Should she stay or should she go? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Strange Famous · 03-31-2008, 11:40 AM

Hillary Clinton is a disaster for the Democrat party.

She CANNOT win a general election because she lacks charisma, honesty, decency and charm.

She must stand down immediately. She is the strongest alley of Bush, Cheney and the Republican's today.

mixedmedia · 03-31-2008, 12:24 PM

Let's bring the acrimony down a few notches and I beseech you all, please refrain from shoving things up your asses...unless, of course, it's something you find pleasant. Thank you.

loquitur · 03-31-2008, 12:36 PM

now THAT is funny.
Kudos, MM!!

mixedmedia · 03-31-2008, 12:39 PM

Grazie. heh.

MuadDib · 03-31-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Really? You think the path to the nomination for either candidate depends on getting the delegates out of the states in question? If you give 85% of each states delegates to Hillary it doesn't get her there. She'd still need to win a high % of the states left. Obama need less but same thing basically, just lower numbers needed by him.

IMO, the road to the nomination at this point goes through the SD's. that's all part of the Dems setting up a completely stupid system to pick a nominee, again IMHO.

There's a subtle difference between what I think and what you are saying; that being that I think the path to winning the primary (getting 2,024 delegates) is locked in seating the states in question in some manner. There are other options for getting the nomination such as changing the rules to lower that number or a Gore, Edwards, or other non-candidate, compromise. However, I think those options are even less appealing to most Americans than a super delegate lovefest. Either way, I do believe that it is the cleanest and most politically intelligent way for the party to proceed, they just need to do there best to not seem too stupid while doing it.

As for the super delegate thing, I honestly have no problem with the system as a whole. I think it is important for party insiders to be able to maintain some checks against rampant popular control. Party politics is very interesting because a party has a sort of culture of it's own that's tied in with ideology and while you want to test your candidates against popular opinion, and maybe even see how they hold up to a good public roasting, it ultimately isn't the general election and the party is a quasi-private organization with the right define its own course. I agree that a situation, such as this, where it might plausibly come down to a super delegate situation, is not something that I think is desirable for the party or the public. I suppose though that if the good reason for keeping them around is as a final check (or last resort) towards maintaining party control within the party then maybe this is exactly how it's supposed to work and it's just unfortunate that it had to come to this... again for which I blame the party for the delegate stripping debacle.

Tully Mars · 03-31-2008, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

BTW, I'm really looking forward to seeing Obama wipe the floor with McCain.

For some reason I'm thinking about chickens... and eggs... and the hatching there of...

Long time between now and Nov. If Obama gets the nod I think it's going to take at least two months to recover from the GOP slim machine that is going to hit him.

ASU2003 · 03-31-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I'm not sure why the No.2 for the Democratic nomination should drop out.

This is all just more political douchebaggery planting material in the press to drum up the drama.

Fuck that shit.

I agree with this. The media is trying to make the news instead of reporting the news.

She should have gotten out around Feb 6th, then she would have been a shoe-in for VP. Unless she asked for that deal and was rejected.

If she would have remained positive and focused on the issues that the nation will face in the next 4 years, she probably would have been the VP candidate.

Now, she has to hope that things go her way, and may have to go dirty to try and smear Obama, and then hope that she can somehow get enough delegates at the convention, without alienating enough of the middle-independents that would happily vote for McCain over someone so ruthless as demonize someone they voted for enough to make the come back.

Terrell · 03-31-2008, 05:16 PM

Hillary should go. She has no realistic chance of overtaking Obama in elected delegates, she also has been running a negative campaign against Obama. The goal of all Democratic candidates, first and foremost, should be a Democrat in the White House, and her saying things favorable to McCain to attack Obama shows that she's willing to do anything to get elected, even destroy the Democratic Party.

If Mrs Clinton is not willing to run a positive campaign against the other Democrats, she should be retaliated against by the party. Why she cannot show the simple grace and dignity of Huckabee (someone I would never vote for in 10^6 years) is part of the problem. If she is unwilling to bow out gracefully then the party should strip her of her membership on any Senate committees, any chairmanships she has, and make her face a primary opponent when re-election comes around. If she's unwilling to put the good of her country, and her party ahead of her personal ambitions, then she needs to go.

ratbastid · 03-31-2008, 06:11 PM

Great op ed from Chip Collis at the Huffinton Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-c...l_b_94207.html

Quote:

Top 10 Myths Keeping Hillary in the Race

Posted March 31, 2008 | 08:49 AM (EST)

I have noted a number of myths amongst the comments here as to why Hillary should stay in the race. Here are ten enduring, kudzu-like myths, with the debunking they sorely need.

Myth: This race is tied.

No, actually, it's not. Obama has the lead in number of states won, in pledged delegates and in overall delegates. Nothing will happen in the remaining primaries to substantially change that. As to the one thing Hillary does lead in, superdelegates, her quickly shrinking margin is among DNC personnel only. When you look at the elected superdelegates, Congressman, Senators and Governors (i.e. people who actually work with both Obama and Clinton) Obama leads there, too.

Myth: Okay, the popular vote is tied.

There are people who claim that because of the 3% separation, that Obama's lead in the popular vote is a "statistical tie." This is a myth because, when you can actually count things, there's no need of statistics and no such thing as a margin of error. The popular vote is not an estimate based on a sampling, like a poll. Like the general election, there are winners and losers and, so far, Obama is the winner.

Myth: Fine, but what if we count electoral votes? NOW Hillary is ahead!

Not so much. The proportions of electoral votes to population versus delegates to population are pretty comparable. So if you allocated electors proportionally in the same manner that you allocate delegates, Obama is still ahead. If you allocate them on a winner-take-all basis, then that would be the same as allocating the delegates on a winner-take-all basis, so why bring electors into it?

Myth: But if we did do it like the Electoral College, that proves Hillary is more electable than Obama, because of states like California.

This is perhaps the saddest little myth of all. It's ridiculous to suggest that Obama will lose New York and California to McCain because Clinton won them in the primaries. No, come November, those states will join with Obama's Illinois to provide 40% of the electors necessary for him to win.

Myth: Very well, then, Mr. Smarty-Math. But if we counted Michigan and Florida, THEN Hillary would be winning!

Nooo, she wouldn't. The margin would depend on how you allocate the delegates, but Obama would still be ahead. And he'd still be about 100,000 ahead in the popular vote, too, despite not even being on the ballot in Michigan. However, it would enhance Hillary's chances of catching up in the remaining races.

Myth: Ah HA! So Dean is keeping them out just to help Obama! And Obama is keeping them out.

That's two myths, but I'll treat it like one. The only people who can come up with a solution to this problem are the states themselves, to be presented to the Rules and Regulations Committee of the DNC for ratification. It was Rules and Regs, not Howard Dean, who ruled that Florida and Michigan were breaking the rules when they presented their original primary plans. If the two states cannot come up with a plan to reselect delegates, they can try to seat whatever delegates were chosen in the discounted primaries by appealing to the Democratic Convention's Credentialing Committee, which includes many members from Rules and Bylaws.

Myth: If they don't get seated until the convention but a nominee is selected before these poor people get counted then these states are disenfranchised.

There are two ways to debunk this myth: semantically and practically. The first is based on the word "disenfranchised:" these people have not been deprived of their right to vote. Through the actions of their states, their votes don't impact the outcome. Now, you may say that that is specious semantics (Myth: I do say that!) but practically speaking, this is the usual effect of the nominating process, anyway. All of the Republican primaries since McCain clinched the nomination have been meaningless, but those voters are not disenfranchised.

Florida and Michigan tried to become more relevant in the process by breaking the rules. They risked becoming irrelevant instead.

Myth: Well, I say they are disenfranchised, and Hillary Clinton is their champion.

Only when it suits her. Last fall, when the decision was first made to flush 100% of Michigan and Florida delegates, Clinton firmly ratified it. That was because the typical punishment of only 50% representation also kept the candidates from raising money in those states. Figuring that she would wrap up the nomination handily anyway, the clear front-runner agreed with all the other candidates - including Obama - to completely "disenfranchise" those two states.

Myth: Well, never mind 2007. She's doing more now to bring them in.

Not really. Recent stories in the St. Petersburg Times political blog said that 1) the Obama camp has reached out to the Florida Democratic party about a compromise and that 2) the Clinton camp will discuss nothing else but re-votes, which are legally, practically and politically dead.

Myth: Whatever! Hillary can still win! I know she can! She and her 37% positive rating will sweep through the remaining primaries and Michigan and Florida, winning 70% of everything and superdelegates will flock to her banner and Barack Obama will personally nominate her at the Convention and John McCain will give up and George Bush will even quit early so she can take over and... and... and... can I have a glass of water?

Yes, and you should lie down, too.

Tully Mars · 04-01-2008, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Great article from Chip Collis at the Huffinton Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-c...l_b_94207.html

Stuff that comes from the Huffington post is likely very skewed with opinion and thus may or may not be accurate. I don't know about Obama reaching out to Florida or any of that. But yes, this is a simple math problem. Even if you give a high percentage of Florida and Michigan to Clinton- she has to sweep all remaining states. Basically not most, but all. It's not happening, say good bye and move aside.

MuadDib · 04-01-2008, 10:31 AM

I think a better article for your cause is out in the most recent New York Magazine. I, obviously, don't buy into the underlying assumption that Clinton should drop out, but it is a lot less 'skewed' than the Huffington piece. http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/45604/

Quote:

Who’ll Stop the Pain?
Gore and Edwards may have the most party clout. But there’s only one person Hillary will finally listen to. Her name isn’t Bill.
By John Heilemann

In the days after John Edwards’s withdrawal from the Democratic race, the political world expected his endorsement of Barack Obama would be forthcoming tout de suite. The neo-populist and the hopemonger had spent months tag-teaming Hillary Clinton, pillorying her as a creature of the status quo, not a champion of the kind of “big change” they both deem essential. So appalled was Edwards at Clinton’s gaudy corporatism—her defense of the role of lobbyists, her suckling at the teats of the pharmaceutical and defense industries—that he’d essentially called her corrupt. And then, not least, there were the sentiments of his wife. “Elizabeth hasn’t always been crazy about Mrs. Clinton” is how an Edwards insider puts it; a less delicate member of HRC’s circle says, “Elizabeth hates her guts.”

But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out—tempus fugit!—and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.

The implications of this story are several and not insignificant. Most obviously, it suggests that the front-runner’s diplomatic skills could use some refinement. It also raises the issue, which has cropped up in a different form after New Hampshire, Super-Duper Tuesday, and the Ohio and Texas primaries, of Obama’s capacity to close the deal. But equally important is how it bears on the questions du jour among Democrats who see their once-uplifting primary campaign descending into self-destructive mayhem: How can we put this thing to bed? How can Clinton be stopped from putting the party through three more months of hell? Where are those vaunted “party elders” who can convince her that it’s sayonara time?

The urgency of these questions began to mount this week, as the level of nastiness reached new heights—or, rather, depths. For all its rhetoric about practicing a new, more virtuous brand of politics, the Obama campaign has been going after Clinton hammer and tongs. Rarely a day passes without his people dubbing her a liar and a fraud. (Although when it comes to Snipergate, it’s hard to blame them.) They have accused Bill Clinton of McCarthyism and invoked the infamous blue dress on which he left his, er, DNA—the latter coming on a blog post arguing that he actually makes McCarthy look benign. Indeed, it sometimes seems as if the Obamans are actively trying to cede the moral high ground.

The sight and sounds of Clinton’s lieutenants scrambling to claim that ground—which, after all, is about as foreign to many of them as the beaches of Bora Bora—has been amusing, as each denunciation of their rival’s negativity is juxtaposed immediately with some fresh depredation from their side. James Carville’s likening of Bill Richardson to Judas Iscariot. (With the beard, I guess, you can kinda see it, but wasn’t Judas a skinny dude?) The clear suggestion by WJC, which provoked the charges of McCarthyism, that Obama is less patriotic than Hillary. Her attempt to reignite the Parson Wright conflagration by asserting that “he would not have been my pastor.”

