran! or is it Syria?? BinLaden who??
NEXT!!
You folks count out Hillary Clinton too swiftly. Let's not forget that the people of Michigan and Florida will have their say. If not at the convention in August, then at the general election in November. Keep this up, and we will be inaugurating President McCain in January, 2009. It pained me greatly to write let alone think that last sentence.
david.
Hillary agreed to the resolution before the race -- to count out Michigan and Florida. What a hypocrit! How noble she now pretends to be... She didn't give a damn about those states when she was the front runner.
Golum needs to take a pill and chill.
So you are saying it is perfectly OK to disenfranchise the voters of those states because the elitist power structure thinks it appropriate? If they do not come to Denver, we will lose Michigan and Florida in November.
I would prefer that you not assume I think it is "perfectly OK to disenfranchise the voters", but they must honor that agreement. Blame and punishment for the decisions made in each state to not abide by party rules should not fall on the shoulders of either of these candidates.
At this point, the only fair solution is to divide up the delegates so that they can be seated at the convention.
david...obama has been saying for weeks now that he wants a comprimise so florida and michigan can be seated
he is far enough ahead of her,even with mich,florida there is basically no way she can catch up
and obama has nevr campaigned in either state....once they hear him speak the choice between 1000 yrs of war mccain and target specific obama it is pretty easy descion
if the dems lose in nov it will be because the machines r rigged.......which is why we need national legislation that requires paper ballots,hand count top 2 races and open access to recounts
Bravo!!!
When you consider that michigan and florida have more than 350 delegate votes between them both, it's no wonder Obama is going around saying "forget about 'electability'", and vote for who you feel is better.
Unfortunately, in November the electoral college will decide only on "electability", not the dreams of a young colored person.
Who said anything about disenfranchising the voters. The voters in both states were well aware of the penalty if they voted too early and yet they proceeded to do so anyway.
Obama kept his word and didn't campaign in either State and wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan because he had given his word. Clinton, on the other hand, broke her word, campaigned in both States, and now, when she is losing she wants the votes to count. A fine example of honesty and integrity you are supporting!
btw - It's highly likely that a compromise will be worked out with the delegates from both States (368 combined) being equally divided between the two of them (184 each). Adding these delegates to each campaign puts Obama over the top in the total needed to win the nomination.
WRONG! Obama sent out fliers throughout Florida one week before the election. Hillary did not. She won Florida without as much as a whimper, and Obama's name was on the ballot there.
Why should Hillary drop out? Let her stay in the race until the last of the primaries. If she drops out, what does that tell states like WV and South Dakota? Their votes do not matter because no competitive candidates remain on the ballot. It is high time ALL 50 states had a stake in the election, and not just the elite few who happen to vote first.
Incidentally, what makes Iowa and New Hampshire so bloody important that they come first? Add Michigan and Florida, and the number needed to win nomination goes up. They do not just add the delegates into the total.
I suggest you check your facts fella.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=276341
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-preside...
It doesn't matter what Hillary agreed to. The over 2 million voters in Michigan, and Florida will be seated, if only to hold onto them in November. Ignore them, and Democrats will lose both states in the General election, and they are looking at a political tsunami. It will be a Republican landslide. Dean is already looking for a reason to seat them. He has no choice. Right now they own the Democrats.
Ok - So in your book it is perfectly acceptable for a person aspiring to hold the highest office in the Nation to renege on a promise made. No wonder you neoclowns have no problems with the ethics of the Republican Party!
My my what a fine example you set for children!
On the contrary, Barack Obama will win in a landslide against John McCain.
Georgia, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi...Obama won every southern state except Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee with the Texas vote barely going to Hillary Clinton and the caucuses going to Obama.
All the "blue" states that went to Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 will most certainly also go to Obama. But so could many of these southern states....
Now wouldn't that be something?
LOL
Because he beat Hillary in those very red states that means he has a better chance of getting those states in the general right?
So you must admit that since Hillary beat Obama in Penn. and Ohio, and since 24 out of the past 26 Presidents have won Ohio, Hillary has a better chance at winning the "swing" states which REALLY matter.
It's not the states that are usually red OR blue that Obama, McCain and Hillary need worry about, it's the states like Ohio and Penn. that matter and Hillary has Obama beat hands down in those states.
Your argument defeats itself if you actually think about it.
Actually, no it doesn't.
Barack Obama has activated more voters than any Presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy. Not only can he win Pennsylvania and Ohio, but also some southern states as well...
And the argument that 30% (or whatever the number is today) of Hillary's supporters would vote for John McCain should Obama win the Democratic nomination simply does not hold water. That number is likely to drop to single digits by November 4th...once the reality that a McCain presidency would be George W. Bush's third term sinks in.
Obama will be our next president.
Scott, I have to disagree. I don't think the south will be the "king maker" so to speak in this election. It will be the usual states. Perhaps a larger emphasis on Missouri. I think that with the current political climate that some of the swing states are safely Democratic, even if polls are not entirely supporting this right now. Call it a bluff by the other side... "I'll vote McCain if my candidate doesn't get the nomination!" sort of a thing for why they don't show as safely Democratic. I won't vote McCain if Obama doesn't get the nomination, but I will strongly consider Libertarian I'll admit. Or just writing in Paul. Honestly I'm strongly considering those if Obama does get the nomination... but, at the point of Clinton winning, it almost becomes a sure thing for me.
