Politics 2008:The Caucuses and The Dem/Rep Conventions

[southernelle25]

Going strictly by the numbers, Obama should win the nomination, regardless of what happens in Michigan and Florida.

Its been said before, but Clinton’s “kitchen sink” strategy was too little too late and now her only hope for victory rests with the "super" delegates. However, if the nomination is “stolen”, many of Obama's supporters will simply stay home. A few, such as myself, will switch parties altogether. Those shady Clintons need to recognize, they can’t win a general election on the votes of old people and women alone. Obama is the rightful nominee, she should humbly request a vice presidential spot and find somewhere to sit down.

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by southernelle25

Going strictly by the numbers, Obama should win the nomination, regardless of what happens in Michigan and Florida.

Its been said before, but Clinton’s “kitchen sink” strategy was too little too late and now her only hope for victory rests with the "super" delegates. However, if the nomination is “stolen”, many of Obama's supporters will simply stay home. A few, such as myself, will switch parties altogether. Those shady Clintons need to recognize, they can’t win a general election on the votes of old people and women alone. Obama is the rightful nominee, she should humbly request a vice presidential spot and find somewhere to sit down.

REALLY?! So the issues don't matter? If Clinton ends up being the nominee (fair or unfair), since she and Obama's plans regarding the issues are close, wouldn't it make more sense to vote for her as opposed to McCain? There's too much at stake here to stay home or vote for one candidate to spite or prove something to the other.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

REALLY?! So the issues don't matter? If Clinton ends up being the nominee (fair or unfair), since she and Obama's plans regarding the issues are close, wouldn't it make more sense to vote for her as opposed to McCain? There's too much at stake here to stay home or vote for one candidate to spite or prove something to the other.

Eh unless you don't think either McCain or Clinton will really destroy the country in the next four years and you can't stand Clinton. Crossing over or voting third party is good when it makes a point. If Clinton "steals" the nomination via superdelegates, people who choose not to vote for her will be sending the Democratic party a message. That message would be half - don't overrule the will of the people and half- we love Obama/hate Clinton.

I don't have the respect for McCain that I once did, but he's not Bush and his presidency wouldn't be as bad. I'm honestly not sure Hillary's would be better.

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Eh unless you don't think either McCain or Clinton will really destroy the country in the next four years and you can't stand Clinton. Crossing over or voting third party is good when it makes a point. If Clinton "steals" the nomination via superdelegates, people who choose not to vote for her will be sending the Democratic party a message. That message would be half - don't overrule the will of the people and half- we love Obama/hate Clinton.

I don't have the respect for McCain that I once did, but he's not Bush and his presidency wouldn't be as bad. I'm honestly not sure Hillary's would be better.

Ditto, because at thaat point I would question even more the ability of the Dems to really be democratic in the running of the country. And RoyalTemptest, remember a president can have all the ideas they want--but they make no dicisions in a vacuum. The country is really run by the people with whom they surround themselves. I would really be concerned about Hilary's circle.

Ironically, that was my initially mt biggest issue with Obama--did he have the experience to surround himself with the right folx. Now after seeing how Hilary's campaign is being run, I am more concerned about that with her.

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

Ironically, that was my initially mt biggest issue with Obama--did he have the experience to surround himself with the right folx. Now after seeing how Hilary's campaign is being run, I am more concerned about that with her.

This was my issue from the beginning with Hillary. Even with everything that has come out - pastors, land deals, race card, words vs solutions, SNL, etc - I still believe that Hillary supporters/surrogates/campaign officials have committed the worst offenses.

[SummerChild]

A colleague at work has pointed out that if she cannot run her campaign, i.e., coming to the point of having spent all of the money, how can she run the country. Her campaign has experienced a number of replacements and appears to be a little disorganized - at least just from reading articles in the media. As the "CEO" of her campaign, I wonder if she would the country the same way ... supposedly giving key positions to friends as opposed to those who are really the most experienced. This is alleged as what happened with her campaign manager - for some reason, she picked someone who it is said had no experience running a campaign but that they were good friends. She ended up replacing her with someone else. Does anyone remember the name of the first campaign manager that was replaced in January or so right when HRC almost went broke and had to loan her campaign 5mil?

SC

Originally Posted by mccoyred

This was my issue from the beginning with Hillary. Even with everything that has come out - pastors, land deals, race card, words vs solutions, SNL, etc - I still believe that Hillary supporters/surrogates/campaign officials have committed the worst offenses.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by SummerChild

A colleague at work has pointed out that if she cannot run her campaign, i.e., coming to the point of having spent all of the money, how can she run the country. Her campaign has experienced a number of replacements and appears to be a little disorganized - at least just from reading articles in the media. As the "CEO" of her campaign, I wonder if she would the country the same way ... supposedly giving key positions to friends as opposed to those who are really the most experienced. This is alleged as what happened with her campaign manager - for some reason, she picked someone who it is said had no experience running a campaign but that they were good friends. She ended up replacing her with someone else. Does anyone remember the name of the first campaign manager that was replaced in January or so right when HRC almost went broke and had to loan her campaign 5mil?

SC

Pat Solis Doyle was her first campaign mgr. and had been her scheduler since 1991, and during the Clinton Administration. Speculation is that there was friction (who's calling the shots?) Mark Penn, strategiest/camp. mgr? and pollster from the Clinton years, some say has emerged as a leading voice.

her current campaign mgr. is Maggie Williams, a black woman, who was her chief of staff when HRC was First Lady.

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by southernelle25

Going strictly by the numbers, Obama should win the nomination, regardless of what happens in Michigan and Florida.

Funny thing is that even though Clinton is ahead in terms of committed Superdelegates, it is striking to note that Obama has the edge in those who have been elected by their constituencies (governors, congressman, representatives) and trails significantly by those whose loyalty is only to the party (DNC, distinguished party leaders). More than one third of total Superdelegates remain uncommitted. http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/


Of course, he has increased his lead by picking up more delegates in Iowa and California including some of Edwards' delegates. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...e_n_91719.html

[southernelle25]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

Funny thing is that even though Clinton is ahead in terms of committed Superdelegates, it is striking to note that Obama has the edge in those who have been elected by their constituencies (governors, congressman, representatives) and trails significantly by those whose loyalty is only to the party (DNC, distinguished party leaders). More than one third of total Superdelegates remain uncommitted. http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/


Of course, he has increased his lead by picking up more delegates in Iowa and California including some of Edwards' delegates. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...e_n_91719.html

Thanks for that info, I definately had not noticed.

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

REALLY?! So the issues don't matter? If Clinton ends up being the nominee (fair or unfair), since she and Obama's plans regarding the issues are close, wouldn't it make more sense to vote for her as opposed to McCain? There's too much at stake here to stay home or vote for one candidate to spite or prove something to the other.

I am actually quite conservative, more independent than Democratic, I guess I represent the ‘right wing’ of the Democratic Party, so there are a number of issues I don’t support that they do. I stay because our party is the most idealistic and optimistic, and with all its problems remains on the forefront of positive change. That is why, in this race, it is not about issues for me as much as it is about integrity, integrity of a party I’ve always belonged to. If Clinton is willing to act in such a selfish, dirty and derisive manner to win against this candidate, then she deserves to lose. I may be wrong, but I’m willing to throw the “new black” out with the bathwater.