This would all be good sport, to be sure, were it not for the gathering impression that the two-way battering is taking a serious toll on the Democrats’ prospects in the fall. Poll after poll indicates that Obama’s and Clinton’s negatives are rising—and so are John McCain’s approval ratings, along with his lead among independents over either of them. Then there’s the data indicating that pronounced bitterness is setting in among both Obama and Clinton supporters toward other side: Roughly 20 percent in each category now say they would support McCain if their preferred candidate fails to win the nomination. Ugh.

Which brings us back to those party elders and the calls for them to step in. Now, let’s be clear, those calls are coming exclusively from Obama’s adherents. And they have some logic on their side: If it’s all but mathematically impossible for Clinton to wind up ahead in pledged delegates or the popular vote—and it is—then what conceivable purpose is being served by further bloodshed?

But the desire for a deus ex machina intervening to usher Clinton from the race runs into a number of problems, beginning with the fact that there simply aren’t many Democratic deities around—and the few that might plausibly qualify seem inclined to remain neutral, at least until the conclusion of the primaries. Despite the long history of mutual animus between Al Gore and Hillary, Gore has resisted the temptation to throw his weight behind Obama; and because of that history, even if he did, it would likely have little effect on her determination to carry on, as Gore is well aware. Edwards, who I’m told at one juncture discussed with Gore the possibility of a joint endorsement, now appears to prefer staying mum for the time being, or, if anything, backing Clinton. And Jimmy Carter has stated unequivocally his intention to refrain from choosing sides.

Arguably the two next most influential Democrats are the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. But Pelosi’s loud advocacy of the view that the superdelegates should vote in line with the pledged delegates belies her pro forma neutrality in the race—thus undercutting any influence she might have with Clinton. “She’s totally in the tank for Obama,” says one Clintonite. “Why would we listen to her?” And while Reid is trying to play the role of honest broker, his mojo in Clintonland is negligible.

No, according to Hillary’s adjutants, the people most likely to have sway with her on this topic are not party elders at all but instead her fiercest loyalists, those who’ve won her trust over the years by dint of their unwavering support. Familiar names from the annals of Clintondom are mentioned: Terry McAuliffe, Vernon Jordan, Rahm Emanuel (likely the only person in this club who is also close to Obama). So, too, are prominent endorsers such as Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell. “If one of her major African-American endorsers, like Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, told her it was time to quit, that would be very powerful,” adds a senior Clinton adviser. Oh, and let us not forget her husband.

For the moment, none of these people, as far as I know, is advising Hillary to fold. They are not idiots and they are not blind—they can read the writing on the wall and do the math as well. But they also believe that, though Clinton’s path to the nomination has narrowed to a cliff walk, it hasn’t been barricaded. If she beats Obama in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana, it may widen again, should the superdelegates start questioning his durability and the potency of his electoral coalition. Or Obama’s candidacy could suddenly blow up in a more spectacular fashion—over further revelations about Wright or some other political IED planted on the roadside ahead.

The question is whether any of those that Clinton trusts are willing to intercede with Hillary if the rancor of the campaign continues to escalate. Despite all the wailing of the party’s Henny Pennys, my own view is that, in the long run, Clinton’s scuffing up of Obama has so far done him more good than harm; it has toughened him, steeled him, and given him a taste, if only a taste, of what he can expect this fall. But Democrats are right to fear that Clinton may find it irresistible to turn her campaign into an exercise in nothing less (and little more) than political manslaughter against Obama. They’re especially right to be worried that she may want to fight on all summer, all the way to the Denver convention—especially with Clinton now talking openly about a floor fight over seating the disputed Florida and Michigan delegations.

Some senior members of Clinton’s campaign have no intention of sticking around if Obama is substantially ahead come June; as much as they’re devoted to their boss, they want nothing to do with a black-bag operation designed to destroy her rival, no matter what the cost. But these same people are also deeply convinced—beyond spin, beyond talking points, to their core—that Obama would be doomed against McCain. And Clinton believes this, too, which is one important reason why she persists despite odds that grow longer each passing day.

