Why is Clinton still in this race?

Why is Clinton still in the race. The latest Gallup Poll shows that Obama is beating her 50 to 42 in the latest Poll. There is no way in God's green earth that she can caught him. Now Howie Dean wants the Democratic Candidate to be selected by June 1 but I don't think Old Lady Clinton is ready to give up, she thinks that the super delegates will throw there support behind her. Now all of the sudden Dean is saying that he thinks the Florida and Michigan delegate may not be seated at the convention. Hmmm, I wonder who Dr. Dean is supporting? Now even Chelsea thinks her mom would make a better president than her father (wow, that is an example of the Clinton loyalty).

I am looking forward to watching the 1968 Democratic Convention ReDux in Denver, it will be fun watching the Dems go down in smoke.

they always save the states with the most delegates until the end. I don't think it's over yet. I also don't think it matters since Turkey-neck is going to be our next president.

Of course it's not over. The Clintons possess a well-oiled smear machine will do anything and everything in their power to sink Obama between now and the convention. Votes don't matter (unless she's ahead) as they were cast by unimportant little people who's opinions don't matter.

As we speak the Clinton's minions are combing the countryside looking under every slimy rock trying to gather as much dirt as they can in order to bring down Obama. And they will not rest until the job is done.

Fun to watch, indeed.

but what about all the REAL stuff about him? Doesn't the fact he was born overseas mean anything? Or that he was named after Saddam? (his dad loved the guy)
What about the photos of him not showing patriotism or the photo of his campaign headquarters with a dictator's photo on a cuban flag? Or the fact he joined a church ran by a fanatic? Bhah blah more rhetoric blah blah web of deceit blah blah...

God I hate Clinton. She has stated she will work towards getting a bill through that blocks the sale of violent video games which was already determined to be unconstitutional by our own justice system.

I swear if she somehow wins, I'm moving to Canada. [/rant]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kasracer

God I hate Clinton. She has stated she will work towards getting a bill through that blocks the sale of violent video games which was already determined to be unconstitutional by our own justice system.

I swear if she somehow wins, I'm moving to Canada. [/rant]

---

I'd rather not be able to get violent games than have to fight off yeti attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

but what about all the REAL stuff about him? Doesn't the fact he was born overseas mean anything? Or that he was named after Saddam? (his dad loved the guy)
What about the photos of him not showing patriotism or the photo of his campaign headquarters with a dictator's photo on a cuban flag? Or the fact he joined a church ran by a fanatic? Bhah blah more rhetoric blah blah web of deceit blah blah...

---

His dad is actually an atheist (despite the islamic name). His mom is a non-religious secularist.

Frankly I'm not too sure about someone who converts to a religion in the middle of their life. Hopefully Obama did it just for political points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kasracer

God I hate Clinton. She has stated she will work towards getting a bill through that blocks the sale of violent video games which was already determined to be unconstitutional by our own justice system.

I swear if she somehow wins, I'm moving to Canada. [/rant]

---

Bills change the constitution.

they always save the states with the most delegates until the end. :cool:


"Signature" removed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

Frankly I'm not too sure about someone who converts to a religion in the middle of their life. Hopefully Obama did it just for political points.

---

Really? I thought that was more typical for the true believer? It seems like the most fanatical followers of any faith are those that come to it late. I have known people who have adopted faiths for political reasons (ok, it was always to score with certain women, but that's just a form of politics), but most people that I am aware of who adopted a faith anytime from college on did so with considerable dedication.

Well, Clinton's win yesterday means that this thing is dragging on until the convention.

On the upside, that means that it'll be the first time in a generation that a US political convention was actually a political convention and not just a big photo op that had no value whatsoever. People will actually go to a convention to choose a candidate - what a novel idea.

On the downside, it means that the Dem fundraising advantage over the GOP has been completely negated. McCain is just sitting back, hoarding his money and paying off his debts. All the extra cash that the Dems have raised this time around is going to fighting each other instead of fighting McCain. He can just relax and wait while they destroy each other and doesn't need to waste cash testing out which attacks will stick as the Dems are funding that research themselves and he just takes advantage of it.

