Who could tell Clinton to quit?

[Chalchalero]

To answer the OP question --

The People could tell Clinton to quit or go on to the general election when we've selected a nominee.

The pattern of intimidation, woven into the OP question as it is in so much of what Obama supporters say, is outrageous. Hillary Clinton is an American citizen with many years of public service, a comprehensive platform for a Presidential run and virtually 50% of the Democratic vote supporting her. Only a thug would look for someone to tell her to quit before the race is finished. Like Keith Olberman saying a man should take her into a room and only he come out. This is a shameful way to behave towards a candidate for office in the United States, and what it reveals about the kind of atmosphere Obama might inspire if he becomes President is very troubling.

Actually, the OP question was "woven" from the title of the BBC article from whence the link derived. The article was called, I believe "Who Could Tell Clinton To Quit?" Yes that was it, I remember now! Anyone who read the article by simply opening the link could have seen that. Now, I am not certain as to whether the BBC is part of some "vast right wing conspiracy" or are simply rabid Obama supporters, but somehow I am inclined to doubt that they are either.

The fact that Hillary and her supporters keep whining about how "bullied" they feel she is being is simply meant to obfuscate two simple facts: 1. Where the hell were they during voting time? She would have won already, were there enough of them. Sadly there were not, and she has lost. 2. A great many of these same people are simply scared to death of having a black nominee for the presidency and are hoping against hope that it will not be. Tough crap! Deal with it!

 

[NickCole]

Actually, the OP question was "woven" from the title of the BBC article from whence the link derived. The article was called, I believe "Who Could Tell Clinton To Quit?" Yes that was it, I remember now! Anyone who read the article by simply opening the link could have seen that. Now, I am not certain as to whether the BBC is part of some "vast right wing conspiracy" or are simply rabid Obama supporters, but somehow I am inclined to doubt that they are either.

You started the thread, you decided to pose the question here.

Accept responsibility for what you do.

The fact that Hillary and her supporters keep whining about how "bullied" they feel she is being

Again with the gratuitously insulting language.

Expressing criticism is not "whining."

is simply meant to obfuscate two simple facts: 1. Where the hell were they during voting time?

We were at the polls, voting.

That's the reason she has more certified popular votes than Obama has.

I know Obama supporters say Florida and Michigan don't matter but the truth is Hillary supporters went to the polls in Florida and Michigan and cast votes. When we mention those numbers they're dismissed as not counting, but you want to know where the hell we were during voting time? We were voting. And more of us voted for Hillary than for Obama.

She would have won already, were there enough of them. Sadly there were not, and she has lost.

Neither of the candidates has won.

And that means Hillary has not lost. No matter how often that lie is repeated, it won't make it the truth.

2. A great many of these same people are simply scared to death of having a black nominee for the presidency and are hoping against hope that it will not be. Tough crap! Deal with it!

Ah yes, one of the favorite Obama bullying cards. "A great many" who don't support Obama's candidacy are racist. Bull.

 

[Chalchalero]

You started the thread, you decided to pose the question here.

Accept responsibility for what you do.


I accept full responsibility for what I do, just not for what you attempted to imply. Stating that something is "woven" implies intent and it was not my intent to do anything except post what was already written by a foreign media source and not an Obama supporter as you claimed. Learn to accept your own responsibilities when you are shown to have made an inaccurate claim.


Again with the gratuitously insulting language.

Expressing criticism is not "whining."

The tone of said criticism strikes me as "whining" and so I stand by the word.


We were at the polls, voting.

That's the reason she has more certified popular votes than Obama has.

I have read all of the morass that this argument has become on several other threads, and sadly you are not to be changed no matter how many facts are thrown at you, so I will not attempt to get involved in that silliness with you.

I will, however, quote the article, as I am certain that you did not read it:

Mrs Clinton is now faced with a situation in which the political arithmetic is against her.

Her rival, Barack Obama, has won more elected delegates than she has, more states than she has, and leads her in the popular vote.

And there is little prospect of Mrs Clinton being able to make up her deficit in the dwindling number of states that are still to hold primaries.

