Hillary and sleeze....

[WinterDave]

With Hillary trailing behind Obama, you just know that her and Bill are going to come up with some more sleezy tricks to get her the Democratic nomination....

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld ... 4103.story

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hY74 ... QD8URVVHG0

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3P ... Xa1PQ4falA

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trai ... _view.html

If Obama ends up leading in delegates AND the popular vote, but somehow loses the Democratic nomination to Hillary through backroom machinations, then the Democrats can kiss the White House goodbye in 2008...

[copper]

Yeah I don't think Hillary will win the Presidency if she is the one nominated. It doesn't matter anyways no matter what we are all screwed. We will be having World War III pretty soon anyways with Russia and China.

[HoboQueen]

I don't think the superdelegates will decide the nomination. There would be a huge amount of backlash against them if they did. I think the superdelegates will start switching their support once Hillary loses in Ohio or Texas.

[millenniumman75]

I am still trying to figure out how Hillary started losing so much to Obama. I thought she was the "savior" of the Democratic Party.

[WineKitty]

There is no "savior" in any party if you ask me (which of course no one did but I am saying it anyway ).

Clinton has too much of the old school politics about her that is turning people off.

Obama offers youth and vision which is what people are responding to right now.

McCain offers more of the same of what we have had for the last eight years.

I am not sure ANY of the candidates are really what I want. But of Obama, Clinton, and McCain, I am definitely voting for Obama.

[WinterDave]

I heard some interesting stuff about her campaign...About how it just blew through a 100 million dollars and really didn't have that much to show for it....How they basically just ceded all of the caucuses to Obama rather than grabbing their fair share of delegates...Hillary is supposed to win Texas, Ohio, and PA but unless she gathers twice as many votes in those states as Obama does, then she will be unable to overtake him in the delegate count...She would have won eight out of ten of the biggest states but still be trailing in delegates...Which comes back to how her campaign lost all of the caucus state delegates by huge margins....Hillary's negatives are almost as high as her positives, if she was elected President it would only be with 50.1% of the vote again, and another divided country...McCain is a Washington insider, part of the status quo, and voted for the war...But that also applies to Hillary...She has all of his negatives but none of his appeal to Independents and even Democrats...Plus, he will do much better among the Latino vote than traditional Republicans...The real question, are Hillary/Bill so consumed by the need for power that they are willing to stage a bitter civil war in the Democratic Party and ensure that the Republicans win in 2008...According to the above links where Hillary promises a messy floor fight at the convention, the answer appears yes....It is good that the Democratic race has been so close, so that we have been able to see Hillary and Bill's true colors before the General Election in the Fall....If the Super Delegates allow themselves to be co-opted by the Hillary campaign, the Florida and Michigan delegates get counted after all, and Obama loses the nomination because of it, I think some of his supporters will stay at home in the Fall
election....Obama can beat McCain, but Hillary cannot....

[brimontz]

Originally Posted by millenniumman75

I am still trying to figure out how Hillary started losing so much to Obama. I thought she was the "savior" of the Democratic Party.

And Rudy Giuliani was the "savior" of the Republican Party for a while too. The pundits have been off this whole campaign, and thank God for that.

Brian

[k79]

I still don't understand why Hillary won't drop out and why she is even running against Obama at all.

For decades, the Dems have been pushing for Affirmative Action, for basing decisions solely on skin color and to give opportunities to people of certain colors, that is what the Dems in Washington have been pushing on us with their unconstitutional affirmative action programs. While the Clintons were in power in the 90s, when Bill wasn't busy bombing 3rd world countries, he was pushing for more affirmative action. And now, a few years later, the only people stopping a half-black man from being the DNC nominee are the Clintons. I don't understand why Bill and Hillary won't abide by the same policies which they force upon the rest of us, they should bow out and give this opportunity to the half-black man, since they claimed in the 90s that skin color should factor into decisions.


but then again, millionaire Hillary and millionaire Edwards also talk about the poor and ethnic minorities, but yet when both of them were raising more campaign money than Governor Richardson (a so-called hispanic) a few months ago, neither Hillary nor Edwards opened up their campaign checkbooks to help Richardson out with money, suddenly their ideas of helping those with less money and helping ethnic minorities went out the window

i hope Obama and Hillary are tied going into the convention and the old Clinton machine somehow cooks up a back-room way for Hillary to win, hopefully a good race/class/gender war inside the DNC will split apart that race-obsessed party and drive more people to 3rd parties which respect the Constitution

[WinterDave]

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008 ... mback.html

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gVpH ... gD8US6CJ80

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... pro-2.html

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by copper

It doesn't matter anyways no matter what we are all screwed. We will be having World War III pretty soon anyways with Russia and China.

