Who could tell Clinton to quit?

[Kulindahr]

Oh so Clintonites are "real Democrats"? And Obama is inferior for rallying independents? It's the swing voters that swing elections, not the "real" Democrats!

I think you're missing a point -- look at the sigs of the posters.

 

[AsianDream]

Oh so Clintonites are "real Democrats"? And Obama is inferior for rallying independents? It's the swing voters that swing elections, not the "real" Democrats!

By definition It's the swing voters that swing elections,

I think Clitnon should retire gracefulyl - because she won't win the democrat nomination.

But this will mean that McCain will win - so Hillary will be there to fight in 2011. Obama will just be a footnote in history as the Black president that never was.

 

[Chalchalero]

By definition It's the swing voters that swing elections,

I think Clitnon should retire gracefulyl - because she won't win the democrat nomination.

But this will mean that McCain will win - so Hillary will be there to fight in 2011. Obama will just be a footnote in history as the Black president that never was.

The fact is that Obama has a very good chance of winning the election, and he just might do it. But you are right about one thing (only!), and that is that Hillary really should bow out gracefully already. Actually, her chances of doing so "gracefully" are dimming by the minute now...

 

[MystikWizard]

I can not wait until tomorrow when Obama will receive enough delegates to clench the nomination.

 

[noah617]

I can not wait until tomorrow when Obama will receive enough delegates to clench the nomination.

I think you may have to wait just a little longer than tomorrow for that. From what I read, many of the Supers don't want to be seen as pushing Senator Clinton from the race. They will give her a day or two to bow out gracefully.

 

[MystikWizard]

I think you may have to wait just a little longer than tomorrow for that. From what I read, many of the Supers don't want to be seen as pushing Senator Clinton from the race. They will give her a day or two to bow out gracefully.

But we have no more contests left. Florida and Michigan will be decided. Superdelegates are not in her favor. She has nothing left. She lost. Plain and simple.

With that being said, the only thing she is doing is buying time in hope that a scandal will turn up, because the Reverend issues aren't sticking, as Hillary has far more baggage herself than the mud she is slinging.

 

[NickCole]

You sure you don't have your campaigns crossed?

I'm certain.

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

Well that goes along with cult thinking, that's for sure. And in my opinion an outrageous shirking of responsibility. Voters, IMO, ought to weigh each candidate for their strengths and weaknesses for the specific position they're running for.


In 1993 I voted for Republican Giuliani because I was displeased with Dinkins' performance in the job and Giuliani's personality and history seemed like it might make for a good NYC Mayor.

In 1997 I voted for Republican Giuliani because he'd done a good job so far and Ruth Messinger did not seem like she'd be an improvement.

In 2001 I voted for Republican Bloomberg because, comparing his experience with Democrat Mark Green's, I thought Bloomberg would be a more competent and effective Mayor.

There are several elements to consider in deciding which candidate to support. "D" or "R" next to the name is way down on my list.

 

[naked gent]

^^ Nick I can't argue with a voter who wishes to judge a candidate on more than just his/her party affiliation but given how you have said before that you were aware of what a disaster Bush would be as president before he was elected and that John McCain has supported Bush is most of his disastrous policies for you not to vote against McCain because your primary candidate lost means either that you are being petty or that you have overstated your belief that Bush's policies have been bad for the country.

In your case the price of consistency is a vote for Obama.

 

[MystikWizard]

given how you have said before that you were aware of what a disaster Bush would be as president before he was elected and that John McCain has supported Bush is most of his disastrous policies for you not to vote against McCain because your primary candidate lost means either that you are being petty or that you have overstated your belief that Bush's policies have been bad for the country.

Couldn't agree more. It's nothing short of petty.

 

[NickCole]

^^ Nick I can't argue with a voter who wishes to judge a candidate on more than just his/her party affiliation but given how you have said before that you were aware of what a disaster Bush would be as president before he was elected and that John McCain has supported Bush is most of his disastrous policies for you not to vote against McCain because your primary candidate lost means either that you are being petty or that you have overstated your belief that Bush's policies have been bad for the country.

I'm not interested in a discussion about Obama versus McCain unless or until Hillary Clinton suspends her candidacy. If that happens, then I will consider the two candidates.

But I'll set you straight on one thing: your conclusion that deciding "not to vote against McCain because [my] primary candidate lost means either that am being petty or that have overstated my belief that Bush's policies have been bad for the country" is silly. Anyone who can think beyond a narrow corridor knows there are more than those two possible reasons I could vote for or against McCain.

In your case the price of consistency is a vote for Obama.

Nonsense.

 

[naked gent]

^^ When the time comes,should you decide to vote for McCain, I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning.