Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The Right ran on "fear" and "defamation" last election and won. Focussing on actual issues is often not the way to win, sadly.

I too am uneasy at blaming either the Democrats or the Republicans for running on the emotions of the country. I think the average person makes decisions on the margin and thus is more suceptable to emotive arguements or stances on issues. This would clearly explian Obama's popularity as one would have to admit he's pushing the right buttons with a population that's fed-up with the status quo, regardless of whether or not the nuts and bolts of his policies are even possible/realistic/or even properly fleshed out.

[Vulcan]

I liked one woman's comments after exiting the polling station that 'Obama being Moslem hurts his chances'. A lot of the electorate is damn stupid so why should candidates bother too much with issues when clever sound bites and misinformation works better.
Oh yeah, lets face it, Obama is going to lose a lot of votes because he's black. Hopefully for him the black voters can cancel it out.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I liked one woman's comments after exiting the polling station that 'Obama being Moslem hurts his chances'. A lot of the electorate is damn stupid so why should candidates bother too much with issues when clever sound bites and misinformation works better.
Oh yeah, lets face it, Obama is going to lose a lot of votes because he's black. Hopefully for him the black voters can cancel it out.

He is also going to gain a lot of votes because he is black.

Big deal.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

John Edwards has endorsed Obama. His 19 delegates (presumably) go along with that, though in theory I guess they can vote for whoever they like.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/...ama/index.html

[Azure]

So much for West Virginia.

This just keeps getting better and better.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

John Edwards has endorsed Obama. His 19 delegates (presumably) go along with that, though in theory I guess they can vote for whoever they like.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/...ama/index.html

Obama continues to pull away.

[Nehkara]

Delegate Update!

Total Delegates:

Clinton 1719
Obama 1899 (180 ahead)


Pledged Delegates:

Clinton 1445
Obama 1608 (163 ahead)


Superdelegates:

Clinton 274
Obama 291 (17 ahead)


On the strength of Edward's delegates joining his cause, Obama moves even further ahead.

[Azure]

Those super delegates could still change though.

Its not like they've voted though, and just like most of them have abandoned Clinton in favor of Obama, they could do the same thing come election.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by Azure

Those super delegates could still change though.

Its not like they've voted though, and just like most of them have abandoned Clinton in favor of Obama, they could do the same thing come election.

Not likely that the super delegates will vote against the American people. If Obama wins in pledged delegates, I think he will get the support of the super delegates.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Not likely that the super delegates will vote against the American people. If Obama wins in pledged delegates, I think he will get the support of the super delegates.

I don't think so either....but you never know what could happen.

[troutman]

Edwards will not run with Obama:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[Iggy's Forehead]

Did anybody see the Letterman where Obama did the top 10 reasons to elect him for president?

#1: Three Words: Vice President Oprah.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Delegate Update!

Total Delegates:

Clinton 1719
Obama 1899 (180 ahead)


Pledged Delegates:

Clinton 1445
Obama 1608 (163 ahead)


Superdelegates:

Clinton 274
Obama 291 (17 ahead)


On the strength of Edward's delegates joining his cause, Obama moves even further ahead.

At this point, even the highly unlikely scenario of winning 70% of the vote in all of the remaining states except Oregon (in which Obama has a 20 point lead) plus 70% of the remaining superdelegates still wouldn't be enough for Clinton to overtake Obama.

What's weird is the media's seeming reluctance to call it. If the remaining states were winner-take-all, she'd have a chance. They're not--so she doesn't.

[Calgaryborn]

An interesting article on some of the gender based rhetoric Hilliary has had to face.

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/85524/

[AnarChrist]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

An interesting article on some of the gender based rhetoric Hilliary has had to face.

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/85524/

I won't miss the endless whining from the Hillary Clinton supporters who claim misogyny at every turn, yet don't make a peep about her support of her philandering husband, and their endless threats of voting for McCain in protest of the democrats not selecting their candidate. These so called "feminists" would support McCain, and his agenda of more conservative activist judges, the repeal of Roe versus Wade, the withdrawal of federal support for programs that aid single mothers, and support the war that sends their children off to die. This protest vote would be contradict every principle they have supposedly fought for over the years. Seems like they are no where half as smart as they claim to be.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

An interesting article on some of the gender based rhetoric Hilliary has had to face.

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/85524/

Hey, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Who said that again?

There is no significant demographic of woman haters in the US.

Feminist divide over Obama:http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...807242,00.html

Here's the key question in the article: Do women have an obligation to support a serious woman candidate? Or is gender now simply an interesting but ultimately irrelevant consideration?

To be honest, people should have seen this coming. Obama ran on change, Hillary on experience. Polls throughout the past 6 months showed democratic voters thought change was more important than experience.

The majority of likely Democratic caucus-goers, 56%, believe change is more important than experience, according a December 19 ABC News/Washington Post poll of likely caucus-goers.

The five reasons Clinton lost, as per time magazine:
1. She misjudged the mood
2. She didn't master the rules
3. She underestimated the caucus states
4. She relied on old money
5. She never counted on a long haul

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2008050...kesclintonmade

[Azure]

She's going to lose because she's a poor candidate.

End of story.

[CaptainCrunch]

At the end of the day the specter of Bill Clinton had a large role in sinking her. The idea that he would be formulating policy for her, and standing behind her as the president behind the president was a very real issue, especially with Bill working the delegates in a thinly veiled power play.

Combine that with the fact that I think that American's are tired of the idea of dynastic politics and power families like the Bush and Clinton concept doomed her.

I just wasn't really impressed with her using the water works at the start of the campaign, crying just isn't presidential, and to me smacks of playing to the fairer sex.

Good riddance when she's gone, but I still think that Obama has a huge hill to climb against John McCain.

[Calgaryborn]

Wow! the issue the article raised was the unequal treatment of the candidates. Obama hasn't had the press and others calling him racial names and identify his behaviour as black behaviour. Hilliary has endured a lot from her liberal peers.
Fact is the Democratic party stands up for equal rights when it is expedient for them to do so. Situational ethics at its worst. That was the point of the article; not whether Hilliary should be winning or not.

Judging by the replies here it's obvious that Obama supporters share his double-standards.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Fact is the Democratic party stands up for equal rights when it is expedient for them to do so. Situational ethics at its worst.

Judging by the replies here it's obvious that Obama supporters share his double-standards.

For the record, I agree that Clinton has been held to an unfair standard by some.

But on what planet is that the result of Obama's double standard? What does Obama have to do with how Hillary is depicted in the media?!?

Same with the Democrats' so-called "situational ethics." It may be true--many politicians are guilty of this, including some in the GOP--don't kid yourself. But how could you conclude anything the party's ethics from the way the national newsmedia depicts candidates, or from what voters in certain states say about how they vote? That's beyond bizarre.

It's a weird world you live in--a weird, paranoid world.