If Hillary gets the nomination, will you vote for her?

[Thomas Veil]

Liberals/Democrats/progressives/independents only, please. We already know conservatives won't vote for her. I'm interested in how people predisposed to vote for the Democratic nominee feel.

At the moment I say no. I figure if Obama is out of the race, one crook is as bad as the other. So I'll probably stay home.

[miloblithe]

I think that for the vast majority of the democrats saying they won't vote for x, it's bravado and emotion. Come election time, they'll rejoin the fold. However, the 1-5% that actually will follow through on their threats plus the independents could well decide the election.

[yg17]

Not sure....I'd probably vote for her, but I wouldn't actively support her and won't donate a single dime to her campaign.

[PlaceofDis]

i'm unsure of what i'll do to be honest. she'd have to do something to win me back, but i'm also not sure that i'd be able to hold my nose and vote for her in any event.

i might just stay home, i know not the most patriotic thing, but at least in this manner i'm not hurting her by voting for someone else, nor am i actively supporting her. so i guess i'll just have to wait and see.

[miloblithe]

I can't understand not voting for her. Didn't you people live through 7+ years of the Bush administration? Do you seriously think that she's worse than or no better than McCain?

[thejadedmonkey]

I'd do a write in for Dr. Paul

It's not a vote for her, but it won't hurt her. My way of "staying home" while still supporting a candidate I like :)

As an aside, I was proud that almost 25% of the republicans in my state (pa) voted for Ron Paul instead of McCain. For me, he was also "change" from the typical dem/gop president. I also think that, of those 25%, at least some would cross party lines to vote Obama if he gets the nomination.

P.S. I know this is a lot hijacking, but what are your thoughts on an Obama/Paul duo for 08?

[longofest]

I'm as yet undecided, but my vote goes heavily democratic if Hillary wins, and heavily republican if Obama wins.

I'm not necessarily eager to have another 4 (or more) years of a republican executive branch, but neither am I eager to have a president who goes advertising who he is and isn't going to invade. Obama is just too inexperienced for me. And yes, this whole rev. Wright thing has not done anything to improve my opinion of him either.

While I don't necessarily agree with all of Hillary's stances, she strikes me as very competent.

On the other hand, McCain was the best person that the republicans could have possibly have put out there. Part of my decision will be based on who he chooses as a running mate (no way am I going to be cool with another Cheney).

The race I really want to see to make it actually a really tough choice for me is Hillary vs. McCain.

p.s. I'm an independent and consider myself moderate on the basis that some issues I lean liberal on, others I lean conservative on.

[NAG]

I'm voting against McCain. I don't think we can afford BushLite.

[longofest]

P.S. I know this is a lot hijacking, but what are your thoughts on an Obama/Paul duo for 08?

A) 99.99999% chance it won't happen.
B) Never, ever, ever, in life, would I vote for Ron Paul.

[Macky-Mac]

I think that for the vast majority of the democrats saying they won't vote for x, it's bravado and emotion. Come election time, they'll rejoin the fold. However, the 1-5% that actually will follow through on their threats plus the independents could well decide the election.

pretty much agree with this........there will be some that wouldn't, just as there are going to be some repubs who wont be able to bring themselves to vote for McCain

[NAG]

A) 99.99999% chance it won't happen.
B) Never, ever, ever, in life, would I vote for Ron Paul.

Yeah, Ron Paul doesn't isn't viable as a political candidate. He has a few interesting ideas but in the end libertarianism just doesn't work. There would have to be an event on the scale of a revolution for it to take hold.

[yellow]

I voted "no", though I am technically somewhere between "no" and "unsure".

[atszyman]

I'm completely unsure of what I'd do if it's Clinton v. McCain.

I liked McCain in 2000, but he's either pandering to get the base, gone senile, or revealed his true colors and just thought a more moderate message would win in 2000. I'm not sure if either of those prospects comforts me about his ideological shift.

My bet is that I'd end up voting for Clinton although it would pain me to do so, just because I don't want McCain to be the one to decide Steven's replacement on the Supreme Court and I don't think Steven's is going to make it four more years.

[yellow]

I want a Uniter, not a Divider! :rolleyes:

[OscarTheGrouch]

plain simple no. I dont like how she has campaigned, and she has been caught in SEVERAL lies, therefore I have zero trust for her. I will not vote for Mccain either.

[Don't panic]

anything to avoid another 4-8 years of republicans in charge.
they did enough damage.

[leekohler]

I'm as yet undecided, but my vote goes heavily democratic if Hillary wins, and heavily republican if Obama wins.

I'm not necessarily eager to have another 4 (or more) years of a republican executive branch, but neither am I eager to have a president who goes advertising who he is and isn't going to invade. Obama is just too inexperienced for me. And yes, this whole rev. Wright thing has not done anything to improve my opinion of him either.

While I don't necessarily agree with all of Hillary's stances, she strikes me as very competent.



Nevermind the fact that Hillary has less legislative experience than Obama. I don't know why people never get that.

[zioxide]

I'm a fairly liberal democrat, and there's no way in hell I'm going to vote for her. I'd probably just write in Barack Obama.

Not that it will matter anyways, because Massachusetts will always end up being democrat. There's just no way I'm ever going to vote for her after all of the lies she's been caught in and all of the **** she's pulled/tried to pull during this campaign.

[Desertrat]

Label me as mostly a fiscal-conservative independent, not a Republican.

Sen. Clinton's views on economics and taxation strike me as extremely unwise, and are more likely to bring about the opposite of what she says she thinks would be accomplished. That's bad for everybody, regardless of party. Further, she is too authoritarian, too set in her notion that she and only she (and her inner cicle of advisors) possess Truth. That's scary.

So, a nose-holding vote for McCain, only in the hope that the worst-impact legislation from Congress might get vetoed.

'Rat

[trebblekicked]

vote? yes.

volunteer? donate? campaign? defend? not sure, but as of right now, no.

[it5five]

It depends.

Will she get the nomination honestly without bending any rules? Yeah, I will vote for her. I won't be happy about it, but I will.

Will she get the nomination by force, breaking the rules (getting FL and MI) and whining? No, I will not vote for her.

So I voted unsure in the poll.

[miloblithe]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement_17;_ylt=AhAZjryuuBtQxgchzc6lA_ypg9IF

Looks more and more like this discussion is academic. Obama picked up 9 superdelegates today.

n addition to Payne, Reps. Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, two members of the Democratic National Committee from California and a party official in South Carolina announced they were supporting Obama. Superdelegates from New Mexico and Virginia also joined the migration.

So, too, John Gage, president of the AFGE.

"Our people, I think, recognize the enthusiasm and vitality behind Senator Obama's campaign," he said in a statement.

"The election is over, everybody knows that. Obama has won," said Vernon Watkins, one of the two Californians.

[Rodimus Prime]

I think I am go with all the candidates suck this year. I do not lik,e Obama and I will not vote for him. His campain is way to much talk for me. It all about hope but no action. Sorry he just bothers me and I refuse to vote for him.

The other 2 just suck so it is any better.

All I know is Obama is the lowest on my list of people I will vote for.

[KingYaba]

libertarianism just doesn't work.

The current system is working wonders. :) Do show me, though, where a Libertarian system has been put in place and failed.

[Cassie]

I would if I was old enough to vote.

Unless the other choice was Ron Paul, then I'd vote for him.

[christopher3071]

I'm a fairly liberal democrat, and there's no way in hell I'm going to vote for her. I'd probably just write in Barack Obama.

Not that it will matter anyways, because Massachusetts will always end up being democrat. There's just no way I'm ever going to vote for her after all of the lies she's been caught in and all of the **** she's pulled/tried to pull during this campaign.

Agreed 100%. Plus she is far too violent. Obama can take a hard hit and get back up and dust himself off and not explode into a firey blast of flame and anger like Hillary does. If you ask me, when the phone rings at 3AM I think Obama should be answering it before Hillary. If she answers, she'll just tell you she can't talk to you right now because when she's tired she thinks she's being shot at by snipers. If you don't think Obama is better under pressure watch the debates and read his book. Because you're misinformed. Don't even get me started on McCain.
PS I'm registered republican.

[mrkramer]

If Hillary gets the nomination I will vote for a third party candidate, Since I will not vote for McCain and I don't think i could bring myself to vote for Hillary.

[cycocelica]

As much as it would pain me, I would vote for Hilary. To put me through another 4 years of Republicans would be painful.

[MacHipster]

I live in an area in which a Republican winning is as likely as a Democrat winning in Utah. For that reason, I will for a third party candidate. If I were in a swing state, I would vote for her.

[SMM]

Voting for McCain (or any republican) is the worse thing I can imagine. He has been caught in so many lies and flip-flops, it is near impossible to know where his head is. But, folk must realize that McCain has bartered his sole away. He has had to climb in bed with many of the sleaziest people the right-wing has to offer. These people will be at the WH collecting their debts. You will not just get McCain-Lieberman. You will get the whole crowd.