China? Is China going to start a war with one of the largest, if not the largest, customer for their goods? Is the US going to start a war with one of our favorite supplies of low-cost goods? And what would the war be over? We don't care about "bringing democracy" to them as they don't sit atop huge oil reserves.

[HoboQueen]

That "savior" stuff was just media hype. Hillary was "inevitable" even though there was always a strong undercurrent of Democrats who were still upset over things like her vote on the IWR. The Giuliani thing was even more ridiculous. Last summer I predicted that Rudy was going to lose. I wasn't correct because I'm some kind of political mastermind (of course I am but that's besides the point ). Anyone who knows anything about the GOP base knows that they weren't about to nominate a pro-choice candidate. Yeah, he had the whole 9/11 thing on his side but in the hierarchy of conservative activism abortion is a greater concern than national security. The fundies aren't playing as big of a role this year but they haven't gone away. They are still there and they make up the heart of the Republican Party.

Hillary and Rudy's early leads were pretty much based on name recognition. That's politics 101 and yet the media chose to ignore it. Early polls are meaningless.

[WineKitty]

Originally Posted by UltraShy

China? Is China going to start a war with one of the largest, if not the largest, customer for their goods? Is the US going to start a war with one of our favorite supplies of low-cost goods? And what would the war be over? We don't care about "bringing democracy" to them as they don't sit atop huge oil reserves.

I have to agree with Karl on this.

[copper]

No we are going to start the war, and I think it will be over Iran. Bush wants to go after Iran because of one thing which Iran wants to go off the dollar peg for oil sale. They are starting up a commodity trading that will trade their oil and gas with other currencies than the dollar. The talk is they want to use the Russian Ruble. Iran has lots of oil and lots of Natural Gas. Iran has 940 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that China wants. China is developing at a fast rate and needs the energy. The leader of China wants every family to have two cars. China has put a lot of money into it's military and they also have the man power. I know Russia said that an attack on Iran will be attack on them. Putin is rebuilding the Russian military. Russia will be siding with the Chinese. We have more things to worry about then those terrorists. If we just got off the foreign oil 30 years ago we wouldn't be in this mess today.

[odun]

im giving up predicting. never. ever would i have thought that obama would have done better in the virginia primary than the maryland primary. but he did.

shows how much i know.

i realize that most obama supporters are cocky. but id like to note, for whatever it is worth. if the polls are to be trusted, which is a big if, the momentum in wisconsin hasnt been in obama's favor.

the demographics of wisconsin also arent in obama's favor. lots of whites, rural people, catholics, blue collars...hillary has done well with all of those groups.

obama has been lazier and more complacent than normal this week. he gets that way when he believes he has it wrapped up. that strategy didnt work in new hampshire. it may not work in wisconsin. who know?

[odun]

okay kids, here is a good example as to why you cant always take polls at face value.

a poll was released today that showed obama +13 in wisconsin. reasonable, but still higher than all of the other polls that have been released.

so i start looking at the internals and crosstabs of the poll. and buried deep within is an explanation...using standard turnout models obama would only be +3 (within the margin of error). but this particularly company *expects* there to be higher than normal turnout, particularly with young people...so they *weight* the sample...it also appears to my eyes that they weighted the black turnout as well.. so after all of the weighting they get obama +13

ill agree that turnout is always hard to determine in wisconsin, since they use a form of voting fraud called 'same day registration'..but pulling numbers out of your rear end because you *expect* that to happened and then weighting the poll..isnt exactly scientific.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by odun

i realize that most obama supporters are cocky.

Glad to see you switching over to the Obama camp, odun.

Have a nice day,
Kelly

[Bon]

Originally Posted by Penny

There is no "savior" in any party if you ask me (which of course no one did but I am saying it anyway ).

Clinton has too much of the old school politics about her that is turning people off.

Obama offers youth and vision which is what people are responding to right now.

McCain offers more of the same of what we have had for the last eight years.

I am not sure ANY of the candidates are really what I want. But of Obama, Clinton, and McCain, I am definitely voting for Obama.

Exactly the way I feel.

I'm not sure of the polls though. Anything can happen, scary.

I heard this quote, and I roared, it's not meant to insult the Clinton supporters I just found it funny. (And yes, I think her husband is turning people off).

"If you can't say something nice, you're probably talking about Hillary Clinton" Foxworthy.

[atypicalpersona]

Polls can have a tendency to sway elections which kinda makes them pointless IMO. Unless you want to sway an election by showing certain poll results.. All the news networks do it. I imagine it happens when let's say a Clinton supporter sees that she has a huge lead in the polls.. Content that Hillary will win that supporter doesn't bother voting. On the other side the Obama supporter see's he's behind and decides he has to go vote and maybe take some friends along.