- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 28, 2008 at 2:56 pm #617542
charlabobParticipantPatrick Leahy just called for Hillary’s withdrawal from the race. I *think* this is the first person of note who’s actually said that. I’m not sure I agree, but it is a milestone.
March 28, 2008 at 3:02 pm #617543
beachdrivegirlParticipantI had just heard that too Charlabob…
March 28, 2008 at 3:02 pm #617544
walfredoMemberCharla- right now it is still kind of undemocratic to make a call for her to withdraw, based on her still mathmatically being alive (heck its only 66%). When that goes out the window after the North Carolina, and Indiana primaries, and she is completely eliminated mathmatically, watch for the pressure to grow exponentially.
For better or for worse, there is no getting around letting these next 3 primaries, and 4 weeks leading up to them, play themselves out. It could be a positive for Obama, in that it will show he can win comptetitive contests after the Wright controversy, and to establish that prior to the general election. If Hillary withdrew now, that would be a big motza ball hanging out.
At the end of the day, people in power will pivot away from a candidate whose only chance is to destroy the other candidate, and hope he is hit by meteor, and as polling is starting to make clear, that will be the case after the North Carolina, Indiana primaries.
March 28, 2008 at 3:10 pm #617545
charlabobParticipantI completely agree Walfredo — you articulated the reasons better; I just had a feeling it wasn’t time, plus her withdrawal will ensure that many of her supporters won’t come back into the fold in November. McCain is doing his best to sound reasonable (that won’t last) so the disaffected can be deluded into thinking he’s a viable alternative.
March 29, 2008 at 12:46 am #617546
c@lbobMemberObama leads Clinton 50% – 42% in latest Gallup 3-day tracking poll. Obama’s 48-44 lead in the last 3-day poll got that high yesterday because he won the daily poll 55-36.
It may be over after Pennsylvania.
March 29, 2008 at 1:06 am #617547
charlabobParticipantThat’s definitely encouraging! Remember, kids — it won’t be over when we have a candidate — the hard stuff will just be beginning. We have to bring everyone back into the fold (herding cats with sharp teeth and nails) and then we have to take on the McCain Myth. That’s the part I’m really looking forward to…the Repugs have potential to make our bickering look like a friendly family water fight. :-)
This post was carefully worded to apply to any candidate (except the first sentence).
March 31, 2008 at 2:51 pm #617548
walfredoMemberMarch 31, 2008 at 4:05 pm #617549
walfredoMemberhttp://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/30/16552/8933/887/487275
Great photos of Obama rally this weekend- which happened to be the largest political rally in the history of the state of Pennsylvania! Isn’t this March?
April 4, 2008 at 4:37 pm #617550
charlabobParticipantSupport Obama if you want to support the only real Democrat on the Democratic side.
The latest conventional wisdom from the Clinton side indicates that 30% of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama (and, in fact, will vote for McCain.) Only 23 percent of Obama supporters claim the same about Clinton. This supposedly proves that Clinton supporters are more passionate and the Democratic party should succumb to blackmail and nominate Clinton “or else.”
First of all, what happened to party loyalty?
“Will you vote for any Democrat?” etc. Second, an alternative view of the numbers is that Clinton supporters really are closer to DLC/Lieberman “Republicrats” than to true Democrats and that their willingness to support McCain only reflects the party line of their bosses.
Makes sense, for a candidate who boasts of her support by Richard Mellon Scaife and whose surrogate, Ferraro, is a commentator on Fox news…who appears on Fox news the minute the campaign thinks it has something new to WHINE ABOUT.
Their latest attack is on Air America talk show host Randi Rhodes, who I don’t particularly like. Randi said bad words about Hill and Gerri in a speech in San Francisco. Video of the speech appeared on YouTube. And the off-with-their-heads crew were ready to pounce.
SO, rather than just being suspended, she should be fired. The same tack taken by the campaign when David Gregory, was suspended by MSNBC for using the phrase “pimp out” when talking about Chelsea. Suspension was not enough — fire him. Their grasp of the first amendment matches the Bushies grasp of the rest of the Bill of Rights.
I believe the major difference in Obama and Clinton supporters is that Obama supporters will be disappointed and angry if their candidate is not nominated, but very few of them will vote for McCain. Most of the disaffected Clinton supporters will move to McCain because that is a more natural alliance for them than that scary real Democrat, Barack Obama.
What it really comes down to is traditional party hacks are angry because someone new is beating them at their own game. And they are even angrier when some of their fellow hacks defect.
Perhaps Lieberman and the Clintons can start their own party.
April 4, 2008 at 5:25 pm #617551
walfredoMemberCharla- the part that baffles me… And I have asked Clinton supporters to try to explain this to me- is on what grounds would they not vote for Obama? It is really just a sore loser, us or nobody talk-track. You are disenfrachised because the person who won the most states, most delegates, and most votes got the nomination and it wasn’t your candidate? If I’m missing something let me know.
The truth of the matter, is that if Hillary wins the nomination through the superdelegates choosing her 2/1 over Obama, well that is justification to be alienated to the party. Whether or not that leads you to support McCain, thats a pretty big leap, but I imagine the next 6 months would have to be shockingly ugly to get us to that point… so you never know.
I just really am challenged by the logic surrounding Clinton supporters, who would work against Obama in the general because he got elected in this silly little “election” that has played out the last four months…
I also agree with both candidates, that those numbers are greatly inflated by current passions, and that during June-November there will be an excellent opportunity to unify the party around the winning candidate, and those poll numbers will be mostly erased.
April 4, 2008 at 5:39 pm #617552
JoBParticipantCharlabob..
i know you to be a much more critical thinker than this.
Now you have decided that Hillary is really a republican in disguise and will go to any lengths to prove it?
What happened to democracy here?
Why is it that those who call for a viable candidate to quit..
and Walfredo’s statement only confirms that she is a viable candidate…
“Good news from Pennsylvania. It looks like Barack is starting to make some inroads to lessen the delegate loss in Pennsylvania.”
why is it that those who demand her withdrawal… from the race that their candidate can not win any other way….
why are they the true proponents of democracy?
perhaps i don’t understand democracy?
Jon Stewart had a really good segment on the daily show about this very thing. You win by winning. You don’t win by not losing so badly or making your opponent quit.
If Obama wants the nomination, he needs to win in Pennsylvania.. and everywhere else he campaigns.
If he is truly the overwhelming choice on the people, he should be able to do that.
And if the only way that Obama supporters can win is by insinuating that Hillary is really a republican in league with the right wing… something is wrong.
Why is a witch hunt against Hillary the only way he can win? Because that is certainly what you are all concentrating on in this forum.
I am amazed that the same people who repeat this are those who can’t figure out why a poll would show that 30% of Clinton supporters would not be so happy supporting Obama in the fall.
Gosh, i wonder why?
Could it be that they think Obama supporters will go to any length to support their candidate and that this culture might actually be a reflection of the candidate himself?
That would concern rational people.
Could it be that they see a pattern of divisive behavior forming that doesn’t bode well for the business of running this country when the dust settles from the election?
That would concern rational people.
Could it be that they worry that an untested Obama candidacy spells disaster for the national contest.. where the press won’t be focusing on Obama’s bowling score but on whatever dirt the right wing can find under the currently unturned rocks in Obama’s life?
Just those that have been hinted at so far are enough for concern. They may have been minimized in the press during the democratic primary.. but they are far from gone.
That would concern rational people.
Does trivializing the will of half of his party make Obama a “real” democrat?
That would concern rational people.
Hillary is not calling for Obama to withdraw from a tight race. She is willing to actually run this race out to it’s conclusion. and Obama should be as well.
you win by winning.
That is democracy in action.
April 4, 2008 at 5:46 pm #617553
walfredoMemberJoB- I still don’t understand. If the concern is that Obama isn’t a strong enough general election candidate, the remedy is to vote for the republican nominee? That doesn’t really hold water…
Win by any means necessary? Like by getting the most votes, and having a strategy for all the states, being well managed, raising a ton of money from individual donors? What a monster…
April 4, 2008 at 6:28 pm #617554
JoBParticipantWalfredo…
LOL.. you really tickle my funny bone.
This forum .. and you… have been howling for hillary blood until i said enough and refused to participate in that conversation…
and i personally issued many challenges to those of you on this forum… including you… who repeatedly stated they would not vote for Hillary in the general election… to stand up as democrats.
yet.. one poll which shows that the Clinton supporters are not going to just roll over…
and you are screaming that they are undemocratic… in league with republicans.. not concerned for their party.
what was perfectly good behavior for you less than a couple of weeks ago suddenly is reprehensible from them:)
i personally think that poll is somehow in error.. it certainly does not mirror our experience here… but i am grateful to it for getting the attention of those “party hacks” you love to quote when they agree with you and discount the rest of the time.
as for winning by any means necessary..
until last week your favored method of winning was to make Hillary withdraw from the campaign.. and that strategy isn’t gone.. by your own admission it is only delayed. I think you gave her 3 more primaries?
When all the states have actually been heard from.. then you can actually claim the most votes.. this race is that tight.
if Obama has the most votes by then… and has a clear delegate lead.. including the votes of all delegates… then he will be our nominee.
you don’t get to selectively choose which superdelegates count.
If it’s the will of the people which is the determining factor here.. then clearly Obama will have to give up a lot of his hard won superdelegates.. because he was not the will of the people of their states.
Are Kennedy and Kerry trying to steal the election for Obama?
if not, it’s still a horserace.
this is the way democracy works:)
Apparently America is still so undecided that the Edward’s household can’t come to a unified decision to support one candidate or the other:) Funny.. that’s how it is in a lot of American households ;->
Campaign for your candidate by campaigning for what he stands for.. now that would be an interesting conversation that might help many people become involved in the process and actually care about the outcome.
So far, you have been campaigning on who he is (or isn’t) and the popularity of his campaign (which like all popularity is fickle).
Campaign on what he is.. what he actually stands for.. stand his policies up against Hillary’s…
and let the best person win.
April 4, 2008 at 7:04 pm #617555
AnonymousInactiveI was thinking the same thing JoB. Last week walfredo was refusing to back Hillary under ANY circumstances if she won the nomination. In fact, I remember a few of us were saying enough already. We heard you. Now he’s criticizing Hillary supporters for their lack of party unity. And is dumbfounded that any one would even consider defecting to McCain, when that is exactly what he said he will do if Obama doesn’t get the nomination.
Yes, I know walfredo, you said it was because you were taking some higher moral ground, but today you’re talking out of the other end when you say there’s no possible justification for Hillary supporters to do the same thing.
I really hope both sides are just letting off steam, and we still manage to pull it together in the end.
April 4, 2008 at 7:30 pm #617556
JoBParticipantparty unity is still possible.
all it would take is a little respect for both candidates.
i can’t blame walfredo.. i got a little overheated in the spirit of the moment myself… i misread him this morning and have already apologized.
but is it to much to hope that we can continue this conversation on the basis of what the candidates actually stand for and what we think about them…. ?
instead of this continual he said she said of recriminations?
it’s obvious to even this hillary supporter that she will have to have an outstanding finish to her campaign to remain viable…
It shouldn’t surprise you to find that i think that is possible.
the wolves are circling… and for the Obama campaign.. that means many of those “party hacks” they have been denigrating are actually coming out in support of Obama… to pay back Clinton for what they felt were his shortcomings and/or sleights.
other than possible victory in the nomination.. what does it really gain Obama when his victory is really only a measure of the payback some people feel due for what they consider the shortcomings of Bill Clinton?
Is that the taste we all want in our mouths as we face the republicans in the fall?
Is Obama really the anti Clinton candidate and if so, what does that say about him?
it would be much better if we would concentrate on the candidates and their positions rather than the endless news making of political pundits… and their conclusions.. which seem to shift in the wind of perceived public opinion.
let’s talk about the candidates. Let’s talk about the process. Let’s talk about the direction the democratic party is taking. Is it really changing? let’s talk about us.. not about them.
April 4, 2008 at 7:31 pm #617557
JoBParticipantApril 4, 2008 at 7:56 pm #617558
walfredoMemberJT and JoB- you are not understanding what I am saying, and have said. So perhaps I’m not saying it very well.
#1- I absolutely never said that I would never back Hillary Clinton under any circumstance. I have in fact said the opposite, I would support her, if she was the elected nominee. What I have also said, is that if she is selected on the basis of more then 2/3 of the remaining superdelegates selecting her to block the elected nominee, I would not support her, and we be deeply disenfranchised by the party (much more so then by her btw) who would do something like that. I’ve went into detail on my reasons why I believe that, and how staggeringly stupid I decision I believe that would be (if made). I won’t rehash it, but I do want to make a very important distinction, because I absolutely did not say what was said above.
#2- JoB- you have suggested that i have been calling for Hillary to drop out of the race, when in fact, consistently I have supported her staying in the race. What I have not supported are #1- her extreme negative campaigning and most specifically her continued endorsements of John McCain… I find them appalling. I even pointed out one link where she tried to distance herself from those comments as a ray of hope, only to find her husband again praising McCain as a principled moderate ready to lead the same day.
What I have strongly argued, and believe strongly is that people should stop supporting Hillary Clinton. There is very compelling evidence that her candidacy is hurting her party, and directly benefitting the opposition party (who she happens to have endorsed recently). I have argued strongly, that people who want to see a democrat elected in the fall, need to look at what sort of path to the nomination still exists for her, and what that would look like. If you are comfortable with the campaign she is running, and see real value in a continued battle up to and on the convention floor- that is your candidate. I happen to believe that it is a terrible disservice to the country.
Now, with all that said, when the math goes from nearly impossible to flat out impossible in early May- I very well may support calls for her withdrawal from the race…
April 4, 2008 at 8:42 pm #617559
AnonymousInactivewalfredo, thank-you for clarifying your thoughts. I apologize for mis-representing you. I still have one foot in each camp so I’m trying to listen to everyone.
One area of disagreement. I don’t think Hillary is running a abhorrently negative campaign. I think she is running *a campaign*. Maybe if I was a diehard Obama supporter, I would see it differently, but I just don’t. I remember the bush/mcCain attacks against each other in 2000 and what is occurring now seems so mild, I’m not understanding the passion.
One thought occurred to me about the clinton’s comments towards mcCain as well. They assume Hillary will be the nominee. Is it possible this is strategy for that match-up? Coming out first as the good guy, so mccain has to go negative. Then they can go in for the kill claiming they tried to play nice?
My point is, I don’t think anything we see from all the candidates is completely straight up. Obama included. They have massive teams of strategists. There is a purpose and plan to everything. Some of which may not be apparent yet. I also believe, if obama gets the nomination, his campaign will take on a whole new flavor. I have never seen a campaign won without eventually attacking the opponent on every level. He’ll get there too. This is only round 1.
April 4, 2008 at 9:15 pm #617560
JoBParticipantWalfredo..
lets see..
you would support Clinton but only if she reaches some standard that you set in securing the nomination…
which by the way, is an unreachable standard ..
possibly for either candidate at this point..
that’s what i would call a qualified endorsement of your willingness to support whoever the democratic nominee ends up being…
whereas mine is and has remained … totally unqualified.
I even signed up to get the vote out this fall in my precinct before i had any idea who the candidate would be. I’d say that’s pretty unqualified.
i didn’t check to see if it is mathematically possible for your candidate to meet your own standard because quite frankly, i think that entire discussion is a waste of everyone’s time.
You are selling the campaign and it’s projections instead of actually letting it play out and finding out where it falls. Are you so afraid of the actual democratic process that you can’t let it work itself out to find out who won?
so.. according to you… if she gets it any other way that would be “stealing” and you wouldn’t support her…
hmmm…
i won’t link back to your post.. but all you have to do is read back and you will find it.
ditto the comments about Hillary needing to withdraw from the race and the links to every pundit you could find to support that demand.
Sorry to be the one to call it.. but i have to call bull….
the same math which makes it impossible for Hillary to secure the nomination by delegate count prior to the convention without the use of super delegates also makes the same impossible for Obama.
So is Obama hurting the democratic party by not withdrawing?
An equal case could be made for that assertion.
i don’t choose to say it or make the case. I think my candidate can stand on her own merits. If she doesn’t, she will have lost… and i will be campaigning for Obama in the fall.
As for the insinuation that she endorses the republican party.. think again.
You have managed to take a couple of comments about John McCain (that i didn’t particularly like either) out of context and inflate them into campaign rhetoric…
nice campaigning.. but that doesn’t make it the truth.
In fact, it is less the truth than.. Obama supports black supremest ideas because they are preached in his church and that same preacher was his spiritual adviser for his campaign.
Both make for great campaigning.. but neither accurately reflects the truth.
Could we just stick to the truth here?
one thing seems abundantly clear to me.
You do not want to talk about your candidate… you want to point out the deficiencies of mine… and inflate those deficiencies to slurs on her character.
So.. Walfredo.. i have to ask. Is Obama a candidate you personally are passionate about?
I ask because all this conversation would lead me to believe… is that you support anyone who isn’t Hillary.
and enquiring minds still want to know… gal or guy?
April 4, 2008 at 9:31 pm #617561
charlabobParticipantand enquiring minds still want to know… gal or guy?
Even more enquiring minds want to know — why is this so important??? Will it color your logic?
April 4, 2008 at 9:55 pm #617562
JoBParticipantcharla.. charla. charla…
Jo shakes her head wearily…..
am i not allowed to question the assumptions that i make?
it’s just a question.
when i made an assumption about JT’s sex.. i was flat out wrong.
She is very much a gal.
i somehow thought the whole point of having conversation was to get to know one another better…
maybe not?
i certainly didn’t mean anything by it.
April 4, 2008 at 10:12 pm #617563
charlabobParticipantOf course you are allowed curiosity, JoB — I’m curious too. Apparently I’m not allowed to ask why it’s important to you?
I don’t owe you an explanation, but I will give you one: I happen to find the difference in interactions between men and women and women and women very interesting. They’re even reflected on the artificial turf that is the internet.
When people like The House and Vincent are rude and obnoxious, the attitude of many the women (not just you!) is, “Aw, ain’t that cute — wanna come drinking with us?”
When another woman is something other than placating — argues in what you might consider a masculine way — the reaction is not the same.
As I said, when I defended you and RS, I find that really curious. (You can imagine the words I deleted to come up with curious.)
So I asked why you wanted to know. That’s what I meant by it.
April 4, 2008 at 10:49 pm #617564
AnonymousInactiveCharla, since JoB dragged me into this boy/girl discussion, I have to say, I think you’re incorrect. When another woman was being something *other than placating*, JoB not only invited her for a drink, but issued a public hug. I was surprised by that, but if anything, she is consistent in her *can’t we all just get along*.
April 4, 2008 at 11:28 pm #617565
JoBParticipantthanks JT..
April 5, 2008 at 12:06 am #617566
beachdrivegirlParticipantObama is closing in on Clinton in PA. In January Clinton had a 20pt lead down to 16 last month and now we are in single digits @ 5.4! This is great news for the Obama campaign!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.