Yet, by an irony, Clinton’s grim assessment of Obama’s chances may also be the best cause for hope that she will, sometime between now and the middle of June, find it in herself to leave the stage with a modicum of grace. It may even be a reason, as Walter Mondale’s campaign manager, Bob Beckel, suggested in a column this week, that she winds up filling, against her instincts, the slot as Obama’s veep. For if HRC believes that Obama will lose in November, there can be no doubt that she’s already calculating, in the back of her head, the best way to position herself for 2012. A scorched-earth campaign against Obama is plainly not the way to do that. A classy exit, a show of unity, an act that apparently places party before self: That’s the ticket.

All of which is why party elders aren’t the last best hope for a peaceful resolution of the Obama-Clinton race. The last best hope is that Hillary will eventually come to see yielding as not merely the path to self-preservation, but also as her only route to long-range self-aggrandizement.

Tully Mars · 04-01-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

I think a better article for your cause is out in the most recent New York Magazine. I, obviously, don't buy into the underlying assumption that Clinton should drop out, but it is a lot less 'skewed' than the Huffington piece. http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/45604/

Not a bad read, thanks.

ratbastid · 04-01-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Stuff that comes from the Huffington post is likely very skewed with opinion and thus may or may not be accurate.

Fair enough. I changed "article" to "op ed". That work better for 'ya?

Derwood · 04-01-2008, 11:24 AM

the polls right now are so misleading i don't know where to start. does anyone REALLY think that the Democrats won't rally (as a party) around whoever wins the nomination and that the Democratic nominee won't paste McCain?

Also, it's completely wrong to say "Hillary is more electable because she won the big states over Obama". So what? You're telling me that if the general election was Obama vs. McCain that Obama wouldn't carry California, New York, etc.? Come on.

Also, there is no reason for Obama to take John Edwards as a VP running mate. He already has support in the states where Edwards could get votes. He needs a running mate who could help him win votes in Ohio/PA/Indiana

Tully Mars · 04-01-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Fair enough. I changed "article" to "op ed". That work better for 'ya?

Seriously, I took no issue with the article you posted, sorry if you thought I was condemning the source. I simply look at articles and news segments that come from sites or networks that lean one way or another with a little added skepticism. But until you post an article from Fox News I'll take the source seriously.

Seaver · 04-01-2008, 04:57 PM

To Quote FDR on the Russian/German conflict in WWII...

"It's a shame they can't both lose."

pan6467 · 04-01-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Explain this to me. What does McCain offer that Obama doesn't, policy-wise?

I just think Obama is farther left than I wish to go. Given that Congress will be full of Dems to give him a blank check scares me. I truly believe on gun control, foreign policy and so on he'd be too far left for me and wouldn't have that check to keep his policies and perhaps himself balanced. (I also show in the Rev Wright thread more of why I can't not will not vote for this man.)

Hilary, everyone pretty much knows it would be just like having Bill back, maybe some differences but.... I truly liked Bill, not crazy about her but she's he best of the 3. I think with a Dem congress she can truly be effective but on a moderate side.

McCain, he maybe a mini-Bush and fool everyone but with a Dem. congress he'll be kept in check and won't be able to go too far. I think he's a good negotiator and I think he will be strong on foreign policy. His economic policy needs some serious overhauling but he still has plenty of time to work on something that may work. I'll be curious as to see who he selects as a running mate and whom he surrounds himself with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I asked pan because he actually, generally speaking, sees the world through similar lenses to me.

You poor soul you.... lol that's scary that someone sees things through similar lenses, given my eyesight sucks.

loquitur · 04-02-2008, 05:37 AM

Let's take a break for a minute here. I want everyone to see a letter that I got a copy of:

Quote:

John Hinckley
St. Elizabeth's Hospital
Washington, DC

Dear John,

Hillary and I wanted to drop you a short note to tell you how pleased
we are with the great strides you are making in your recovery.

We want you to know there is bilateral consensus of compassion and
forgiveness abroad throughout the land. Hillary and I want you to know
that no grudge is borne against you for shooting President Reagan.
We, above all, are aware of how the mental stress and pain could
have driven you to such an act of desperation.

Hillary and I are confident that you will soon make a complete
recovery and return to your family to join the world again
as a healthy and productive young man.

Best wishes,

Bill Clinton

P.S. Barack Obama is screwing Jodie Foster.

