I still find it ironic that people who said they wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee if their candidate didn't win the nomination are now arguing for the good of the Democratic party.
How desperate is the Obama camp to end this primary process before he steps in it again? Doesn't look good for him to have his best slogal as being a 'please drop out Hillary' campaign. He has already disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan, don't let him disenfranchise voters in PA, NC, IN, WV and other primaries. Does he think he can't win on his own? He has to try to take his ball and go home? Obviously he doesn't have the delegates today to win, so therefore the only solution is that the race continues. Period, end of story. Forget the disengenuous, self-interested approaches of the Obama cult. He doesn't have the delegates, therefore he doesn't have the nomination. It's that simple.
Why? As an moderate-liberal independent, I favor Democratic policies right now. I would like Dems in charge if they are good Dems. Hillary, however, is not good for the Democratic Party in my opinion. As with Bill, I believe she will create a backlash against the party and do damage in the long-run. And, like Bush, I believe that she would leave the office of the Presidency in much worse shape. Hillary is different - she claims be a member of the party. And her family represents former leaders of the party. You'd think they'd be a tad more committed to the health of the party than I would. Or even than you or other Democrats would.
The thing is though it isn't about what a supporter of one candidate or the other thinks. It's the behavior a candidate demonstrates. I may dislike one candidate or another, but showing a willingness to hurt the party will surely turn off super delegates who out to see to the party's wellbeing. I can't imagine Hillary's style of campaigning is making a lot of super delegates take notice and say to themselves, "Wow, she's really showing she will be great for the Democratic party. We better choose her over Obama." As far as Obama's bitter comments, they don't seem to be hurting much if at all. Which makes sense, since they were accurate and not really offensive unless spun to go beyond their intended meaning. He's right he could have said it clearer, but either way the issue just doesn't seem to really be doing him much damage at all.
They were definitely offensive to many people. It might not hurt him now since a lot of his supporters agree with his sentiments. But in the general election, he'll have a hard time attracting voters in red states with remarks like that. And he can't win without them.
his national polling numbers went up after he made the comments. His comments were spun in a way that might have offended some. His comments themselves were sympathetic to the plight of small town voters who've been left out of solutions and economic fixes. Those kinds of comments are not offensive.
Except that Obama never said that people are only religious or own guns out of frustration that was the spin part. What he was speaking of were those voters that cling to those things because they've been frustrated and left out of govt. and solutions to problems. That has been shown to be true from sociological stand point. It also isn't demeaning. He's talking about trying to do something that doesn't leave them out anymore. It is sympathetic to their plight. Since he's obviously religious he wasn't speaking of anyone that is relgious, or anyone that owns a gun. It has been spun that way, but so far most of those 50% and 85% have been able to see through the spin, and it hasn't really hurt him at this stage.
Now who's spinning? The comments were stupid and offensive. If you're personally not bothered by them, that's fine. But don't tell me he wasn't bashing small-town folks for basing their votes on guns and religion. He made the remarks off the record behind closed doors in San Francisco. He meant exactly what he said. Nobody had to spin anything. And his numbers are going up in Pennsylvania and North Carolina likely due to Hillary's stupid Bosnia lie. She's not doing herself any favors lately when she opens her yapper.
It is accurate that some small town citizens who have been left out economically do base their votes on guns and religion as well as well as immigration. That is true and has been demonstrated in polls, as well as sociological studies. I'm not spinning anything. You are right he made the remarks behind closed doors in SF so didn't elaborate to be more clear at the time, because it wasn't a public statement that he thought needed to be more clear than it already was. Since then it has been clarified.
As much as many would love to shoo her offstage, she has her voters as leverage. Because Dem leadership is a sneaky and dainty lot, no one has the guts to stand up to her and bring down the hammer.
I think you are making the point that you don't care so much about the party as you do the personalities. If you think that the party nominee will not be good and you will vote for the opposition or not vote at all then that's not really showing concern for the party as it is the party's process that has produced that nominee. Its a fair position to have but hardly an argument in favor of the party.
Again I think that is an ironic position for you to take since you've said that if your candidate doesn't win you will hurt the Democrats by voting for the socialist candidate. As I mentioned to Major that's a fair position that you won't vote for the Democrats because you don't like their candidate but to argue it as saying you are looking out for the good of the party is ironic. You are looking out for the good of the candidate you are supporting. Very questionable. Some polls show things aren't changing some show things are swinging more Clinton's way.
I think the point is that an independent voter would have different concerns than a prominent Dem like hillary. Her loyalty should be to the party, while voters don't have that same obligation.
Major, Hillary Clinton doesn't claim to be a Democrat, she is a Democrat. One can dislike her, disagree with her positions, believe she is damaging the Democratic Party, but never doubt that it is her party. Unlike you, she is an ardent Democrat. Now, she may be ardently for Hillary Clinton, as well, but one shouldn't doubt how she feels about the Democratic Party. Constantly, I read about how alike both candidates are in their positions. The last time I checked, both claimed to be Democrats. Either one would make, in my opinion, a fine President, certainly compared to the guy in office now or compared to John McCain... if someone wants Democratic Party positions on the issues to go forward. Want a giant roadblock to progressive reform in this country? Want to prevent a change in current foreign policy? Vote for John McCain, vote for someone other than the Democratic nominee, or stay home. All three options help retain the current policies we see today. Just sayin'! Impeach Bush.
I think Major is claiming that Hillary lacks authenticity as a Dem. I agree, but I admit that we all have different criteria for what an authentic Democrat is.
Spending decades working for the party on multiple levels doesn't count? Holding the same (from what I've read) positions on the issues as Barack doesn't count? Wanting progressive lifetime Federal judges doesn't count? Then I guess she isn't authentic. Impeach Bush.
To follow up on Deckard's post though she has pretty much given her life to the Democractic party and as a major candidate for the nomination she believes she is doing what is right for the party. This would be a different matter if she said, or gave any indication, that she would be willing to switch parties if she doesn't win the nomination.