Here's the link in case you change your mind about avoiding inconvenient facts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7396501.stm

I know Obama supporters say Florida and Michigan don't matter but the truth is Hillary supporters went to the polls in Florida and Michigan and cast votes. When we mention those numbers they're dismissed as not counting, but you want to know where the hell we were during voting time? We were voting. And more of us voted for Hillary than for Obama.

Again, your refusal to face inconvenient facts:

Clinton signed pledges in both these primaries agreeing with the Party's decision that they had broken the rules and would not be counted. She agreed not to campaign in either state (and then reneged). She has only been insisting that these delegates be counted because a) through her chicanery and back-stabbing she was able to win in two contests that never existed and b) she knows that the delegate count as it stands today has her behind.

The fact of the matter is that Obama did not decide that Florida and Michigan would not count. The DNC made that decision and will make a final one on the 31st. And yet you still persist in misrepresenting the facts by claiming that somehow Obama is keeping Clinton from being able to count delegates that SHE HERSELF agreed not to count.


Neither of the candidates has won.

And that means Hillary has not lost. No matter how often that lie is repeated, it won't make it the truth.

I'm going to go ahead and let that statement speak for itself and just say "ditto".


Ah yes, one of the favorite Obama bullying cards. "A great many" who don't support Obama's candidacy are racist. Bull.

I know, the great race-free Hillary supporters, right? Those uneducated hard-working white voters who would rather vote for a Republican than a black Democrat could not possibly have race on their minds, now could they?

The world of Denial must be a beautiful place...

 

[ShortBoy]

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/42d504d6-8e14-40ee-b04a-a97d87e5989e.html

 

[Chalchalero]

Shortboy:


It's funny, cause it's true... - Karen Walker

 

[jockboy01]

I think the question is who COULD tell her to quit... not who SHOULD. And as stated, it was in the bbc article. So don't read so much into it. I think the answer is nobody. Maybe Bill is the only one imo. But I'm not sure she'd listen to him either. However, he's a good politician so he could probably phrase it nicely.

At this point, I have no problem with her finishing out to June 3rd. Why not? She's stopped the negative campaigning so let her stay. However, I think after June 3rd she should step aside and not carry it out to the convention. If she keeps pushing for MI and FL and decides to go to Denver with this argument, the dems will most likely lose in November (as pointed out, history shows that nomination contests that go to convention = a win for the other party). So let's get to june 3rd and move on.

I know Obama supporters say Florida and Michigan don't matter but the truth is Hillary supporters went to the polls in Florida and Michigan and cast votes. When we mention those numbers they're dismissed as not counting, but you want to know where the hell we were during voting time? We were voting. And more of us voted for Hillary than for Obama.

Let's not do this AGAIN! I'm sorry, Clinton didn't win the majority of the popular vote no matter how you do the numbers. When you say you include these numbers, you continue to ignore nearly a quarter MILLION of votes for uncommitted on the ballot in MI... votes that would most likely be for Obama and give him the popular vote back.

 

[NickCole]

Let's not do this AGAIN! I'm sorry, Clinton didn't win the majority of the popular vote no matter how you do the numbers. When you say you include these numbers, you continue to ignore nearly a quarter MILLION of votes for uncommitted on the ballot in MI... votes that would most likely be for Obama and give him the popular vote back.

I'm not counting estimates, I'm not counting "most likely be for"s, that's what Obama supporters do.

I'm counting every vote that was cast for a named candidate and certified by the state. That's what we know for sure. That's every vote that's verifiable.

Hillary Clinton has the majority of the certifiable verifiable popular votes cast.

The majority of what we know for sure, not what's Obamade-up.

 

[Chalchalero]

I'm not counting estimates, I'm not counting "most likely be for"s, that's what Obama supporters do.

I'm counting every vote that was cast for a named candidate and certified by the state. That's what we know for sure. That's every vote that's verifiable.

Hillary Clinton has the majority of the certifiable verifiable popular votes cast.

The majority of what we know for sure, not what's Obamade-up.

Newspapers, televisions, polls, people on these threads - you have received the same answer from all of these sources explaining to you that Hillary does not have the majority of certifiable anything and that Michigan and Florida will not be counted if the DNC says they will not, and yet you just keep right on whistling that same old tune, don't you?