Bush has eroded an incredible amount of the separation of power and given it to the executive branch. He has removed many of the oversight responsibilities, and powers, of congress. His administration is full of appointees who have been under investigation. The DoJ has become a complete joke. Nowadays, the only serious investigations they to do is against democrats.

McCain may have the opportunity to appoint three new Supreme Court justices. This is a major focus of the religious right. You can imagine the type of people that he will be appointing. I could keep going on, but I will go straight to the bottomline. Electing McCain will not just give us John. We will get the whole group. I wonder if America can survive that. I will gladly vote for Hillary rather than go through another four years of republican rape.

[atszyman]

I think I've finally come to the conclusion that in the unlikely event that Clinton, gets the nomination, I'll only vote for her if the polling in TX is anywhere close to giving her the chance at winning it. So in all likelihood I'd be voting third party. If for some bizarre reason TX looks like it might not be a GOP landslide I'll suck it up and do what I can to make sure we don't have 4 more years of GOP, that is unless MCCain can somehow prove he's the same person he was in 2000 and that he's only been playing the base to try to win... but that's about as likely as a Democrat winning TX.

[Iscariot]

But, folk must realize that McCain has bartered his sole away.

Do his feet hurt? :p

I enjoy the fast and from-the-hip accusations of Obama being less experienced than Clinton, or being all-talk-no-plan. Neither of these are true, and have been debunked a number of times. They're a perfect example of a falsehood being repeated so often that it's become the Truth™. Have we learned nothing from the clusterdumpage that was the previous administration?

[LizKat]

Yes but only because I don't want McCain picking Supreme Court justices.

I would hate to have put that consideration so high in my priorities. But, that's what I'd have to make myself think about first if Clinton got the nomination: who will pick the next several of The Nine?

It would be hard. I don't think Mrs. Clinton is incompetent, or dangerous, or even any of the irritating little things Bush turned out to be like a flippin' signing-statement addict and a 24/7 smirker.

And let's not attribute to a President Hillary Clinton any powers that none of our presidents has ever had or will have.

It's not like she can wave a wand and install her health care plan overnight on January 21, 2009, so if you don't like her plan... shrug... pick your Congressperson with care...

Nope, my problem with her is that I so don't want Bill Clinton hovering in the hallways... it's just an invitation to some kind of Constitutional disaster.

[jecapaga]

I would vote for Hillary over the other no matter what. She's not my first choice but I'm seriously tired of Republican BS across the board. The Bush administration is a joke and I can only hope for better be it Hillary or John. I vote for Obama.

[solvs]

I'm voting against McCain.
Ditto.

The current system is working wonders. :)
The current system of applying some libertarian ideals to fiscal policy? You're right, it isn't working. We don't want an entirely free market. We've seen what over-privatization can do, even on a small scale, and it hasn't been pretty. People need rules, so do businesses. The other side of extremes such as communism or socialism in their purest forms don't work either for the same principles. Need more proof. Look to early industrialization pre-New Deal. I know some hate that, but it and other things around it put rules, oversight, and safety nets into places they were desperately needed. For a modern day example, check out Mexico.

Not to say that all libertarian ideals are bad, we certainly could use more social libertarianism among other things, but if you're talking capital L Libertarianism, like isolationism or free market rules and all, no thanks.

PS I'm registered republican.
Hearing that more and more.

Doesn't look good for the GOP this fall.

Have we learned nothing from the clusterdumpage that was the previous administration?
Apparently we haven't.


I will vote against McCain, as NAG said. Hillary doesn't really have a chance, so it's kind of a nonissue. But I will say I might have voted for her back when she was the presumptive nominee. Didn't like her, but didn't like anyone the GOP had to offer either. Figured she wouldn't be great, but her fiscal policy looked alright. Better than anything the GOP had. I used to be a McCain supporter back in '00, but no longer. It's funny, if you told me back then I'd vote for her over him, I would have laughed in your face. At this point, she couldn't win without doing something not so good, so it would be tough, but I don't know. If she really tried to make it up, I might. Just to vote against the GOP. But I really wouldn't like it. I'm ambivalent about Obama, but for actual reasons, not because I think he's an empty suit or because of Wright. His fiscal policies aren't that great and neither is his foreign policy. Better than the GOPs, but still. If he can surround himself with good people, we may have something. As I keep saying, as long as he isn't worse than what we currently have that McCain now wants to give us another term of, I'll consider it a win.

Here's why not to vote for McCain:

McCain Poised to Flip on GOP Abortion Platform (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4824779&page=1)
New CBO Report Proves McCain Is ‘Full Of It’ In His Opposition To Webb-Hagel GI Bill (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/09/cbo-webb-hagel/)
A Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/us/politics/22diamond.html?hp=&pagewanted=all)
McCain Pushed Land Swap That Benefits Backer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050803494.html)
All The King's Horses... (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,40723-1,00.html)
Top McCain Aide Sponsors Ritual To Attack Christianity (http://cliffschecter.firedoglake.com/2008/05/09/top-mccain-aide-sponsors-ritual-to-attack-christianity/)

[yojitani]

I'm ambivalent about Obama, but for actual reasons, not because I think he's an empty suit or because of Wright. His fiscal policies aren't that great and neither is his foreign policy.


Just curious: what don't you like about Obama's foreign policy? Aside from his continued kowtowing to Israel, I find his foreign policy to be the most appealing aspect of his candidacy.

[stevento]

when i hear people say "i hate hillary i wont vote for her" what that says to me is that you are not interested in solving america's problems. you're interested in having an nice admirable person in office.
people who wont vote for hillary, look at yourself and ask why are you supporting obama?
if you say substantive issues like healthcare and economy, then hillary is exactly the same on all those issues (because obama ripped off all that stuff from her btw)
you need to just admit that you support obama because you like/admire him. not because you give a care about issues facing america.

anything to avoid another 4-8 years of republicans in charge.
they did enough damage.


that's what i like to hear. if obama won, i would definitely support him -even though i dont like him and i know he lies about this and that- because we need to get america back to doing the right thing again. and mccain isn't going to do that. and ralph nader is worse than john mccain.

edit: if obama gives a speech telling you to vote for hillary, i bet you'd do it.

[Thomas Veil]

when i hear people say "i hate hillary i wont vote for her" what that says to me is that you are not interested in solving america's problems. you're interested in having an nice admirable person in office.Actually I'm interested in both.

people who wont vote for hillary, look at yourself and ask why are you supporting obama? Hillary campaigned in Florida when she said she wouldn't; she stayed in the Michigan primary when everybody else didn't; she is now attempting to use those contests, in which she didn't play by the same rules every other candidate did, to cheat her way to the nomination. She tells stories about being shot at; she all but plagiarizes Obama's "Yes we can" motto...if all that doesn't tell you she can't be trusted, what does?

if you say substantive issues like healthcare and economy, then hillary is exactly the same on all those issues (because obama ripped off all that stuff from her btw)
you need to just admit that you support obama because you like/admire him. not because you give a care about issues facing america.Wait...Obama "ripped off" his issues from Hillary, to the point where they're "exactly the same" on "substantive issues", but if you support him you don't care about the issues, and if you support Hillary you do? :confused::confused::confused:

[stevento]

Wait...Obama "ripped off" his issues from Hillary, to the point where they're "exactly the same" on "substantive issues", but if you support him you don't care about the issues, and if you support Hillary you do? :confused::confused::confused:



... i said if you support obama now, but WONT support hillary...
its not cheating to make sure every vote gets counted.

doesn't tell you she can't be trusted, what does?


wait... isn't that the same argument that sunk john kerry and got us stuck with bush for another 4 years?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjUkPbGwAg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zk9YmED48

unless you know hillary personally, the only content of her character that you know is from the media. which seems to be owned and operated by the obama campaign at the moment. people thought bush had great character in 2000 and look what we got.

[Iscariot]

... i said if you support obama now, but WONT support hillary...
its not cheating to make sure every vote gets counted.


But it is cheating if the votes were obtained using a direct contravention of the rules.

Support Hillary all you want, but don't spit on our backs and tell us it's raining. If you support her nomination by any means necessary, then fine, but don't whitewash it into being something it isn't.

[RacerX]

I think this whole thing shows that the Democrats are just about as bad as Republicans. And I'm not even talking about the candidates... I'm talking about you guys!

No one, not Clinton, not Obama, not even Edwards... should have been forced to drop out of an election. The people... the voters, should get their opportunity to vote for who they think is best. And they aren't getting that here!

I don't want my president ordained by committee, I want my president elected by the people! Telling anyone that they should drop out is the worst thing a party can do. Let the people vote, let the votes be counted, and that is that! Forcing candidates out of a race before everyone has had their vote is just stupid.


Further, this whole process is stupid too... why are different states voting at different times? Why is it set up to let the out come of early states remove choices for the later states?

All you guys with your this person should drop out or that person should drop out, do any of you even care how this is disenfranchising the voters? Or that people who may have had enough votes to elect someone completely different won't even get the chance to vote for who they thought was best because they were forced out of the race.

Any candidate who would put their party before their country shouldn't be president anyways. And anyone running for president had better believe in their heart of hearts that they will be the best president for this country.



So not only should Clinton stay in the race to the end... Edwards should have also!

[Thomas Veil]

... i said if you support obama now, but WONT support hillary...
I don't know where we took a wrong turn with that argument, but whatever...

its not cheating to make sure every vote gets counted. And by my lights, if you're counting votes that have been eliminated by the rules, yes, that's cheating. If you're asking for a rules interpretation that specifically supports your desired outcome instead of the rules everybody agreed on, yes, that's cheating.

wait... isn't that the same argument that sunk john kerry and got us stuck with bush for another 4 years?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjUkPbGwAg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zk9YmED48

unless you know hillary personally, the only content of her character that you know is from the media. which seems to be owned and operated by the obama campaign at the moment. people thought bush had great character in 2000 and look what we got.The "untrustworthiness" (Swift Boat crap, etc.) of John Kerry was a lot of BS; Hillary's behavior, on the other hand, is on display for everyone to see.

[stevento]

if you vote based on character you dont know what you're going to get. first of all i think it's irrelevant. second, how do you know obama isn't a power hungry maniac just like her.
unless you know him personally, you dont know that. but what i do know for instance is that obama is not interested in making sure each and every american has health care. so that for example is something that makes me like hillary more.
you guys keep saying, "hillary did this and that. what a hag!" but that's what politicians do. bill did some crazy stuff too and he was a damn good president. so i dont see how that matters. what matters, for another example is how we are going to fix our energy policy. hillary will investigate to end the market manipulation that has oil at $130/barrel.
she knows that a top oil executive testified that if it were just supply and demand, then oil would be $55-60/barrel tops.
that's what matters, not how a nice a person is. nobody is making the case that she's mother teresa.

[Gelfin]

Further, this whole process is stupid too... why are different states voting at different times? Why is it set up to let the out come of early states remove choices for the later states?

This happens because candidates cannot be in fifty places at once. Candidates must have an opportunity present their case to voters locally.

[ErikCLDR]

Nope and it'll just make it easier for McCain to win :p

I'd rather not have a socialist as President. She's too cut throat and I really just am afraid of her and what she would do.

[yojitani]

Nope and it'll just make it easier for McCain to win :p

I'd rather not have a socialist as President. She's too cut throat and I really just am afraid of her and what she would do.

Whose running for the socialists and what do they have to do with the conversation?

(answer: Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander. Information and links here: http://www.vote-socialist.org/index.html#2008)

I fear you mean Hillary, which is an insult to right-thinking socialists everywhere.

[stevento]

and might i add, even if that swiftboat stuff were true, it wouldn't matter to me. i remember watching those ads thinking "so what?" not even knowing they were bull plop.

[zap2]

Yes.

If we were at a different point in America's history, I might vote 3rd party, but there is too much at stake here.


I don't like Clinton, but I doubt we could stand another 4 years of the Bush/McCain America.

[zap2]

There would have to be an event on the scale of a revolution for it to take hold.

If we had an event equal to a revolution, but it went towards Ron Paul's line of thought, I'd cry


I respect Paul for pushing for something else, and he clearly cares about people, but he's going about it all wrong.

[RacerX]

This happens because candidates cannot be in fifty places at once. Candidates must have an opportunity present their case to voters locally.Then why isn't the final election held this way? Or, why aren't the results kept secret until everyone has had a chance to vote?

There is no good reason for this today. It is done to give certain voters a disproportionate amount of voting power. The fact that the outcome of one state's primaries would effect another's due to the order in which those races are held should be reason enough to ban this system altogether.


And the fact that anyone is calling for ANY candidate to exit the race at this point shows just how badly the system has failed.

But no candidate who thinks that they can fix what is broken in our country should be able to be pressured out of a race in the middle of the race.


The thing is, it was recently reported that Clinton has received more votes in a Democratic primary election than any other candidate in history save one... Obama. She has gotten more votes than her husband in 1992, more than Gore in 2000 and more than Kerry in 2004. Why is anyone calling for her to leave the race if she has that much support.

Like her, hate her, she has a right... no, she has a duty to run to the end. And the same goes for Obama.

[stevento]

Yes.
but there is too much at stake here.
I don't like Clinton, but I doubt we could stand another 4 years of the Bush/McCain America.

thank you. that's the response i was hoping someone would give.
the stakes were too high for democrats to lose in 2004 and we lost and look where we are now.

[Thomas Veil]

second, how do you know obama isn't a power hungry maniac just like her.
unless you know him personally, you dont know that.I don't get the logic here. I don't know either of them personally. Yet, publicly, I haven't seen that in Obama...I have seen that in Clinton...and you ask me how I know Obama isn't the same way? To quote Bill Belicheck, all I can go by is what I see.

And anyway, Obama sure doesn't come across that way here (http://www.newsweek.com/id/136440).

How do you know if Barack Obama is unhappy with what you're saying— or not saying? At meetings of his closest advisers, he likes to lean back, put his feet on the table and close his eyes. If he doesn't like how the conversation is going, he will lean forward, put his feet on the floor and "adjust his socks, kind of start tugging at them," says Michael Strautmanis, a counselor to the campaign. Obama wants people to talk, but he doesn't want to intimidate them. "If you haven't said anything, he'll call on you," says Strautmanis. "He's never said it, but he usually thinks if somebody is very quiet it's because they disagree with what everybody is saying … so Barack will call on you and say, 'You've been awfully quiet'." There are no screamers on Team Obama; one senior Obama aide says he's heard him yell only twice in four years. Obama was explicit from the beginning: there was to be "no drama," he told his aides. "I don't want elbowing or finger-pointing. We're going to rise or fall together." Obama wanted steady, calm, focused leadership; he wanted to keep out the grandstanders and make sure the quiet dissenters spoke up. A good formula for running a campaign—or a presidency....

Obama "doesn't micromanage," Axelrod tells NEWSWEEK. But, he adds, "there's never a doubt who the alpha dog is." The day after his big defeat in Ohio and his popular-vote loss in Texas, Obama traveled to the large corporate offices in Chicago that serve as his campaign headquarters. The mood was grim; they had, after all, blown their third chance to end the primary season early—after the shock of New Hampshire and the muddled results of Super Tuesday. Obama toured the office, visiting every desk to thank his mostly young staffers for their efforts and urging them to keep their chins up. Then he walked into a conference room for a far tougher two-hour conversation with his senior staff. "We rise or fall together," he started out. "I'm not pointing fingers at any single person because we all share responsibility." He talked through his own mistakes as a candidate and went around the table asking people for their input in the postmortem. Speaking calmly but intensely, he then took control to explain how he saw it. He worked his way through a detailed, handwritten list of what went right and wrong—including how they misspent time and money, how they relied too much on impersonal rallies and how the schedule was flawed.

At the end of the meeting, Obama stood up and began to walk out of the room, before wheeling around to say one more thing to his somber staff: "I'm not yelling at you and I'm not screaming. Although for $20 million for two primaries and the results we got, I could," he said, laughing. "But I'm not."...

Obama, at least, seems to be more curious than the current president. Ruchi Bhowmik, a legislative counsel in Obama's Senate office, is one of the staffers whom Obama has called upon because she was too quiet in a gathering. "When he's at a meeting, he's very inclusive and a very good listener," she tells NEWSWEEK. "He's not looking to dictate what everyone is discussing, and he wants to hear what everyone is thinking. He doesn't discount things." On Capitol Hill, Senator Obama has been a foe of "knee jerk" thinking, says Bhowmik. "Obama's response is, 'Well, we've always done it that way—why?' "Actually, he sounds thoughtful, level-headed, insightful -- in every way unlike the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And certainly not power-hungry.

[Gelfin]

Then why isn't the final election held this way?

Because they already did it that way once, and called them "primaries."

Or, why aren't the results kept secret until everyone has had a chance to vote?

Not really feasible. Exit polls would simply take the place of actual results in the public eye, and candidates have the right to know if they're just wasting their time and money. Besides, don't we want to get the obvious no-chance candidates out of the race early so we can focus on actual contenders?

There is no good reason for this today. It is done to give certain voters a disproportionate amount of voting power. The fact that the outcome of one state's primaries would effect another's due to the order in which those races are held should be reason enough to ban this system altogether.

Debatable, but the effect is not constant. If anything this race has shown how unpredictable the effects of ordering can be. States tripped over themselves to be earlier in the process because they thought it would increase their own importance, and it's turned out the important races are here at the end.

Since nobody can actually calculate what the effects are going to be, and since we have the other requirements outlined above, we tend to accept it as maybe not completely ideal, but better than any obvious alternative.

And the fact that anyone is calling for ANY candidate to exit the race at this point shows just how badly the system has failed.

It's a little more complicated than that. Concession also plays a role as a part of being a gracious opponent, and always has. The math isn't always all there is. If you win zero delegates in the first three states you campaign in, mathematically you could still sweep every other state and win in a landslide, but you know that isn't going to happen. Your campaign is dead in the water, and the only sensible course is to resign.

The question whether it is time for Clinton to concede is debatable, but it is debatable. Things are not looking good for her right now, and her hopes for victory are increasingly dependent upon scenarios that require a certain amount of chicanery in her favor. It may stilly be remotely technically possible for her to win, but the terms on which it would happen would make a lot of people very uncomfortable, and a lot of other people downright mad.

[Cleverboy]

I would DEFINITELY vote for Hillary. Anyone saying they'd consider voting for McCain is just dead wrong. If they believe Obama's frequent comment that McCain is running for Bush's 3rd term, they know how important it is to get a democrat in the White House. If McCain gets in, you can bet we'll have another round of watching in HORROR as another Republican President who doesn't understand the economy, struggles to makes sense of an America that is rapidly losing its edge.

Regardless of what you think of Hillary Clinton, Democrats need to pull a page from the Republicans book and learn how to hold your nose when you vote. Independents need to recognize that John McCain is a collection of platitudes and visionless compromise. While I believe a Clinton candidacy may be divisive, and perhaps even as catastrophic as a McCain presidency when it comes to war and marshalling international support before initiating a major conflict... I think where it counts she will be STRONG and concentrate on the democratic platform that works to strengthen our infrastructure programs. Long term investments in prevention instead of short term gains in "cuts" and smaller, less capable, less response-able government.

Neither McCain nor Clinton would leave me comfortable at night, but from the choice of two evils, I choose the lesser. I wish I could believe more in McCain, but I can't.

~ CB

[Iscariot]

I think this whole thing shows that the Democrats are just about as bad as Republicans. And I'm not even talking about the candidates... I'm talking about you guys!

No one, not Clinton, not Obama, not even Edwards... should have been forced to drop out of an election. The people... the voters, should get their opportunity to vote for who they think is best. And they aren't getting that here!

I don't want my president ordained by committee, I want my president elected by the people! Telling anyone that they should drop out is the worst thing a party can do. Let the people vote, let the votes be counted, and that is that! Forcing candidates out of a race before everyone has had their vote is just stupid.


Further, this whole process is stupid too... why are different states voting at different times? Why is it set up to let the out come of early states remove choices for the later states?

All you guys with your this person should drop out or that person should drop out, do any of you even care how this is disenfranchising the voters? Or that people who may have had enough votes to elect someone completely different won't even get the chance to vote for who they thought was best because they were forced out of the race.

Any candidate who would put their party before their country shouldn't be president anyways. And anyone running for president had better believe in their heart of hearts that they will be the best president for this country.



So not only should Clinton stay in the race to the end... Edwards should have also!

I was certainly driving at some of these points a month or two ago when inquiring about the length of the primary race and the order in which state by state voting is determined. However, bear in mind that any candidate number greater than two reduces the likelihood of a pareto optimal outcome. While the elections are largely ordered in an extensive form game, the current game sets two choices against one, which, if continued, will almost certainly result in an sub-optimal outcome if allowed to continue.

Just a thought.

[solvs]

Just curious: what don't you like about Obama's foreign policy? Aside from his continued kowtowing to Israel, I find his foreign policy to be the most appealing aspect of his candidacy.
Not as much his overall strategies, but I worry about what isn't there. I still haven't heard a good plan for the 'stans, other than some vague generalities and things I don't know would help (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php). And believe me, I've been looking. None of them really have good plans for it, but he's the presumptive nominee, and who I'll probably be voting for, so I'm critical of what he would do. The Iraq plan I last heard was ok, phased withdrawals after about 16 months. Again, not horrible, but not great. It's good that he goes to negotiation first with Iran and Syria, just don't know how much that will help at this point. NK too. Also looking at some of his foreign policy advisers, well, let's just say I hope he finds some better ones once in the WH (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/samantha_power_and_obamas_fore_1.html).

when i hear people say "i hate hillary i wont vote for her" what that says to me is that you are not interested in solving america's problems. you're interested in having an nice admirable person in office.
That would be nice, but the issue isn't whether we want to have a beer with her as you seem to want to reduce it to. You keep saying Obama is like Bush, defying all logic since your main problem is his steadfast desire to stick close to the rules. But Hillary has done some very Bush like things lately. Like wanting to change the rules part way through to help herself. Just one of many examples. If this is the way she campaigns, how can we trust that she won't be doing these types of things while in office?

people who wont vote for hillary, look at yourself and ask why are you supporting obama?
Because he's won, even if you and she won't admit it.

if you say substantive issues like healthcare and economy, then hillary is exactly the same on all those issues (because obama ripped off all that stuff from her btw)
First of all, that's ridiculous. He didn't rip that off from her. I wish he ripped off her economic plan. It wasn't perfect, but it was the best IMO. Though now she wants to do stupid things like the Republican plan for a gas holiday that every economist I've read is saying is a bad idea. While she uses a Republican talking point that she'll do it anyway and her campaign calls economists "elitists". And if you really look at their healthcare plans, they are completely different. Her current plan is nothing like the old one in the 90's. Which in itself wasn't great, being a bureaucratic nightmare. I'm actually hoping Obama picks up on some of Edwards plans. Though I don't know how any of them are going to pay for any of their plans.

you need to just admit that you support obama because you like/admire him. not because you give a care about issues facing america.
And if Hillary and Obama are exactly the same, as you say, than why do you like Hillary over Obama?

-even though i dont like him and i know he lies about this and that-
No, not hypocritical at all.

edit: if obama gives a speech telling you to vote for hillary, i bet you'd do it.
And if Hillary told you to jump off a bridge, I bet you would.

its not cheating to make sure every vote gets counted.
It is if they broke the rules. We've been over this. Doesn't matter how you or anyone else feels about this. Those states broke rules they all abided by. Obama continues to abide by them. Hillary decided she wants to change the rules to help herself. If Obama was doing that, it would be just as wrong. But he isn't. She is. There have been several propositions put forth to decide this, she still refuses all of them. Go ahead. Count them. Give her what she got illegally, give him the rest. She still isn't winning. Hope it would be worth it for her.

Still noticing you don't care about those who didn't get a chance to vote for Obama though. No, you only care about counting the votes she got, even though if she had played by the rules, she wouldn't have gotten any either. All those people disenfranchised who didn't get a chance to vote for Obama because he did follow the rules? You're ok with them not being counted?

unless you know hillary personally, the only content of her character that you know is from the media.
So then you know Obama personally?

which seems to be owned and operated by the obama campaign at the moment.
Yes because, again, they aren't still talking about Rev. Wright. :confused:

people thought bush had great character in 2000 and look what we got.
Not everyone did, but way to try and link Obama with Bush again based on nothing. :rolleyes:

Forcing candidates out of a race before everyone has had their vote is just stupid.
No one is forcing her out. I don't think anyone could. Just that it's almost inevitable that she can't win. Been that way for awhile, and it's only getting worse for her. Unless she pulls some not so ethical things. Which, combined with the continued divide she's helping to further at a time they need unity more than ever, such as the comments she was making praising McCain as she slammed Obama, is why the resentment. At some points, it almost seemed like she was sabotaging Obama so McCain could win and she'd get a chance again in 2012. No one is saying she has to drop out. They just wish she would. And that she would admit it's over and gracefully bow out. She won't. Maybe some people feel disenfranchised if they can't vote for her, but I can't vote for Dodd or Edwards either. I would be throwing away my vote if I did though because neither of them has a chance anymore. They can feel better voting for Hillary, but if she really can't win now, what's the point?

Further, this whole process is stupid too... why are different states voting at different times? Why is it set up to let the out come of early states remove choices for the later states?
It would be nice if both parties did this, voting in all the states at once, but I guess there are reasons they don't, even if they don't seem like good ones to me either.

So not only should Clinton stay in the race to the end... Edwards should have also!
Edwards left on his own. He could have stayed, but he knew he didn't have a chance. He just didn't have the money, nor the support. He might have gotten somewhere later, but was losing, and accepted that. It's not that she can't stay in, again she can, it's that it doesn't make much sense now and hasn't for awhile. Makes us wonder why she would.

if you vote based on character you dont know what you're going to get. first of all i think it's irrelevant. second, how do you know obama isn't a power hungry maniac just like her.
More hypocritical irony from you.

you guys keep saying, "hillary did this and that. what a hag!"
No one said that. We're criticizing what she's been doing. You're doing it with Obama too. See the "lies" comment above. Not that she's ever been caught in a lie or anything. :rolleyes: It's ok when you do it, but not when we do? :confused: You say character isn't an issue, but it is. Just like how you keep pointing out that his is somewhat in question because his following the rules he agreed to is disenfranchising to voters. If she's going to be pulling what she has been now, I don't want to see what she'd do in the WH. Especially considering some of what they did do last time they were in the WH (if she can count it as experience, she's gotta take the rest of what happened too, good and bad... and there was some bad). We already see what kind of leader she could be. And it doesn't look good for her.

hillary will investigate to end the market manipulation that has oil at $130/barrel.
she knows that a top oil executive testified that if it were just supply and demand, then oil would be $55-60/barrel tops.
Obama has said he might do the same, so if we're going by policy only and not personal preference or who we like, how does that giver her an advantage over him?

I'd rather not have a socialist as President.
Please tell me you're kidding. Neither candidate is a socialist. That's just ridiculous. I weep for you.

[Thomas Veil]

Neither McCain nor Clinton would leave me comfortable at night, but from the choice of two evils, I choose the lesser.And that's why I'm thinking that if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I may just stay home and drink heavily and ruminate on yet another election where we don't even have one candidate we can believe in.

I didn't used to feel this way, but I'm over 50 now and I have voted in every election, and I'm sick to death of voting for the lesser of two evils. I am sick of it. If my own party can find a way to screw up and let Obama slip from their grasp in favor of Hillary Rotten Clinton, then I say bad cess to the lot of 'em, Democrats and Republicans alike. Bad enough they're all prostitutes, but if they manage to screw up nominating the one candidate in years that has generated some actual enthusiasm in people, then they deserve whatever they get.

Sorry, Cleverboy, I'm not aiming this tirade at you, and you have every right to feel the way you do. Any other time I'd probably even agree with you. But as I said, I'm getting older and I'm really tired of all the ************.

[Mike Teezie]

I voted unsure, but that's probably not accurate when it comes down to it. I would probably very begrudgingly vote for Clinton.

But in voting for her I'd be trading one set of fears for a different set. I'm too scared of another Republican administration, but I'm equally afraid of Clinton's recent remarks about Iran.

I don't know she's pandering, I don't know if she is serious, I don't know if she's lost her bloody mind.

[MacNut]

The bottom line is it really doesn't matter who you vote for. They are all pandering for votes and will say what they need to get the nomination. After that they will do whatever they want and the bitching will continue no matter who is in the WH. I don't trust any of them. I personally feel that Obama has pulled the wool over everyones eyes and is just full of good lines. Hillary is just throwing punches wildly hoping one hits before she gets KO'd, and McCain is kissing up to the NeoCons to get their votes.

They are politicians after all, if they were all telling the truth they would have a different line or work.

[Cleverboy]

I'm not aiming this tirade at you, and you have every right to feel the way you do. Any other time I'd probably even agree with you. But as I said, I'm getting older and I'm really tired of all the ************. I hear ya, but there IS such a thing as the lesser of two evils. McCain is dangerously unintelligent. I don't respect Clinton's judgment or practices, but her policies are at least in the right ballpark. In order to obfuscate or underplay his White House gaffs, McCain is likely to repeat many of the most deplorable things the Bush administration did. Meanwhile, our reputation as a nation that hires people with poor academic records will perpetuate. He's actually proud of graduating 5 from the bottom.

His most recent gaffes range from misidentifying major foreign sects in one of our two ongoing wars, holding microphones upside down during speeches, and misunderstanding eminent domain to simply admitting he doesn't understand the economy... the preeminent concern of this election year. While claiming to champion transparency, his wife refuses to ever make her tax returns available to the public... a disclosure that would give insight into the source of McCain's substantial wealth and fortune.

No... I'm sorry, he really can't be President. Not this time. No matter what it takes. No one said election day was ever going to be an easy choice, even when its between staying home and turning out.

~ CB

[emmawu]

I really think they should share the ticket. Whoever gets the most votes, gets the nod for POTUS and the other for Vice-POTUS. The dems really HAVE to pull together. Mr. Obama has a remarkable sense of communication and Mrs. Clinton has a remarkable backbone. It won't satisfy everyone but we really have to get our ****** together to beat McCain. :D

[atszyman]

I really think they should share the ticket. Whoever gets the most votes, gets the nod for POTUS and the other for Vice-POTUS. The dems really HAVE to pull together. Mr. Obama has a remarkable sense of communication and Mrs. Clinton has a remarkable backbone. It won't satisfy everyone but we really have to get our ****** together to beat McCain. :D

That wouldn't do it. I'm from WI and didn't realize it until spending nearly a decade in TX. The south hates Northeastern Librals almost as much as they hate the Clintons. Having two northeastern Democrats on the same ticket would be enough to lose, combine that with the fact that it's a black man and a woman, and a Clinton to boot and you've written a near landslide victory for McCain.

I've said it a hundred times, no matter which one wins, look for a white male southern democrat to be the running mate, probably a governor, or former governor. I could almost see Richardson, but a double minority ticket would be a tough sell, as much as I hate to admit it.

[solvs]

I personally feel that Obama has pulled the wool over everyones eyes and is just full of good lines.
Just curious, but what do you think he might do if elected, other than maybe not be that great (and at this point, how much worse can that be than being overtly bad as we have now, that McCain is also now pushing)?

Anyway, McCain has flip-flipped on another position towards towing the party line:

McCain Poised to Flip on GOP Abortion Platform (http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=4824779)
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., faces enormous pressure from social conservatives to ignore his repeated commitment to change the GOP's platform on abortion.

"If he were to change the party platform," to account for exceptions such as rape, incest or risk to the mother's life, "I think that would be political suicide," said Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council, to ABC News. "I think he would be aborting his own campaign because that is such a critical issue to so many Republican voters and the Republican brand is already in trouble."
I'd like to note that abortion rates went down under Clinton. While it didn't go up under Bush nationally, as used to be claimed using now disproved data, it didn't decline much for someone who has spoken so much about the subject. Not a fan of abortion myself, I don't think anyone is, but I don't think it should be illegal based on what would happen if it was. Hoping I'm not opening a can of worms here, but once it's opened, there we go.

[MacNut]

Just curious, but what do you think he might do if elected, other than maybe not be that great (and at this point, how much worse can that be than being overtly bad as we have now, that McCain is also now pushing)?He kind of reminds me of a used car salesman, he will sell you anything. Than when you say the car is a lemon you can't return it. I don't like any of the 3 candidates. I think we are screwed either way.

Just the other day I was thinking that I wished Al Gore would of ran and I am no fan of Al Gore.

I want to vote for McCain as a sorry for screwing you in 2000 vote but I think he is getting to old.

Nobody running seems right to me.

[stevento]

And if Hillary and Obama are exactly the same, as you say, than why do you like Hillary over Obama?


here's a few.
because she's been there.
because she's has a record of going into the gauntlet and fighting. and never giving up.
and she was fighting for universal health care even when democrats were calling her a socialist, now there's a healtc care crisis and every democrat is on board.
i support hillary over obama, but i will vote for him should he win.
i think we need someone who HAS been in washington a long time.


First of all, that's ridiculous. He didn't rip that off from her. I wish he ripped off her economic plan. It wasn't perfect, but it was the best IMO. Though now she wants to do stupid things like the Republican plan for a gas holiday that every economist I've read is saying is a bad idea. While she uses a Republican talking point that she'll do it anyway and her campaign calls economists "elitists". And if you really look at their healthcare plans, they are completely different. Her current plan is nothing like the old one in the 90's. Which in itself wasn't great, being a bureaucratic nightmare. I'm actually hoping Obama picks up on some of Edwards plans. Though I don't know how any of them are going to pay for any of their plans.

obama's health care plan is a copy paste of hillary's. he said during the debate that their plans are 95% identical. except he wont mandate that each and every american get coverage. (i think we need a mandate so i support hillary for that as well).
the difference between the plans is the mandate.
his energy plan a complete ripoff, obama doesn't deny this.
they've differed on the gas tax. but hillary knows its a bad idea, she's just pandering because its not like its going to happen anyway. that's politics.
now i know what you're going to say "we need a different kind of politician, new leadership. change we can hope for with yes we can obama 08" but i dont think that's the problem.
bill clinton was a lying cheating, power hungry typical politician and he was a good president that delivered results to the people. and that's what hillary is and that's what she will do.


And if Hillary told you to jump off a bridge, I bet you would.


what?

[it5five]

except he wont mandate that each and every american get coverage. (i think we need a mandate so i support hillary for that as well).


Good. I don't want to be forced to pay private health"care" companies for my coverage. I want universal health care done the right way, not the corporate way. When Clinton's campaign has received more donations from the Corporate Health industry than ANY other candidate (R or D), that's a huge sign to me that her "plan" will ultimately benefit the one group; and that group isn't the average American.

Don't take this as a pro-Obama statement either. He doesn't have the right solution. There was only one candidate that did, and that was Kucinich. But at least with Obama I'm not being forced to buy into an awful pro-Corporate mandate.

[solvs]

He kind of reminds me of a used car salesman, he will sell you anything.
Of the many things I dislike about Obama, I don't see this one since he seems to be making the fewest unrealistic promises (one of my problems with him actually, he is a little vague), but if that's your impression, I'm wondering if you get that from him or the press coverage of him (or those who are cheerleading for him).

Just the other day I was thinking that I wished Al Gore would of ran and I am no fan of Al Gore.
I feel the same way.

I want to vote for McCain as a sorry for screwing you in 2000 vote but I think he is getting to old.
That's the least of what's wrong with him.

Nobody running seems right to me.
Yeah, but Obama is the least of the bad IMO, simply based on the minimal damage I think he can do.

because she's been there.
because she's has a record of going into the gauntlet and fighting. and never giving up.
Again, that's not always a good thing.

and she was fighting for universal health care even when democrats were calling her a socialist, now there's a healtc care crisis and every democrat is on board.
Democrats weren't calling her a socialist. :confused: What? It was a good first step, but a bureaucratic nightmare. Her new plan isn't that great either. None of them are.

i support hillary over obama, but i will vote for him should he win.
That's good because he's going to win.

i think we need someone who HAS been in washington a long time.
Obama has been a politician longer than she has.

obama's health care plan is a copy paste of hillary's. he said during the debate that their plans are 95% identical. except he wont mandate that each and every american get coverage. (i think we need a mandate so i support hillary for that as well).
the difference between the plans is the mandate.
How is it a copy and paste if one of the main points is different? It isn't even hers, it's the same thing they've been trying to do elsewhere. Connecticut for one I believe. It's not a great idea anyway (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n5/cpr29n5-1.html). And that's not even touching upon what was mentioned by it5five above.

his energy plan a complete ripoff, obama doesn't deny this.
Still noticing no links, but what I found says the opposite:

Obama Notes 'Reversal' for Clinton on Energy (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/07/obama_notes_reversal_in_clinto.html)

Still no details from you either.

they've differed on the gas tax. but hillary knows its a bad idea, she's just pandering because its not like its going to happen anyway. that's politics.
That's not a good thing.

now i know what you're going to say "we need a different kind of politician, new leadership. change we can hope for with yes we can obama 08"
I wasn't going to say anything like that. I don't think anyone has. I prefer to stick to something with more substance, in case you hadn't noticed. Love how you're putting words into my mouth again though, and not focusing on some of the more important points I brought up. Again. Just because you prefer the talking points, like you made above, doesn't mean we all are going to use them.

bill clinton was a lying cheating, power hungry typical politician and he was a good president that delivered results to the people. and that's what hillary is and that's what she will do.
She won't because it's almost impossible for her to win, at least without doing some very unethical things that will lose her the election.

what?
You put words into my mouth, so I put them into yours. Try as you might to make us out to be Obama zombies in the way you are about Hillary, it's just not accurate. You made it seem like we'd do whatever Obama said. I think that's projecting since you're the one doing that with Hillary. You did it again above. She's not going to win. Deal.

[Jack Flash]

And yes, this whole rev. Wright thing has not done anything to improve my opinion of him either.

Explain why McCain's John Hagee is not affecting your vote if Wright is.

[DZ/015]

Yeah, but Obama is the least of the bad IMO, simply based on the minimal damage I think he can do

In my opinion, he will do the most damage. He is far to the left and will have a rubber stamp from Congress. We will be welcoming back the days of Jimmy Carter. High gas prices, higher mortgage interest rates and high cost for everything in general. Obama scares me more that anyone.

And much higher taxes, as well.

[Jack Flash]

In my opinion, he will do the most damage. He is far to the left and will have a rubber stamp from Congress. We will be welcoming back the days of Jimmy Carter. High gas prices, higher mortgage interest rates and high cost for everything in general. Obama scares me more that anyone.

Does another 4 years of what we've got scare you a little? It should.

It's time to end our wars. We cannot make gains in our economy until that happens. And for Christ's sake, there's more to life than money. If the biggest fear you have in life is paying a little more for **** that doesn't mean a thing, reevaluate things, please.

[DZ/015]

Does another 4 years of what we've got scare you a little? It should.

It's time to end our wars. We cannot make gains in our economy until that happens. And for Christ's sake, there's more to life than money. If the biggest fear you have in life is paying a little more for **** that doesn't mean a thing, reevaluate things, please.

Another 4 years of the same does scare me, not as much as 4 years of Jimmy Carter part 2. Wars will never end. This is normal human conduct. Only when we are no longer human (homo sapiens) will war be at an end, maybe.

Paying more for things does matter to me. I already pay too much. How much additional do you pay in taxes each year that you do no have to? You have the option. Do you capitalize on it?

[Jack Flash]

Another 4 years of the same does scare me, not as much as 4 years of Jimmy Carter part 2. Wars will never end. This is normal human conduct. Only when we are no longer human (homo sapiens) will war be at an end, maybe.

Paying more for things does matter to me. I already pay too much. How much additional do you pay in taxes each year that you do no have to? You have the option. Do you capitalize on it?

I also have the option to vote against diplomacy in the Middle East, but no, I won't be voting for John McCain.

[skunk]

In my opinion, he will do the most damage. He is far to the left and will have a rubber stamp from Congress. You have absolutely no idea what "far to the left" actually means. Just sayin'.

[DZ/015]

Oh I do. I just am referring to American politics here. And by American standards, Obama is as far left as you get.

[it5five]

By American standards even, Obama is hardly a leftist radical. You'd probably want to take a look at the Socialist Party USA (http://www.votesocialist2008.org/) ticket for that.

If you want an example of someone more "left" than Obama in the Senate, take a look at Bernie Sanders, an Independent and self-described Democratic Socialist.

Obama isn't even a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, so don't even start (or continue) with the myth of Obama being some frightening left wing guy. In fact, the only member in the Senate that is a member of that Caucus is Bernie Sanders, whom I mentioned earlier in my post.

[Cleverboy]

Oh I do. I just am referring to American politics here. And by American standards, Obama is as far left as you get. You've picked up right-wing talking points, but I'm also not convinced you know what you're talking about. You're likely referring to that fact that Obama was voted the "most liberal" senator in 2007 by the National Journal.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
A nice entry on the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/31/flawed-study-ranks-obama-_n_84375.html) points out some relatively easy to understand FLAWS in the way this was tabulated:
What does it all mean? Frankly, not much more than the National Journal finding "liberals" to be scary! The whole endeavor is a twisted skein of fuzzy math and ever shifting standards. What can one make of these numbers? Clinton supposedly voted "liberal" eight more times on sixteen more votes than Obama, yet Obama is somehow "more" liberal. Maybe it's percentages, then! Obama took the "liberal position" sixty-five out of sixty-six times, according to the NJ's data. That sure seems pretty liberal, but I can't recall anyone ever suggesting that Barack Obama was somehow the reincarnation of Paul Wellstone.

So much depends upon how many votes each lawmaker actually casts. The National Journal shunts every single vote into three separate "issue categories," and if an individual member misses more than half the votes in any category, they don't receive a composite score. By this logic, absenteeism somehow magically obscures your political leanings! This wasn't a position the NJ took four years ago, by the way. As they admit, their considerations for absenteeism only came about "after Kerry was ranked the most liberal senator in our 2003 ratings despite having missed more than half of the votes in two categories." Convenient! Would seem that this study isn't the best way of judging "most liberal" on anything other than using it to compare and contrast voting records for the sake of added perspective.
Obama isn't even a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, so don't even start (or continue) with the myth of Obama being some frightening left wing guy. In fact, the only member in the Senate that is a member of that Caucus is Bernie Sanders, whom I mentioned earlier in my post.As predicted, the GOP is running with the material above and disregarding the fact that the conclusions are biased depending on the frequency of your voting.

~ CB

[DZ/015]

I've not picked up right wing talking points. I've made this conclusion based on my own political views. He is more liberal than Hillary, is he not?

And I'm sorry to say that I do know what I am talking about. I'm just not a liberal. Some people happen to be conservatives.

[it5five]

He is more liberal than Hillary, is he not?


I'm not making a judgment as to whether he is or not, but how does "being more liberal than Hillary" make someone "as left as they come" like you said in your previous post?

Let's try and discuss this without resorting to absurd hyperbole.

You said Obama was "as left as they come". That is most certainly not true. You knew you were wrong, and were proven so, so you restated your argument as, "well, he's more left than Hillary".

[solvs]

Explain why McCain's John Hagee is not affecting your vote if Wright is.
The media doesn't cover him at all and few even know anything about him.

He is far to the left and will have a rubber stamp from Congress.
This has already been covered, but not really, no.

High gas prices, higher mortgage interest rates and high cost for everything in general.
Costs are going up for everything. Especially gas. Especially because of gas. As I've posted before, the Bush administration made the housing crisis worse (http://caveatemptorblog.com/2008/02/20/predatory-lending-made-worse-by-bush-administration/). If you want more of that, vote for McCain.

And much higher taxes, as well.
Our taxes are going to have to go up. We need to do something to pay for our ever rising deficit. McCain says he'll find ways to lower gov costs, but actually looking at his new plans (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/19/dean_mccains_economic_plan_more_of_the_same/), again, it's more of the same. Besides the fact that there's more to life than money, unless you're making over 6 figures, you probably won't see much of a difference, and may actually get something for your money. As opposed to what we get now, which is not much.

Another 4 years of the same does scare me
As it should.

not as much as 4 years of Jimmy Carter part 2.
What about Bill Clinton part 2, minus the scandals?

Wars will never end.
Especially if you vote for McCain, because he now wants to start one with Iran.

How much additional do you pay in taxes each year that you do no have to? You have the option. Do you capitalize on it?
For the record, I didn't take any deductions again this year and paid everything I owed.

I've not picked up right wing talking points. I've made this conclusion based on my own political views.
Like what, because what little you mentioned (with no links) doesn't quite back up what you said.

He is more liberal than Hillary, is he not?
Not saying much. If you actually look at her record, she's barely moderate on a lot of things. I guess if you're that far to the right, everything is "liberal".

And I'm sorry to say that I do know what I am talking about. I'm just not a liberal. Some people happen to be conservatives.
Than you must hate the current GOP, which is everything but. Bigger gov, rising deficit, nation building, social programs that don't work, corporate welfare. Abortion went down under Clinton, Obama's plans are similar. Obama's current plans are to lower the debt. Your taxes will barely change, if at all. He also plans for better foreign policy. Not to mention taking better care of our troops. I don't know how much he's going to actually accomplish, but he'll be different than Bush, which McCain is promising to be similar to. Just throwing out "liberal" doesn't cut it.

[DZ/015]

I'm not making a judgment as to whether he is or not, but how does "being more liberal than Hillary" make someone "as liberal as they come" like you said in your previous post?

Let's try and discuss this without resorting to absurd hyperbole.

This is not absurd hyperbole. I said this makes him as liberal as they come in American politics. Show me a mainstream political figure that is more to the left than Obama.

Costs are going up for everything. Especially gas. Especially because of gas. As I've posted before, the Bush administration made the housing crisis worse (http://caveatemptorblog.com/2008/02/20/predatory-lending-made-worse-by-bush-administration/). If you want more of that, vote for McCain.

Our taxes are going to have to go up. We need to do something to pay for our ever rising deficit. McCain says he'll find ways to lower gov costs, but actually looking at his new plans (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/19/dean_mccains_economic_plan_more_of_the_same/), again, it's more of the same. Besides the fact that there's more to life than money, unless you're making over 6 figures, you probably won't see much of a difference, and may actually get something for your money. As opposed to what we get now, which is not much.


As it should.


What about Bill Clinton part 2, minus the scandals?


Especially if you vote for McCain, because he now wants to start one with Iran.


For the record, I didn't take any deductions again this year and paid everything I owed.

I paid all the taxes I owed as well. And they do not have to go up. If you want to pay more, vote for Obama. Your taxes will go up, guaranteed. As for Bill Clinton part 2, I did horribly under his administration. In a financial sense. Under the current Republican administration, I have done VERY well financially. For that, I am happy.

[it5five]

This is not absurd hyperbole. I said this makes him as liberal as they come in American politics. Show me a mainstream political figure that is more to the left than Obama.



I did. Senator Sanders. I'd also say that almost all members of the CPC are "more left" than Obama on a lot of issues.

Maybe you could explain why you think Obama is such a leftist figure in American politics. Until then, I'll assume that like others have suggested, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[solvs]

Under the current Republican administration, I have done VERY well financially.
As have I recently. Didn't at first, but after some struggling, I'm doing very well for myself now. That's not enough. There are more important things than money. Everything else is not going so well, and for a lot of people, they are struggling right now. Also, as mentioned, our debt is skyrocketing. And as I posted in my edit, larger gov that isn't actually helping most people, more gov programs that don't work (NCLB, abstinence ed, VA assistance). That's a bad thing. McCain is promising more of the same. If you're ok with that vs. what you think Obama might do based solely on how you are doing financially and because he's a "liberal", I don't know what to tell you.

Even if he is a "liberal" maybe you can tell us just exactly what it is you don't like about what he plans to do other than thinking your taxes might go up or that gas prices and things that depend on gas prices might go up even though they already are.

[DZ/015]

As have I recently. Didn't at first, but after some struggling, I'm doing very well for myself now. That's not enough. There are more important things than money. Everything else is not going so well, and for a lot of people, they are struggling right now. Also, as mentioned, our debt is skyrocketing. And as I posted in my edit, larger gov that isn't actually helping most people, more gov programs that don't work (NCLB, abstinence ed, VA assistance). That's a bad thing. McCain is promising more of the same. If you're ok with that vs. what you think Obama might do based solely on how you are doing financially and because he's a "liberal", I don't know what to tell you.

Even if he is a "liberal" maybe you can tell us just exactly what it is you don't like about what he plans to do other than thinking your taxes might go up or that gas prices and things that depend on gas prices might go up even though they already are.

You have indicated that things are not going so well. You have also said larger government isn't helping. Yet you want larger government. Please explain this

[solvs]

You have indicated that things are not going so well. You have also said larger government isn't helping. Yet you want larger government. Please explain this
I've indicated that Bush and the conservatives run on smaller gov, but make it bigger. And in a bad way that doesn't actually help anyone. All while saying gov doesn't work, going out of their way to prove it. I don't think "larger gov" is a good thing. Never said I did. But I do think there are things gov should be doing that it isn't. Or at least doing better.

I don't want taxes going up, but I do want a better VA, more oversight on things like healthcare, the mining industry, FDA, and other things that need it, and the debt to go down. The current administration and previous Congress spent like drunken sailors which we've gotten very little for. We're going to have to pay for it eventually. If you want to support someone who wants to bring us more debt while we get even less for our taxes, while giving us tax cuts that aren't paying for themselves that have saved us little money that the nation can't afford, than McCain is your guy. And when gas prices and everything that relies on gas prices go even further up, while they have no problem giving the oil companies more corporate welfare without oversight, refusing to even investigate them for price fixing and profiteering under oath and not behind closed doors, will you still blame higher costs on him the way you would Obama, or will you do what people here keep doing and saying the gov can't do anything no matter how much we prove they could?

Bigger gov isn't bad in itself, though no, I don't support it, but inefficient and corrupt gov is, and that's what we not only have now, but is now being further promised by McCain.

[Cleverboy]

I've not picked up right wing talking points. I've made this conclusion based on my own political views.
Oh. Sorry.
He is more liberal than Hillary, is he not? Depends on how you measure it. If you talk about voting record in the Senate, she's voted for more liberal bills than he has. For 2007 however, his percentage is higher. If you mean on different issues, it'd be good to point out which ones.
And I'm sorry to say that I do know what I am talking about. I'm just not a liberal. Some people happen to be conservatives. No, I get that. One problem however, is that you have been speaking in hyperbole, and when called on it, you've gradually begun hedging your statements with subjective terms like "mainstream". I can see your meaning changing, but if you want to pretend that those with more liberal voting records or more extreme "liberal" stands on issues aren't "more liberal", then I don't know that anyone can prove different. Seems to me to be hardly cut and dry unless you clear things up.
Bigger gov isn't bad in itself, though no, I don't support it, but inefficient and corrupt gov is, and that's what we not only have now, but is now being further promised by McCain. Would that more people realized that. Ah, well. Ideology reigns supreme.

~ CB

[Thomas Veil]

In my opinion, he will do the most damage. He is far to the left and will have a rubber stamp from Congress. We will be welcoming back the days of Jimmy Carter. High gas prices, higher mortgage interest rates and high cost for everything in general. Obama scares me more that anyone.

And much higher taxes, as well.This is not absurd hyperbole. I said this makes him as liberal as they come in American politics. Show me a mainstream political figure that is more to the left than Obama.The aforementioned Bernie Sanders...and Dennis Kucinich as well. You also might want to look at the recently-deceased Howard Metzenbaum, as well as modern figures like Hubert Humphrey. And those latter three guys are (or were) merely left, not far left.

I'm sorry, you really need to choose your words more carefully if you want to be taken seriously around here.

Also, a rubber stamp congress would look good right now. All we've got is Republican obstructionism.

And the Jimmy Carter comment? Please.

I really think they should share the ticket. Whoever gets the most votes, gets the nod for POTUS and the other for Vice-POTUS.Ever hear of The Bickersons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bickersons)?

[stevento]

ok i just had to post this. you cannot tell me that this story isn't biased towards obama.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/13/wv.primary/index.html

this is a clear example of media favoritism.

[yg17]

ok i just had to post this. you cannot tell me that this story isn't biased towards obama.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/13/wv.primary/index.html

this is a clear example of media favoritism.

Uh, no it's not biased. They're reporting facts. Math isn't biased.

[Thomas Veil]

ok i just had to post this. you cannot tell me that this story isn't biased towards obama.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/13/wv.primary/index.html

this is a clear example of media favoritism.:confused: Where?

[solvs]

ok i just had to post this. you cannot tell me that this story isn't biased towards obama.
Yes I can. I'm with everyone else. How exactly is this media bias? Better, how does it prove overall media bias? To counteract it, I need simply mention Wright, Ayers, bowling, and bitter.

Speaking of bitter, what he said right before that that was completely ignored:

Before Bitter-Gate: What Obama Said Hours Earlier About Guns (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/13/before-bitter-gate-what-o_n_101493.html)

[VoodooDaddy]

We already know conservatives won't vote for her.