I didn't believe that the Dems could actually do anything to hurt their chances of winning in November, but they really seem to be going out of their way to blow this unlosable election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Well, Clinton's win yesterday means that this thing is dragging on until the convention.

On the upside, that means that it'll be the first time in a generation that a US political convention was actually a political convention and not just a big photo op that had no value whatsoever. People will actually go to a convention to choose a candidate - what a novel idea.

On the downside, it means that the Dem fundraising advantage over the GOP has been completely negated. McCain is just sitting back, hoarding his money and paying off his debts. All the extra cash that the Dems have raised this time around is going to fighting each other instead of fighting McCain. He can just relax and wait while they destroy each other and doesn't need to waste cash testing out which attacks will stick as the Dems are funding that research themselves and he just takes advantage of it.

I didn't believe that the Dems could actually do anything to hurt their chances of winning in November, but they really seem to be going out of their way to blow this unlosable election.

---

This is not an unlosable election for democrats. The republicans have finally found a candidate worth electing. Unfortunately whether or not either democratic frontrunner has this same quality is up in arms.

Up in arms? That sounds like the wrong metaphor. How about Up in the air. Frankly, the more I have heard McCain speak, the less I like him. For a guy who is supposed to know what's going on in the world, he's beginning to make Bush look knowledgeable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Up in arms? That sounds like the wrong metaphor. How about Up in the air. Frankly, the more I have heard McCain speak, the less I like him. For a guy who is supposed to know what's going on in the world, he's beginning to make Bush look knowledgeable.

---

If Obama is the nominee for the democrats then you are out of luck, he doesn’t have a clue about anything. Sounding good reading prepared speeches from a teleprompter doesn’t mean you actually have a clue :lol:

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

This is not an unlosable election for democrats. The republicans have finally found a candidate worth electing. Unfortunately whether or not either democratic frontrunner has this same quality is up in arms.

---

McCain would be a competent placeholder President. He would be able to shuffle things around and the lack of any bold or new initiatives would allow the country some time to recover from the disaster of the Bush years. He's a one-term guy and he knows it, but would perform his functions adequately. It would not be a disaster to have him as President.

Clinton would also be a competent placeholder. She'd try for some new initiatives, like giving your country a workable healthcare system, but would compromise so much that really nothing big would be accomplished. She might be able to win a second term by reminding everyone of the Bush years, but it's iffy. She'd be slightly better than McCain, but neither of them would ever be anything more than a footnote in the history books.

I personally think that an Obama Presidency would be a wasted opportunity. Give him 4 or 8 years to let someone else clean up the muck and give him time to get some experience on the national scene and build up some political capital, and he could be one of the greats. Right now, he'd be so consumed with picking up after Bush that he wouldn't have the chance to do anything special.

Really, I'm rooting for Hillary right now, because that would mean that Obama has to wait a few years, which I think would let him have a presidency that's not so involved in cleaning up the mess. Also, in order to win, she'd have to destroy the Democratic party, which would perhaps result in it being rebuilt as something worthwhile.

unfortunately, we will probably have a run of 4-year terms after Bush, because he's made such a mess out of the entire system that it will be impossible for anyone to fix it in four years. Therefore the next pres will also get a low approval rating and not get reelected. This is likely to continue.

I think McCain will be great for the ecenomic front due to the fact he's ex-military and not afraid to use his power to do things such as Veto something once in a while, which evidently Bush has forgotten he's able to do. Anyway he's a Veteran (a pow at that) and currently has better things to do than constantly monitor the world events. Every president has an advisor for that who lets them know what's important to pay attention of. for example, McCain probably isn't paying much attention to Iran right now because they are harmless, while boning up on countries he really needs to know about, such as Iraq and Mexico.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

he's made such a mess out of the entire system

---

Huh? Explain.

And I'm not even going to touch the statement that Iran is "harmless"...

don't touch it then. It's merely another country that's become a target to take everyone's eyes off the real issues. I won't mention the fact that "enriching" uranium merely means you use the same reactor rods more than once. This is a neat trick for a country that doesn't have any nuclear reactors. Of course maybe Bush was referring to their single test reactor?

I don't see what has to be explained about the mess the current regime has gotten us in to.
but here's a couple of highlights:
1. Went from surplus to record deficit during the last 8 years
2. Started another Vietnam (Iraq)
3. Totally ruined our foreign relations with completely inconsistent behaviour mixed with obvious playing of favorites.
4. Ignored directives by the United Nations.
5. (my personal favourite (not): "the check is in the mail" tax break. The last time i received one of these, i discovered at the end of the year it was actually part of my rebate check. Since my wife and i owed money at the end of the year, we owed the $600 back as well. with two weeks to come up with it. this latest scheme is similar but seems to just be some crazy method of destroying the government budget (such as it is). If 100,000,000 taxpayers get back $600, that's sixty BILLION dollars.

That's just to get you started. There's also his take on the geneva convention, the patriot act, etc...

In my opinion, McCain will do the best job running the country, but Hillary will be the best at salvaging the economy and social security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

1. Went from surplus to record deficit during the last 8 years
2. Started another Vietnam (Iraq)
3. Totally ruined our foreign relations with completely inconsistent behaviour mixed with obvious playing of favorites.
4. Ignored directives by the United Nations.
5. (my personal favourite (not): "the check is in the mail" tax break.

---

1. Congress spends the money - not the president.
2. Iraq will be another "Vietnam" only if we allow ourselves to lose.
3. "Totally ruined" is nothing more than subjective opinion and does not explain the recent election of pro-Bush leaders in the UK, France, Germany, etc... The Japanese used to hate us passionately, too. We dropped two nukes on them and they instantly became *****cats - now they are our good friends.
4. As opposed to following the UN's own directives that the UN themselves ignored.
5. If you don't like it, give it back.

The rebate check is my personal favorite as well. It's great fun listening to liberals actually whine and complain about getting a tax break... But keep 'em coming - you remind me of myself when I was your age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

1. Congress spends the money - not the president.

---

Standard reply to avoid responsibility. The president sends a budget to congress, then congress alters it and sends it back. The Republican model that began with Reagan was to send a budget so outrageously overblown that the wildest tax and spend congress wouldn't accept it. What this does is allow the president to say "Hey, I had money for that in MY budget, but the evil congress people removed it." Of course, when your own party holds congress, that line doesn't work as well, but it's still used It's a dirty trick, but politics as usual. For some reason, we also allowed this president to leave the war in Iraq out of the budget. He would then suddenly realize that there was a war going on and demand emergency appropriations to cover it, as if it was a totally new thing (with this president, I'm not sure whether that was disingenous or not).

2. Iraq will be another "Vietnam" only if we allow ourselves to lose.

We have lost in the sense that the outcome of this war will not be an improvement in our position prior to the war in any objective sense. We have shown opposition groups how to beat us, we have increased recruitment for terrorist groups, and we have weakened our hands with our allies.

3. "Totally ruined" is nothing more than subjective opinion and does not explain the recent election of pro-Bush leaders in the UK, France, Germany, etc... The Japanese used to hate us passionately, too. We dropped two nukes on them and they instantly became *****cats - now they are our good friends.

All of that is subjective, as well.

4. As opposed to following the UN's own directives that the UN themselves ignored.

Ignoring UN directives is a popular sport.

5. If you don't like it, give it back.

The rebate check is my personal favorite as well. It's great fun listening to liberals actually whine and complain about getting a tax break... But keep 'em coming - you remind me of myself when I was your age.[/QUOTE]

What astonishes me is that I remember when the Republicans weren't the big advocates of "Borrow and Spend" government. I may be older than you, though. Some people did give back the first one, and they weren't liberal, they were appalled by fiscal mismanagement, which this is. Nothing but a political payoff, and absurd, too. However, this rebate isn't just an advance on next years tax refund (if you get one), it is an advance on your kids rebate. Live it up, they sure won't be!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

The president sends a budget to congress, then congress alters it and sends it back.