Do you REALLY think her reluctance to support Obama
is going to get her a nomination and the respect of the November electorate??
No, Obama supporters wouldn't vote for McCain, but they would get disgusted and not vote in November..
Young people and minorities finally believe there is a different way and a different voice for them and now the old party politics could "change" the rules on them and take that away??
Believe me, the OLD Democratic party voters in hard hats and rocking chairs will still vote Democrat, so why would we dare chase away an influx of optimistic new blood??
Look how that worked out for Hubert Humphrey!
This is a once in a generation opportunity to lock in an entire wave of new enthusiasts, let's not willingly forestall that another 40 years!
The "OLD Democratic party voters" would never have voted for a minority.
Admittedly, they would still vote Democrat, if they chose to vote at all.
After all, this system IS based on alienation, isn't it?
Yup..it's always a case of voters having to check who the "us" is and who the "them" is before they bother to vote..
Not enough strong uses or thems?? Then they don't vote..
Us is stronger..well then that's where they vote?
Them is a threat, well, then pick the right us..
Alienation, division and agitation are indeed good descriptions of the process.
It's over, David. She can't win the nomination.
Well, only if Obama self destructs or if her near majority on the Rules Committee can simply rewrite the rules so that if no candidate fails to win the nomination outright, then elected delegates don't count and the election is decided based on alphabetic order by last name. Not first name, mind you. The only fair and democratic solution is by last name.
Well the Michigan party is proposing seating their delegates with 69 for clinton and 59 for Obama. That will barely be a crack in the lead Obama holds. We know he would have done better had he stayed on the ballot and campaigned there but he, unlike Hillary followed party rules and took his name off the ballot.
I believe the party will probably go along with that proposal or something near it so that brings Michigan back into the fold. There is no need to do similar for Forida since that is boing red in November no matter what, but Michigan can be a big win state on the blue side with a little accomodation and near equal pledging of delegates to attend the Autust convention.
Hillary has become a liabiity (worse than McCain) to the Democratic Party and is running the risk of blowing the entire election for the party.
In addition, she and Bill are surrounded by a bunch of wimpy superdelegates like Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the bootlickers, who care more about their cronies and lobbyists than they do their party or nation.
I am a Hillary supporter but feel that the time has come for her to drop out and start supporting Obama and the party.
Time to concentrate on Beating McCain and other candidates who need to be replaced.
I am an Obama supporter, and I am not so sure. I think it is vital that she reign in the attack ads and the slander her supporters have been spreading. Letting her supporters on the talk show circuit to proclaim that John McCain would be a better Commander in Chief than Obama is putting the November election at risk for her personal ambition, and it has to stop.
Likewise, the 3AM ads (you will be safer with someone in the White House smart enough to find a picture of bin Laden and put it in an ad). That's got to stop. If she keeps doing stuff like that now, the Clintons should be silently worked out of the Democratic Party machinery for good.
But each new contest is now energizing voters in states that never had any say before. It's swelling Democratic party registration by leaps and bounds. Let's go to June 3.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
MaryLynn_
inplacenews.
SwampFox-82nd
alamala
Ciera Marie
Mdiar
Ballerina
dailynewsus
onreact.com
PresidentBuckheadd
mannatech
tcnt
ZigiMe
ProudBlueTexan
swasuroot
sleepingbeauty2
yutcmri
Klarissa
prevgofreka
iamdating
HiHoney
djn3nunez3
Generica
cosmogenium
Lifeoflava
kerryspierre
Antz2008
Grrr
LadyMS
Harbeas
2sidestoeverything
rontravel
avpd85
hurr1
Neophile
HareOm
TimALoftis
pagey
ivysnelsons
hyooo25
61)
The race between Barack Obama and John McCain has now begun!
Finally, now we shall see Obama kick Grampa out of this campaign!
All those "uneducated" rural white people, those "swing voters" aren't going to be voting Obama, as much as I and others wish. This is exactly what the Republicans wanted all along. We're heading to witness the "politics of race".
It's nothing bad about Obama, it's just that people have already seen how he gets the black vote out. Obviously, people will assume that he will have to repay that favor.
Personally, I'd like to see REAL change happen. Do I think Obama will do it? NO. I'll still vote for him, after all, I am educated, and urban. That means I actually have met and known black people, unlike Idahoans.
I think it would be great to have a black president. We could then cancel every affirmative action law and policy made. I guess the same would be kind of true if Clinton were the candidate, too.
I just don't see Obama getting the Cracker Barrel, Denny's, or the line dancing vote. You know, the "heartland".
Barack Obama will win all the "blue states" that were won by Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004. Obama has also activated more voters than any Presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy. Not only can he win Pennsylvania and Ohio, but also some southern states as well...
And the argument that 30% (or whatever the number is today) of Hillary Clinton's supporters would vote for John McCain should Obama win the Democratic nomination simply does not hold water. That number is likely to drop to single digits by November 4th...once the reality that a McCain presidency would be George W. Bush's third term sinks in.
Obama will be our next president.
Yeah Scott, You tell him!