No matter how many times you tell it to yourself, it will not suddenly become true. Let's talk again after the 31st and see where she stands then. Until then, deal with the situation and the facts as they stand now and not as you wish they could be.

 

[syntax]

Let's not do this AGAIN! I'm sorry, Clinton didn't win the majority of the popular vote no matter how you do the numbers. When you say you include these numbers, you continue to ignore nearly a quarter MILLION of votes for uncommitted on the ballot in MI... votes that would most likely be for Obama and give him the popular vote back.

The popular vote argument is a distraction concocted by the Clinton campaign.

The only important count is the delegate count, of which Obama has a lead that is continuing to grow every day:

Superdelegates according to the NYT: 309.5 (Obama) to 273 (Clinton), with 178.5 undeclared and 40 left to be named.

Pledged delegates, according to the NYT: 1965.5 (Obama) to 1775 (Clinton). 110 delegates to be assigned in the remaining three contests.

Totals: 1965.5 (Obama) 1775 (Clinton)

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html

 

[Chalchalero]

I believe the point that those who are so hung up on the popular vote are so hung up on and are trying to make is to demonstrate the "grass-roots" "common man" support that Hillary supposedly has. Even were this the case, as you say, it doesn't matter because the delegate count is what matters. She knew this in the beginning and was betting on it. Sadly, it has backfired and now suddenly she is a populist. It is all much ado about nothing, really.

 

[White Eagle]

I think the question is who COULD tell her to quit... not who SHOULD. And as stated, it was in the bbc article. So don't read so much into it. I think the answer is nobody. Maybe Bill is the only one imo. But I'm not sure she'd listen to him either. However, he's a good politician so he could probably phrase it nicely.

At this point, I have no problem with her finishing out to June 3rd. Why not? She's stopped the negative campaigning so let her stay. However, I think after June 3rd she should step aside and not carry it out to the convention. If she keeps pushing for MI and FL and decides to go to Denver with this argument, the dems will most likely lose in November (as pointed out, history shows that nomination contests that go to convention = a win for the other party). So let's get to june 3rd and move on.



Let's not do this AGAIN! I'm sorry, Clinton didn't win the majority of the popular vote no matter how you do the numbers. When you say you include these numbers, you continue to ignore nearly a quarter MILLION of votes for uncommitted on the ballot in MI... votes that would most likely be for Obama and give him the popular vote back.

 

[broadwayboi]

Delighted you are fervent for your candidate! Supporting Sen. Clinton will make you important friends here! Smart play!

A few minor notes:

There are not millions left to vote. We are talking Montana and South Dakota and Puerto Rico, right? Add the potential votes. It won't hit 7 figures.

Actually, if you combine the populations of Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota it equals 5,670,810 people.

Of those 3,100,129 are registered democrats.

 

[JackFTwist]

Actually, if you combine the populations of Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota it equals 5,670,810 people.

Of those 3,100,129 are registered democrats.

good friend,

no where close to that many will vote

I also ask about those numbers -

I doubt anywhere in America if you have a population of 5,670.810 you have 3,100,129 Democrats - that leaves a very small number, mathematically invalid, for people under 18 and Republicans of the number of registered democrats is wrong

population of Montana is 997,195
population of South Dakota is 781,919

population of Puerto Rico is 3,994,259

and the residents of Puerto Rico cannot vote in November, something I do disagree with

for the reasons stated, I challenge your numbers as to registered Dems as being impossible

and even with the increased turnout this year, the actual numbers of people who vote will be far far less than the possible whatever the number of actual Dems is

and I challenge not as a slap in the face but as a friend across the table calmly discussing the primaries ahead

all good wishes to you, it is great when young people are involved politically, I wish the best to you

 

[jockboy01]

LOL White Eagle at the cartoon... I think it's totally hilarious and true. Political cartoonists have a way of capturing things in so few words and saying so much it makes me jealous.

I'm not counting estimates, I'm not counting "most likely be for"s, that's what Obama supporters do.

