You're a Clinton supporter. I'm not an Obama supporter. However, he has the momentum, MORE campaign money, more nationwide support, did do better in the Midwest, appeals to most of John Edwards' base -- voters that most certainly will choose McCain if Clinton is nominated; and Obama will have more delegates once they are proportioned out. So with those T-R-U-T-H-S or F-A-C-T-S, Obama is closer to being the Democrat nominee than Clinton. There won't be four debates. He's the front-runner which makes the argument of those debates poorly relative. You may have to change your candidate, Lancelva. Democrats appear to be speaking everyday and most are saying Obama.
Having been an undecided voter until this week, I can no longer deny that Obama is the stronger candidate if only by mass appeal. He won't be weakened by the dark side of the Clinton legacy. The Republicans want Hillary; they're going to get Obama.
F-A-C-T-S: Mrs. Clinton lending 5M to her campaign, her dwindling lead in many national polls and her deseparation to coerce the Obama camp to agreeing to at least four debates are the signs of a troubled campaign. Like it or not, as the Obama camp says, this campaign is hers to lose; and it is slipping away rather rapidly.
Those, my friend, are the F-A-C-T-S.....
That's a great idea...let's do that here for a minute...
Given the weight of the aforementioned statements, why does Obama need to debate Clinton? I never thought I'd say this, but Senator Clinton's days in this race are numbered.
What weight? Just making a statement doesn't turn it into fact. So, again, let's review the facts (that's F-A-C-T-S for those who are slow).
As I told chance, the number of states doesn't matter here. Senator Clinton won more of the states with the larger populations--and when your counting votes, people matter. So you cannot place California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, on the same level as Idaho, North Dakota, and Alabama.
Again, that's not true. Senator Clinton has raised over $8 million since Super Tuesday, bringing in over 75,000 new donors. These numbers are remarkable and are growing.
If you look at the Exit Polls, Senator Clinton is winning a much more diverse coalition of Democrats. She performs strongly among women, Latinos, voters 30 and over (in CA and MA she even won the youth vote), the Asian vote, and the blue-collar union workers, mothers, teachers, and laborors that make up the core of our Party. Obama only does well among men, African Americans, and in some states voters between 18-30. I wouldn't call that "all parts" of our Party.
In Missouri, Senator Clinton won
110 out of the state's 115 counties--performing very strongly in the rural areas that characterize much of the Midwest and South. In the Southern states, he was barely able to garner 10% of the white vote, which will certainly not make him formidable in a general election.
And your proof of that? Obama has never been tested in a tough general election campaign. And any Democrat--no matter who it is--is going to be attacked. We saw with the mistakes of the Kerry campaign what happens when I candidate is not prepared to handle these Republican smears.
According to nearly every current estimation, Clinton won both the Super Tuesday delegates and total delegates to date.
NY Times: Clinton - 912, Obama - 741
CNN: Clinton - 1,033, Obama - 937
Politico: Clinton - 1,000, Obama - 902
ABC: Clinton - 1,071, Obama - 994
That's just it--there is nothing new that the Republicans can throw at her. And after all she's been through, she is still doing remarkably well. This speaks volumes of her ability and character. As more people get to know her, the more they respect and admire her. It happened in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, California, New Jersey, etc.[/quote]