Derwood · 04-02-2008, 05:49 AM

i don't think Obama is any further left than Hillary. They are about 96% identical in policy and political opinions.

The_Jazz · 04-02-2008, 05:50 AM

Loquitor, I never realized you'd pled not guilty by reason of insanity to something. Good to know, Mr. Hinkley....

Tully Mars · 04-02-2008, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Let's take a break for a minute here. I want everyone to see a letter that I got a copy of:

Priceless, thanks. I needed a laugh this morning.

loquitur · 04-04-2008, 02:50 PM

I thought this was interesting. According to Rasumussen:

Quote:

If the Democrats were to allot their current state delegate totals in a winner-take-all format, Clinton would actually have a significant delegate advantage. Despite having won only 14 recognized contests to Obama's 30, Clinton would currently have a 120 (1738 to 1618) total delegate lead and a remarkable 167 (1427 to 1260) pledged delegate lead. These numbers give Texas' "prima-caucus" delegates to Clinton and do not include Florida, Michigan or the 693 total delegates and 566 pledged delegates still to be won in the next few months.

So the outcome changes depending on which rules are applied. I don't think it would be right to change them now, in the middle of the game, of course, and I think Hillary is not shameless enough to argue that they should change (though this is not all that different from arguing that the Michigan and Florida results should be honored). I just thought it's worth noting that different rules will produce different results -- and that the main thing is that everyone knows the rules going in so they can plan their strategies accordingly.

View Poll Results: Hilary: Stay or Go?
Stay	12	31.58%
Go	26	68.42%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

03-31-2008, 11:40 AM	#41 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Hillary Clinton is a disaster for the Democrat party. She CANNOT win a general election because she lacks charisma, honesty, decency and charm. She must stand down immediately. She is the strongest alley of Bush, Cheney and the Republican's today. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-31-2008, 12:24 PM	#42 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Let's bring the acrimony down a few notches and I beseech you all, please refrain from shoving things up your asses...unless, of course, it's something you find pleasant. Thank you. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

03-31-2008, 12:39 PM	#44 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Grazie. heh. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-01-2008, 04:57 PM	#56 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	To Quote FDR on the Russian/German conflict in WWII... "It's a shame they can't both lose." __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

03-31-2008, 12:36 PM	#43 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	now THAT is funny. Kudos, MM!!

03-31-2008, 05:16 PM	#48 (permalink)
Terrell Insane Location: Orlando, Florida	Hillary should go. She has no realistic chance of overtaking Obama in elected delegates, she also has been running a negative campaign against Obama. The goal of all Democratic candidates, first and foremost, should be a Democrat in the White House, and her saying things favorable to McCain to attack Obama shows that she's willing to do anything to get elected, even destroy the Democratic Party. If Mrs Clinton is not willing to run a positive campaign against the other Democrats, she should be retaliated against by the party. Why she cannot show the simple grace and dignity of Huckabee (someone I would never vote for in 10^6 years) is part of the problem. If she is unwilling to bow out gracefully then the party should strip her of her membership on any Senate committees, any chairmanships she has, and make her face a primary opponent when re-election comes around. If she's unwilling to put the good of her country, and her party ahead of her personal ambitions, then she needs to go.

04-01-2008, 11:24 AM	#54 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	the polls right now are so misleading i don't know where to start. does anyone REALLY think that the Democrats won't rally (as a party) around whoever wins the nomination and that the Democratic nominee won't paste McCain? Also, it's completely wrong to say "Hillary is more electable because she won the big states over Obama". So what? You're telling me that if the general election was Obama vs. McCain that Obama wouldn't carry California, New York, etc.? Come on. Also, there is no reason for Obama to take John Edwards as a VP running mate. He already has support in the states where Edwards could get votes. He needs a running mate who could help him win votes in Ohio/PA/Indiana

04-02-2008, 05:49 AM	#59 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	i don't think Obama is any further left than Hillary. They are about 96% identical in policy and political opinions.

04-02-2008, 05:50 AM	#60 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Loquitor, I never realized you'd pled not guilty by reason of insanity to something. Good to know, Mr. Hinkley.... __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo