Hillary has lost on every angle

[RecycleMichael]

I will not vote for McCain. I promise.

[Hometown]

One of the things that the Obama supporters don't get is how eager Clinton's supporters are for her to remain in the race.  Your criticisms of Clinton can be applied to each of her many supporters that want her to continue.

She ain't out there by herself, and it ain't just us working people supporting her. She has supporters like a Rothschild urging her to remain in the race.

Recently I've been thinking about the parallels between the current campaign and the campaigns that resulted in the first term of Daddy Bush.  There had been a feeling among the Democrats that the since Reagan was leaving office the time had come to take back the White House.  There was a very bright candidate named Dukakis from Massachusetts that was adored by the left wing of the party.  Dukakis won the primary and lost the general election big time.

When Dukakis bombed I think a consensus formed in Democratic leadership what we would win the next one come h*** or high water.  No risks were to be taken.  Every advantage exploited.  I can remember Ann Richards shepherding the party and lecturing us and keeping us disciplined and united.  Bill Clinton's presidency was the product of that focus on winning.  Bill Clinton and Al Gore were the no risk "southern" candidate ticket.

What troubles me now is that we have forgotten hard lessons that we had learned.  We have no memory and apparently no loyalty.

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I will not vote for McCain. I promise.

Should Obama win the primary and the vice-presidency is not offered to Clinton, I might abstain.  A lot depends on his outreach to Clinton supporters.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

How about we be completely truthful and say "more people have voted for Hillary in this presidential primary season than have voted for any other candidate in the history of our country."

Since we are talking about the votes...Obama won in Chicago/Cook County by over 500,000 votes. Yes, the same Chicago that is known for such squeaky clean politics.

I am fine with Obama being President of Chicago. That is where his mob friends are.

So is this what it comes to, RM?  You are going to start implying that Obama has mob connections?  If you really want to start going negative, we can do that.  How 'bout if we start with Hillary's connections to the Puerto Rican terroist group, FALN?  Or maybe her connections to Abramoff?  Or the money her brothers received for Presidential pardons?  Thank goodness she has already been "vetted."

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Doh!
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/16/270/print.html

How will Barack Obama get to 270?
This November, a Democratic victory will probably hinge on the Electoral College votes of a handful of swing states. Howard Dean's pollster examines 17 fall battlegrounds, one by one.
By Paul Maslin

Mod's note: Your post on this thread has been edited for sake of brevity.  Let this serve as an example to others who are tempted to post entire articles in a thread when a link is sufficient.

This is annoying to other forum members and adds little to the discussion.  If you wish to place a link and add your own comments that is fine.  If you wish to keep cutting and pasting 10,000 word articles which are the published work of someone else, it will be summarily edited and/or deleted from now on.

A Pee Sir!

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

One of the things that the Obama supporters don't get is how eager Clinton's supporters are for her to remain in the race.  Your criticisms of Clinton can be applied to each of her many supporters that want her to continue.

She ain't out there by herself, and it ain't just us working people supporting her. She has supporters like a Rothschild urging her to remain in the race.

Recently I've been thinking about the parallels between the current campaign and the campaigns that resulted in the first term of Daddy Bush.  There had been a feeling among the Democrats that the since Reagan was leaving office the time had come to take back the White House.  There was a very bright candidate named Dukakis from Massachusetts that was adored by the left wing of the party.  Dukakis won the primary and lost the general election big time.

When Dukakis bombed I think a consensus formed in Democratic leadership what we would win the next one come h*** or high water.  No risks were to be taken.  Every advantage exploited.  I can remember Ann Richards shepherding the party and lecturing us and keeping us disciplined and united.  Bill Clinton's presidency was the product of that focus on winning.  Bill Clinton and Al Gore were the no risk "southern" candidate ticket.

What troubles me now is that we have forgotten hard lessons that we had learned.  We have no memory and apparently no loyalty.

Hometown, we all see history through our own perspective.  Despite your claim of Clinton being a "no risk" candidate, Bill Clinton did not win the majority of the population when he first ran.  Most people thought he was entirely too liberal.  Every democrat I knew thought he couldn't win.  Between his infidelity, his issues with the draft, and his marijauna use, democrats were terrified he would cost them the election.  His "calculated" win was accomplished with one factor:  Ross Perot.   And I firmly believe, were it not for many of Bill Clinton's actions, there would be no question as to Al Gore's winning the 2000 election.  In exit polls after Gore's election, the majority of voters said that Bill Clinton would ultimately be remembered for his scandals, not his accomplishments.  Did we really have a winning candidate with Clinton?  Why then did Democrats lose the House under his administration?

Dukakis was a bad candidate, period.  And he ran against the vice president to a president who (for whatever reason) was adored.

I have no problem with Hillary staying in the race.  What bugs me is her distortion of the party rules in an effort to take away the nomination from the person who has won it by playing by the rules.  You can lamment all you want that the people have made a bad choice in the candidacy.  The fact is, they have the right to make that choice.  Of course Hillary has supporters behind her, as well she should.  But the fact is, Obama has more states, more delegates, more money, and more supporters.  He will be the Democratic Candidate, and, with your support, the best president we have had in a long time.

Hillary and he are only slightly different on most positions, so I don't know where you get the impression that he is "too liberal" and she is not.

[Goodpasture]

Any polls taken recently that tried to describe the electibility of Obama/Clinton vs McCain is absurd. McCain has been given a neutral or positive press for the past three months. No one has challenged anything he has said, with the exception of the Democrats in the past week. Once the election is actually underway and McCain receives the same scrutiny and the same pressure,THEN tell us about polls. Obama and Clinton are stepping out of the ring battered and bruised and the pundits are saying that they are in worse shape than McCain when he hasn't been in a fight in months.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

One of the things that the Obama supporters don't get is how eager Clinton's supporters are for her to remain in the race.  Your criticisms of Clinton can be applied to each of her many supporters that want her to continue.

She ain't out there by herself, and it ain't just us working people supporting her. She has supporters like a Rothschild urging her to remain in the race.

Recently I've been thinking about the parallels between the current campaign and the campaigns that resulted in the first term of Daddy Bush.  There had been a feeling among the Democrats that the since Reagan was leaving office the time had come to take back the White House.  There was a very bright candidate named Dukakis from Massachusetts that was adored by the left wing of the party.  Dukakis won the primary and lost the general election big time.

When Dukakis bombed I think a consensus formed in Democratic leadership what we would win the next one come h*** or high water.  No risks were to be taken.  Every advantage exploited.  I can remember Ann Richards shepherding the party and lecturing us and keeping us disciplined and united.  Bill Clinton's presidency was the product of that focus on winning.  Bill Clinton and Al Gore were the no risk "southern" candidate ticket.

What troubles me now is that we have forgotten hard lessons that we had learned.  We have no memory and apparently no loyalty.

My memories and loyalties are based on POLICIES and EFFECTIVENESS, not winners or losers...

My criticism is of both Bill and Hillary's two-faced political tactics and their ability to distort and obfuscate the truth like nobody else on either side of the aisle... "Lanny Davis to the white courtesy phone plz... Mr Davis to the hardworking-white-voter courtesy phone..."

And don't compare Obama to Dukakis.... that only betrays your ignorance.  Obama's speeches are more inspirational than anything Dukakis could dream of... Obama has vision, Dukakis had none... Dukakis was a noted "technocrat" whose major achievement was the "Massachusetts miracle"-- which BTW, wasn't a moral issue or an anti-war issue... it was all about how Dukakis could astutely manage the economy.... and Bill Clinton adopted some of those same tactics four years later, only with a southern drawl... remember "it's the economy, stupid"...

Clinton and Obama are very close on most issues... or at least that's the way the Clintons wish to appear when it matches their poll driven agenda... your candidate's surrogates infiltrated a closed-door Obama fundraiser and singlehandedly turned "Bittergate" into a fake issue when my candidate is NOT an elitist... yet the Clinton campaign was already passing out "I'm not Bitter" stickers in North Carolina the very same day the media broke the story (with the help of HRC's campaign, of course).... http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/04/hillary_bitter_bumper_stickers.html

...your candidate and her slick Nixonian husband are consumate lawyeristic LIARS...

I remember Paul Tsongas accurately portraying Bill Clinton as a "panderer."  Tsongas even brought a "Pander Bear" to prove his point.

What did Bill Clinton do for gay people, HM???  Don't ask, don't tell?  The Defense of Marriage Act?  Giving America a Republican house and senate that George H.W. Bush would have loved to have.... and George W. Bush took full advantage of...    

You've now proved that YOU are the one with no loyalty... your candidate REFUSES to play by the rules her own surrogates put into motion.

And Obama has been extremely nice....... I, however, will not be nice.  

IMO, the Clintons should be to the Dems what Richard Nixon is to the Republicans... thank god Pat Nixon had no political aspirations...

HILLARY CLINTON SINGLE HANDEDLY RUINED ANY CHANCES FOR HEALTHCARE REFORM FOR A GENERATION.

I am in that generation... I will never forgive her for screwing up managed care through her high-handed tactics.  

If you don't like Obama, don't vote for him... end of story.

Bill and Hillary will say anything.  They will say anything to keep their legacy intact.  They will say anything at the expense of hurting their own party's chances in congressional elections.  They will polarize their own supporters (using both gender & race as motivators) into believing Obama is unelectable to satisfy their craven desire for power.

And I do not feel that way about any other previous candidate for prez...

An oldie but a goodie from one of the gazillion primary debates, this one courtesy of the John Edwards campaign...

November 02, 2007 -- The Politics of Parsing
Hillary Clinton responds with double-talk during the Democratic candidates debate on October 30, 2007.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

[FOTD]

"Gallup notices that Sen. Barack Obama is surging precisely among those voting groups who had resisted his charms to date."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/the_party_coalesces_around_oba.php

Obama's beating Clinton among Hispanics NOW!

[okiebybirth]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael



The last two elections have come down to voters in Florida and Ohio. At the last poll Hillary wins Florida 49% to 41% while McCain beats Obama 44% to 43%. In Ohio, Clinton beats McCain 50% to 43% while Obama loses 45% to 44%.

[/b]

Obama up by 9% over McCain in Ohio