---

And ultimately it is the responsibility of the congress to approve the budget. Also, all spending bills must originate in the House.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

The Republican model that began with Reagan was to send a budget so outrageously overblown that the wildest tax and spend congress wouldn't accept it.

---

The way I remember it was all 8 of Reagan's budgets weren't declared "dead on arrival" (boy, that got old) because they were "overblown" they were rejected because he increased military spending much faster than he increased spending on the Democrats' pet social programs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

All of that is subjective, as well.

---

Huh? Everything I stated in #3 is fact.

Hey, I'm no fan of Bush, either. I only responded to LO because I thought he meant Bush screwed up the electoral system. Turns out he was just blaming everything else on him...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

And ultimately it is the responsibility of the congress to approve the budget. Also, all spending bills must originate in the House.

---

That's mostly just window dressing. Sure, the bill technically has to show up in the house, but the president isn't sitting around hoping that maybe some congressman will think up a piece of legislation he wants. It's all a game to those people with the objective being to get a certain solution. If the president want certain legislation to originate in the house at a certain time, then that legislation will originate in the house at that time.

Quote:

---

The way I remember it was all 8 of Reagan's budgets weren't declared "dead on arrival" (boy, that got old) because they were "overblown" they were rejected because he increased military spending much faster than he increased spending on the Democrats' pet social programs.

---

There were probably a variety of post mortem takes on the situation. My point came from an a priori analysis of Reagan's budgets made early in his second term and based on past experience. After all, what I pointed out makes very sound political sense. Congress is anything but a unified body, so it is in the best political interest of the president to play fiscal games, a behavior the executive is capable of largely because of being a unified voice. My point may have been cynical, but it is established strategy, as well. No doubt you are as aware as I am that the bulk of action in Congress is based on who gets credit and who gets blame. The presidential budget, perhaps not beginning with Reagan, but aggressively pursued by Reagan was a tool for blame transference rather than sound fiscal policy. By now, it is rare to find anything that isn't such a tool in Congress.

Quote:

---

Huh? Everything I stated in #3 is fact.

---

In what universe? Ok, so you were tossing off a casual comment, but the UK leader is less pro-Bush than the lapdog he replaced. France is more pro-Bush, but only up to a point, and it's not much of a point. Germany hasn't materially done anything (heck, I'd have to take your word on it that the current leader is more pro-Bush, it's just different shades of beige as far as I can see).

As for Japan, two nukes didn't do much of anything. The years up to those two bombs included the utter annihilation of their entire merchant marine and navy, as well as the cutting off of all their supplies of raw material, and the destruction of their air force. They had lost all of their conquered territories as well as some of the islands they reasonably included as part of their homeland. Tokyo wasn't a target for one of the nukes because there wasn't enough remaining of it to bother with. In fact, two relatively insignificant cities were chosen because the rest had been reduced to rubble. They didn't "instantly become *****cats" because of two nukes, they were clubbed into utter prostration to an extent that few countries had ever experienced and survived. As for them just blithely changing, how do you know they have? That's a resource poor island nation with considerable cohesion and discipline. They lacked the means to win a war against the US, but only went down after a terrific fight. Without the military means to maintain the flow of raw materials, they eventually pulled themselves up to become an economic powerhouse that still exemplifies formidable cohesion and discipline relative to most of the rest of the world. Do you know the Japanese so well to know that they lost?

So saying that two nukes changed Japan is kind of the Cliff's Notes approach to history. There is still considerable, and reasonable debate as to what role those bombs had on the war. The fact that Russia REALLY wanted to get in on the war against Japan (to gain control of some territories) was as reasonable a motivation to the surrender as the bombs.

Bush didn't irretrievably turn the world against the US, but it will be a long time before we are regarded as highly as we were before he took office. The dollar is sliding ever further against the euro, and the rest of the world doesn't seem all that concerned about that fact. I believe we went from superpower to suspect in about six years. The rest of the world doubts our motives and doubts our means. We still have a massive economy, but that seems to be increasingly the only thing other countries want from us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

1. Congress spends the money - not the president.
2. Iraq will be another "Vietnam" only if we allow ourselves to lose.
3. "Totally ruined" is nothing more than subjective opinion and does not explain the recent election of pro-Bush leaders in the UK, France, Germany, etc... The Japanese used to hate us passionately, too. We dropped two nukes on them and they instantly became *****cats - now they are our good friends.
4. As opposed to following the UN's own directives that the UN themselves ignored.
5. If you don't like it, give it back.