Seems like a broad generalization. Ive voted Republican in every presidential election since 1992. I chose to vote in the Democratic primary this year and voted for Obama. If he doesnt get the nod, I would vote for Hillary. This country cant survive another 4yrs of Bush policies, which is what we would get from McCain.

[yojitani]

Speaking of bitter, what he said right before that that was completely ignored:

Before Bitter-Gate: What Obama Said Hours Earlier About Guns (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/13/before-bitter-gate-what-o_n_101493.html)

I've said this before: I think Obama needs a new PR person. The way he has defended himself against these slurs has been terrible. Clinton can get away with stuff like Bosnian snipers because she and her husband have a nice way of glossing over things in the most unconvincing ways, but ways which seem to baffle the hapless media - that is, they always have a neat little neologism to get past it (misspoke?). Obama only really needed to stack the evidence in his favor, but instead he came out defensive.

[Thomas Veil]

Seems like a broad generalization. Ive voted Republican in every presidential election since 1992. I chose to vote in the Democratic primary this year and voted for Obama. If he doesnt get the nod, I would vote for Hillary. This country cant survive another 4yrs of Bush policies, which is what we would get from McCain.Well, it is a broad generalization. But you might be right -- eight years of "Bush fatigue" might prompt a larger-than-normal number of Republicans to cross over and vote for Obama. 'Course now there's that new x-factor, Bob Barr, in the picture.

[xlii]

The choices the Dems have given us this time for Prez have driven me into Mccains camp. Remember... a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill and don't fool yourself Bill will be the defacto VP...

If that alone doesn't scare you.

[yg17]

The choices the Dems have given us this time for Prez have driven me into Mccains camp. Remember... a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill and don't fool yourself Bill will be the defacto VP...

If that alone doesn't scare you.


Bill was a pretty good president. I'd vote for him if he were running for a 3rd term (if he could). It's his wife I don't trust.

[atszyman]

I've said this before: I think Obama needs a new PR person. The way he has defended himself against these slurs has been terrible. Clinton can get away with stuff like Bosnian snipers because she and her husband have a nice way of glossing over things in the most unconvincing ways, but ways which seem to baffle the hapless media - that is, they always have a neat little neologism to get past it (misspoke?). Obama only really needed to stack the evidence in his favor, but instead he came out defensive.

I don't know. I think part of it is a desire to keep the conflict going for the dramatic stories. Hillary has had math against her for a long time now, and if they play up the negative against her it might have led to losses where she's won, and ended the contest by PA. By focusing and repeating Obama's negatives they can drive him down making some of the races seem tighter than they should be. I think he's done well handling whatever is thrown at him, the media has just been too eager to focus on the negatives of the front runner in the Dem primaries while ignoring those of the opponents and simply pointing out that math was against her, but still making it seem like she had a chance.

[fridgeymonster3]

Liberals/Democrats/progressives/independents only, please. We already know conservatives won't vote for her. I'm interested in how people predisposed to vote for the Democratic nominee feel.

At the moment I say no. I figure if Obama is out of the race, one crook is as bad as the other. So I'll probably stay home.

It would be nice to throw in another poll tracking what the people who said no will do. As you said, just because they say they won't vote for Clinton, doesn't mean they will vote for McCain. They might just not vote or vote for another party, such as the Green Party, altogether. It would be interesting to see the percentage that would vote for McCain vs those that would just stay home. If a person is very liberal or even liberal I can't see them voting for McCain (at least in general).

[fridgeymonster3]

I've said this before: I think Obama needs a new PR person. The way he has defended himself against these slurs has been terrible. Clinton can get away with stuff like Bosnian snipers because she and her husband have a nice way of glossing over things in the most unconvincing ways, but ways which seem to baffle the hapless media - that is, they always have a neat little neologism to get past it (misspoke?). Obama only really needed to stack the evidence in his favor, but instead he came out defensive.

This doesn't just pertain to Obama, I feel many Dems fall into this trap. Look at the way Kerry was swiftboated. He never really came to his defense and fervently attacked the allegations, which hurt him. Dems have this attitude that such attacks shouldn't even be answered because they are ridiculous (in their minds) and they believe the American people won't believe them or be effected by them. It is like their whole mantra about the facts - if you just give the American people the facts than they will make the right decision. Dems have such a naive/idealistic approach, whereas the Republicans haven't lately.

[MacNut]

The numbers that are missing is who will Independents vote for. Right now we are only getting primary numbers from Democrats, we know who Republicans will vote for but what about the undecided that haven't voted yet. Are they more likely to vote for Obama, Clinton, or McCain? My extreme liberal cousin said he will not vote for Obama at all and would vote for McCain.

[Eric Piercey]

Yeah, Ron Paul doesn't isn't viable as a political candidate. He has a few interesting ideas but in the end libertarianism just doesn't work. There would have to be an event on the scale of a revolution for it to take hold.

Short answer, yes. Long answer:

Bring on the revolution then. Actually the revolution has come and gone, but it happened slowly so you missed the memo. Our parents, their parents.. now us... victims of a slowly boiling pot. Big money runs the entire system from top to bottom. Oh I know, big money has always and will always run things, but what made the USA unique for awhile there was the constitution and checks and balances. Not so much anymore when elections can be manipulated at the drop of a hat with many tools from fixed machines, loopholes in the law, media manipulation, super delegates, etc etc. If Hillary wins the nomination it's just another example of the disenfranchised American vote.

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush... Clinton. Could there maybe be a pattern developing here? In a country of 300+ million people is it coincidence that two families have run the country for 2 decades? Tin foil hat stuff? These are the smartest and best we have to run our country?

So tell me why you'd nuh nuhnever vote for RP? Is it because you know what's really going on and find his ideas crazy, or is it because you're ignorant of what's really going on and his ideas are presented to you as crazy by the media spoonfed to you 24/7. His ideas do seem radical, but with a few history lessons and some actual research you'll find they align well with what the country is supposed to be about and differ from current status quo which is that the constitution is a piece of toilet paper and you the individual is a slave unit. Your vote means nothing, your opinion means nothing, do not pass go, pay your taxes... work work work... no social security for you... be a good consumer... do not question .. send your children off to the war profit meat grinder for the military industrial and big oil stock needs a boost. Wake up. But hey.... the country club is open and McDonald's and Wallmart and Pepsi and Disney... so we must be free and happy and most of all, righteous.

If Obama is allowed to become president he'll probably be JFK'ed if he doesn't follow his marching orders. I hope Hillbill isn't the VP. I'd love to have Gore or even Paul as VP. The elite would love McCain in there, but enough is enough as far as what the slaves can be forced to swallow. There comes a point at which it's just too ridiculous to be true. Would America vote in another war hawk president after all this? We all know there's no way in hell we would. Maybe it's time for a revolution of your mind. Start asking real questions like why are we in Iraq? Why are oil companies posting record profits while the dollar is on it's dying breath. Why do we pay income tax? No seriously, tell me. Why are private banks in charge of the economy with license to issue fiat currency? Why do people get elected when the majority of the people didn't even vote for them?

[leekohler]

So tell me why you'd nuh nuhnever vote for RP? Is it because you know what's really going on and find his ideas crazy, or is it because you're ignorant of what's really going on and his ideas are presented to you as crazy by the media spoonfed to you 24/7. His ideas do seem radical, but with a few history lessons and some actual research you'll find they align well with what the country is supposed to be about and differ from current status quo which is that the constitution is a piece of toilet paper and you the individual is a slave unit. Your vote means nothing, your opinion means nothing, do not pass go, pay your taxes... work work work... no social security for you... be a good consumer... do not question .. send your children off to the war profit meat grinder for the military industrial and big oil stock needs a boost. Wake up. But hey.... the country club is open and McDonald's and Wallmart and Pepsi and Disney... so we must be free and happy and most of all, righteous.

Because I read his website and he's nuttier than a fruitcake. That's not the media's fault, it's his. Many of his ideas are damn frightening.

If Obama is allowed to become president he'll probably be JFK'ed if he doesn't follow his marching orders. I hope Hillbill isn't the VP. I'd love to have Gore or even Paul as VP. The elite would love McCain in there, but enough is enough as far as what the slaves can be forced to swallow. There comes a point at which it's just too ridiculous to be true. Would America vote in another war hawk president after all this? We all know there's no way in hell we would. Maybe it's time for a revolution of your mind. Start asking real questions like why are we in Iraq? Why are oil companies posting record profits while the dollar is on it's dying breath. Why do we pay income tax? No seriously, tell me. Why are private banks in charge of the economy with license to issue fiat currency? Why do people get elected when the majority of the people didn't even vote for them?

You've been around these forums long enough to know our answers to all of those questions. And you should know that we all constantly ask and indeed, even have answers to those questions.

[VoodooDaddy]

'Course now there's that new x-factor, Bob Barr, in the picture.

Would that be Bob Barr-booey?

(obscure Howard Stern reference)