LOL... so who would those other quarter of a million people vote for? See, I'm looking at reality. You're counting the votes in the only way that Clinton wins the popular vote and at the same time saying how every american vote should count.... but don't count those that aren't for Clinton. Can't have it both ways.... something the Clinton camp seems to want a lot of these days. Those aren't estimates, they're REAL votes. I have to say, I'm amazed you're even trying to argue this point.

And as stated, it's the delegates that matter.

 

[smelter]

Anyone know her cell phone number? I'd be glad to do it.

 

[Supernature]

Obama's supposed to be about concilation and a new politics and changed way of doing business in Washington, and yet you call Republicans "the real enemy."

I think Republicans are not the enemy, I think Republicans are fellow Americans who ought to be participating equally in our problem solving process.

I think referring to any fellow American who isn't a terrorist setting off bombs to kill Americans, like Bill Ayers did for instance, as "the real enemy" is divisive.

Obama talks about bringing people together but what he inspires in his supporters is dividing Americans into groups to bully into submission.

Careful, that's a dangerously high horse you are climbing on to. So it's divisive to call Republican's "the enemy" but not to call half of your own party "a cult"? You seem quick to hold Obama supporters to a standard you don't hold yourself.

And personally, I do think Hillary should stay in the race to the end. It's nearly over anyway, and she seems to be taking some pains to be more moderate in her campaign style. I think if she goes all the way and loses then her loss will be irrefutable and there will be a much better chance for party unity afterwards. No one can say then that she's been pushed out of the race.

 

[NickCole]

Careful, that's a dangerously high horse you are climbing on to. So it's divisive to call Republican's "the enemy" but not to call half of your own party "a cult"? You seem quick to hold Obama supporters to a standard you don't hold yourself.

As I said, aside from terrorists and traitors, I don't think of any American as my enemy.

I may disagree with or disapprove of, or simply not like some Americans, but I think hating or classifying fellow Americans as "the enemy" is divisive.

It's revealing the truth, coming from people who support a candidate who's supposedly going to change politics, bring unity, hope, a better tone and a more productive environment to America. Republicans are not our enemy. But Obama supporters have certainly behaved as if Hillary Clinton is our enemy, so the declaration is not a surprise.

And of course I hold Obama supporters to a standard I don't hold myself on that score. I've never claimed I'm a uniter and the candidates I support are workhorse candidates who offer solutions to problems, not the Hope and Unity. That's the reason I voted for Republicans Giuliani and Bloomberg for mayor.

 

[NickCole]

Not unless they win the election.

I don't think Republicans are the enemy if they win the election. I think it's a really big mistake to classify an entire party that way. There are many Republicans I've respected, supported, voted for over the years. Partisanship is supposed to bring different views to the table, not divide our nation into enemy parties. The divide and conquer stuff of Atwater/Rove/Cheney/Bush wasn't good for our country when they did it and it hasn't been good for the Democratic Party with Obama's camp doing it. It's a winning strategy for a while but it does not result in good governing or a good quality of life for Americans.

Do you support Clinton because Rush Limbaugh asked you to?

Of course not. But I don't support any candidate because someone asks me to.

 

[Kulindahr]

Over 17 million people have voted for Clinton

And over 17 million have voted for Obama.

The longer Hillary supporters are able to vote for her in a primary, the less difficult it will be for them to support Obama in November. After all they are both Democrats, and one of them will face a Republican in November. That's right, a Republican. Now remember: that's the real enemy.

That's an interesting take. I've seen others argue that the longer Hillary stays in, the less likely any of her supporters will be to back Barrack once the election comes. Got any ideas to strengthen your view here?

 

[Kulindahr]

More of that Obama bullying, intimidation, threats to shun, if you don't join the club you'll be dismissed and won't have friends. Insecure people, people with low self-esteem, people terrified of not being liked, people with big fear and small principles will be swayed. But those with a strong character and sense of themselves reject cults like Obama's.

The Obama cult is a nasty petty . . . .
Becomes clearer and clearer why so many Democrats say they won't vote for Obama if he's the nominee. People familiar with history know what this is about and where it leads.

Your first paragraph up there is what looks "nasty", Nick. You sure you don't have your campaigns crossed?

The only reason a Democrat wouldn't vote for his/her party's nominee come the general election would be... because they're petty.