The rebate check is my personal favorite as well. It's great fun listening to liberals actually whine and complain about getting a tax break... But keep 'em coming - you remind me of myself when I was your age.

---

How old are you anyway? I'm no spring chicken.

1. Sure congress spends the money. President has a veto pen. Guess how many veto's Bush has used? One. Guess how many Clinton did? 37 with only two overturned. Guess who balanced the budget and gave us a surplus?
2. You can't fight a war where the entire enemy force uses guerilla tactics. This has been proven time and time again. We've lost many more troops than they have. We're in uniform and they look like the population. A guy i worked with was shot in the head by a preacher. (he lived). The green zone is used for camera shots. Most of the country is extremely dangerous. There was a reason the republican guard existed. To keep the population in line. Now that they are gone, we're seen as invaders (and we are- we overthrew their government).
3. The japanese have went a different route for conquest. Financial. We have a Business/client relationship with them. They don't like us. And frankly if you were to read history carefully you would see that dropping the bombs on them didn't actually accomplish anything. They already had stated they would surrender if they could keep their dictator. They offered the same after each bomb. After the 2nd one WE agreed. And i am sure the financial conquest is probably hard to swallow but you can talk to anyone from japan and get the skinny on this. They are buying up a lot of our real estate, for starters. But more power to them.
4. don't have the time or space to get into this one...
5. Don't like it? They TOOK back the first one. The first one was touted as an ecenomic stimulus check, not a tax-rebate advance, which it was. I wonder what the surprise with this one will be? And as a matter of fact i am giving it away. One of the stipulations is that "you can't be claimed on someone else's tax return". Well i claimed my grandparents before Bush came up with this clever idea. Now i have to reimburse them the loss of their refund check.

Why do people keep asking this? Why not just tell Obama to drop out instead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

Why do people keep asking this? Why not just tell Obama to drop out instead?

---

The same reason people aren't asking McCain to drop out because Ron Paul is still in the race. It's because McCain has won. The same logic applies to Obama.

Clinton has been mathematically eliminated from the race. She needs to win 68% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination and she only has 50% support of the party. Unless Obama calls a news conference to let people watch him have sex with Osama Bin Laden on top of a burning American flag, she has no chance - and it would be iffy then.

Obama is the Democratic nominee. Clinton had herself a nice leisurely stroll into the White House, but she blew it. Her choices are to sabotage Obama and try again in four years with a base who will then despise her, or accept the inevitable and try again in eight years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

The same reason people aren't asking McCain to drop out because Ron Paul is still in the race. It's because McCain has won. The same logic applies to Obama.

Clinton has been mathematically eliminated from the race. She needs to win 68% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination and she only has 50% support of the party. Unless Obama calls a news conference to let people watch him have sex with Osama Bin Laden on top of a burning American flag, she has no chance - and it would be iffy then.

Obama is the Democratic nominee. Clinton had herself a nice leisurely stroll into the White House, but she blew it. Her choices are to sabotage Obama and try again in four years with a base who will then despise her, or accept the inevitable and try again in eight years.

---

Actually you are incorrect. By the time the primaries are over neither Clinton or Obama will have the necessary delegates to take the nomination. It will require the votes of the "super-delegates" to put either over the top.

Also if you can somehow make the argument that the Florida and Michigan delegations be seated this would put Clinton over the top of Obama and would also give Clinton more of the popular vote than Obama. You can also make the argument that if the Democrats did their primaries like the Republicans (winner take all), Clinton would have easily won the nomination already.

I don’t blame Clinton for staying in. There can still be some more revelations come out about Obama. I think a lot of what has already come out has likely doomed his chances of ever becoming president in the general election. Which means I think we are looking at a McCain presidency.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

Actually you are incorrect. By the time the primaries are over neither Clinton or Obama will have the necessary delegates to take the nomination. It will require the votes of the "super-delegates" to put either over the top.

Also if you can somehow make the argument that the Florida and Michigan delegations be seated this would put Clinton over the top of Obama and would also give Clinton more of the popular vote than Obama. You can also make the argument that if the Democrats did their primaries like the Republicans (winner take all), Clinton would have easily won the nomination already.

---

You could also make the argument that if they picked their nominee by putting all the candidates' names in a hat and picking one at random, we could have Kuchinich as the Dem nominee. That's about as relevant as the points above, though, simply because it's as unrelated to how the nominating process works as those ones are.

Clinton would only be ahead by counting Florida and Michigan if you gave her all the delegates from both states. Since Obama followed the rules and didn't campaign in those states and wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, the tallies for her against him in those is not anything related to a true expression of how those delegates would be distributed if they had counted. There's a proposal now to split up the delegates from Michigan something like 80/70 for Clinton so the idea that even if they're seated, Clinton would get them is nonsensical.

When I said that Clinton needed 68% of the remaining delegates, that would be to put her ahead in the delegate count going into the convention. Anything less would have her come in behind. Since a number of the superdelegates, including those supporting Clinton, have said that they will support whomever is leading going into the convention, the idea that Clinton would somehow be able to convince a majority of them to flip over to her and give the nomination to a candidate who lost the primary fight is similarly nonsensical.

There's no sensical (if that's even a word, but nonsensical's a word, so it should be a word even if it's not) scenario where Clinton gets the nomination. That's not to say that she should quit this close to the finish line just because she can't win - doing so would invalidate her from any future runs for President - but she should stop with the negativity and play nice because Obama's about to become her boss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

I don’t blame Clinton for staying in. There can still be some more revelations come out about Obama. I think a lot of what has already come out has likely doomed his chances of ever becoming president in the general election. Which means I think we are looking at a McCain presidency.

X

---

I doubt it. Obama's got Wright, but McCain's got Hagee (or whatever his name is) who's going around saying that God destroyed New Orleans because of some gay pride parade it was going to have combined with the pictures of McCain having a birthday cake with Bush infront of Air Force One while people were dying in the Superdome.

Any other negatives are cancelled out by more picturesof McCain hugging Bush and the "Bush's Third Term" line is a better rallying cry that anything the GOP has.

I don't think there's much doubt that Obama will be the next President.

I heard a great result from some poll that was taken.

The majority of democrats said they would rather vote for McCain rather then have to vote for the "democrat they did not support in the primary".

As the party pushes to get more and more democratic voters to come out they are only dividing the dem party further and further.

This democratic civil war is just perfect to all the republican party strategists. The dems are creating their own mud to get tossed back in their faces in just a few months!

Removing an .18 cent federal gas tax - does she think we are that stupid! Oh - maybe they do...

:sick:

I really have trouble believing that the vast majority of those Dems who right now say that they wouldn't vote for Obama because they're Clinton supporters would actually go and vote for McCain. Some will, sure, but it sounds to me much more like something just from the heat of the moment.

When Clinton throws her support behind Obama and starts campaigning for him, she'll manage to bring a good number of those into the fold by reminding them that he's now the one who's going to stop a third Bush term. If she doesn't do that and pulls a Ted Kennedy and refuses to support the candidate and leaves a shattered and bitterly divided party that she makes no effort to help rebuild before the general election, then her future prospects for another run will be as dead as his was. She knows this too.

Clinton wants to go down in history as the first woman President of the US and she will do anything to make this happen. Right now, the only thing that she can do to make that happen is to support Obama.

All the talk about what Dems will do now can be ignored. Those polls are all surveys of peoples emotions at this moment. Will people carry such a grudge that they will vote for McCain just to spite the Dem nominee? Personally, I doubt it, but we certainly can't know at the moment. Maybe in August such an argument would carry weight, but not now. It's just too raw. Lord knows we have an impressive ability to forget.

I'd have to agree that the gas tax thing is really stupic, though.

Quote:

---

You could also make the argument that if they picked their nominee by putting all the candidates' names in a hat and picking one at random, we could have Kuchinich as the Dem nominee. That's about as relevant as the points above, though, simply because it's as unrelated to how the nominating process works as those ones are.

Clinton would only be ahead by counting Florida and Michigan if you gave her all the delegates from both states. Since Obama followed the rules and didn't campaign in those states and wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, the tallies for her against him in those is not anything related to a true expression of how those delegates would be distributed if they had counted. There's a proposal now to split up the delegates from Michigan something like 80/70 for Clinton so the idea that even if they're seated, Clinton would get them is nonsensical.

When I said that Clinton needed 68% of the remaining delegates, that would be to put her ahead in the delegate count going into the convention. Anything less would have her come in behind. Since a number of the superdelegates, including those supporting Clinton, have said that they will support whomever is leading going into the convention, the idea that Clinton would somehow be able to convince a majority of them to flip over to her and give the nomination to a candidate who lost the primary fight is similarly nonsensical.

There's no sensical (if that's even a word, but nonsensical's a word, so it should be a word even if it's not) scenario where Clinton gets the nomination. That's not to say that she should quit this close to the finish line just because she can't win - doing so would invalidate her from any future runs for President - but she should stop with the negativity and play nice because Obama's about to become her boss.

---

The super delegates are going to decide the nomination. Both candidates will NOT have the required delegates necessary to win the nomination outright before the convention without the support of those super delegates. What I am saying is Clinton does have a valid argument to make as to why they should vote for her. The two I mentioned plus the polls that show that she would do better against McCain if she was the nominee.

It doesn’t matter who is ahead if neither candidate does not have the required delegates necessary to win the nomination after all the primaries are done. What matters is who can make the best argument as to why they should be the nominee so that the super delegates vote for them. This is how the democrat system works. The democrat party elite took the power from the hands of ordinary voters and placed it in their hands, just in case the little people made the wrong choice. Super delegates create a 20% voting block that can sway the nomination process either way. It’s not picking people out of a hat or even picking who is the best to be the nominee, its picking whomever the democrat elite thinks should be the nominee.

Like I said both of them can’t win without the super delegates. It is who can make the best argument as to why they should be president to the democrat elite. Those super delegates will decide, and while it looks as if Obama has the nod now, I don’t blame Clinton for seeing this to the end, as anything can happen, especially in politics (and when the Clintons are involved).

Quote:

---

I doubt it. Obama's got Wright, but McCain's got Hagee (or whatever his name is) who's going around saying that God destroyed New Orleans because of some gay pride parade it was going to have combined with the pictures of McCain having a birthday cake with Bush infront of Air Force One while people were dying in the Superdome.

Any other negatives are cancelled out by more picturesof McCain hugging Bush and the "Bush's Third Term" line is a better rallying cry that anything the GOP has.

I don't think there's much doubt that Obama will be the next President.

---

Once people find out what Obama is all about I can’t see people electing him president. He has been virtually given a free ride during most of the primaries. This is going to change if he is the nominee. There will be more scrutiny on his liberal voting record, and more scrutiny on his relationships with radicals like Rev. Wright and William Aires. The shine has started to wear off and people are starting to see Obama as just another politician that is trying to get elected, this will only continue as we approach the general election.

The democrats should have a cakewalk this year given Bush’s low approval rate. Yet all polls are still putting McCain ahead of Obama. For me, Obama’s best hope to become president is that the normally absent ignorant youth vote will actually turn out in force for him. The whole hope/change marketing campaign seems to be well received by them.

If McCain does win it will not be because he was the superior candidate. It will be because Obama is too far to the left, too inexperienced, too elitist, and associated with too many radicals. Obama has far too many negatives. Once they are pointed out to people I cannot see him getting elected even though any democrat should sweep into office with Bush’s low approval rating.

X

I never got the argument that Obama's bad because he's an elite. You're picking the guy who'll run the largest military the world has ever seen and preside over the largest economy the world has ever seen. Shouldn't you want as elite a person as possible there instead of choosing whether or not to support him based on his bowling skills?