Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Calgaryborn]

First of all, you are betraying a double standard when you attack Hilliary for attempting to take pledged delegates from Obama. He has already stolen pledged delegates from Hilliary. Hilliary knows first hand the limited value of a Super-delegates promise.

Secondly, Obama won't be winning the nomination by much. Hilliary has about half the votes that were cast. Obama will be limping in on the strength of super-delegates and a decision made on the weekend which in effect awarded delegates to Obama in a State he never won one single vote in. Obama has been losing more states than he has been winning in this finale quarter. He has lost a lot of momentum in these finale weeks.

He best be pulling up his socks because with Hilliary out the media attention won't be so focused on the Democrat's party. McCain will receive a more balanced share of the coverage.

[troutman]

How many people that voted for Hillary were Republicans just making mischief?

Breaking news on TV is that Hillary is "open" to being VP.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Jeez I hope she doesn't get the VP nomination. It makes the possible assassination scenario she kept bringing up that much more chilling.

I don't get the hate on for Hillary. Politically she is very close to Obama's policies so is it just her personalty or maybe her seemingly strong support from women libbers that scares male voters. I prefer Obama but Clinton is a viable alternative.

Scarier for me is McCains VP choice as the old man may drop dead at any time.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by peter12

A nomination won strictly through "politiciking" at the Democratic Party convention would absolutely destroy Clinton's rep and set her up as a big fat target for the Republicans.

Yup She would be far better off to concede after weakening Obama enough to give the White house to McCain. In 4 years she could run again and almost certainly win her party's nomination.

A vice-Presidency wouldn't help her to the Presidency. If they won she would have to sit back quietly while Obama tried for a second term in four years. If the combined ticket lost she might have to bare some of the blame as well. By conceding now or soon and disappearing she could blame any failure on the super-delegates not heeding her warning.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't get the hate on for Hillary. Politically she is very close to Obama's policies so is it just her personalty or maybe her seemingly strong support from women libbers that scares male voters. I prefer Obama but Clinton is a viable alternative.

Scarier for me is McCains VP choice as the old man may drop dead at any time.

People dislike anyone who has such a naked ambition for power. It's not her policies and its probably not even her gender, it's the fact that she seems to so obviously be willing to do anything to become President of the United States.

[MarchHare]

a decision made on the weekend which in effect awarded delegates to Obama in a State he never won one single vote in.

Oh please.

Clinton didn't win any delegates in Michigan either, at least not legitimately. When a dictator like Castro "wins" an election with 90+% of the vote when he's the only candidate on the ballot, we criticize it as being a sham and not a real democratic process (and rightly so). But now, somehow, when Clinton "wins" the Michigan primary with only 55% of the vote when she's running unopposed, we're supposed to recognize that result as being legitimate and reward her with all of Michigan's delegates? You realize that would be punishing Obama for abiding by the rules outlined by the DNC prior to the start of the primaries, right? The very rules that all candidates, including Clinton agreed to (Clinton only flip-flopped on her respect for the rules when she realized she needed 100% of Michigan and Florida's delegates to win)? Surely you're not possibly defending that as being a fair and legitimate result, are you?

Obama has been losing more states than he has been winning in this finale quarter. He has lost a lot of momentum in these finale weeks.

And yet he's still won more states overall and with a greater percentage of the popular vote. In hockey, it doesn't matter if the opposing team scores two goals in the final minute if your team was already up by four.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Obama will be limping in on (...) and a decision made on the weekend which in effect awarded delegates to Obama in a State he never won one single vote in.

Hillary is limping on the same. In fact, she benefited more than Obama did in that decision. A few facts:
1) All parties involved agreed that those votes would not count because the state broke the rules
2) Obama removed himself from the ballot because that was part of the agreement that was reached.
3) Clinton won a very narrow majority in that vote when she was the only name on the ballot. She almost lost to 'Uncommitted'.

I see how you could think that Clinton is a strong and honorable candidate after an objective look at the facts.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by peter12

People dislike anyone who has such a naked ambition for power. It's not her policies and its probably not even her gender, it's the fact that she seems to so obviously be willing to do anything to become President of the United States.

McCain seems far worse to me. He has embraced Bush policies and his wacko religious leaders just to get the nomination

and then of course Obama has thrown his church and his pastor under the bus in his quest while Hillary has only sold out to corporate America

so pick your poison, this is politics.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

And yet he's still won more states overall and with a greater percentage of the popular vote. In hockey, it doesn't matter if the opposing team scores two goals in the final minute if your team was already up by four.

Nuh uh. Not if you only count primaries and not caucuses. And if Michigan and Florida are 100% for Clinton. And you only count the states that will matter in the general election.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't get the hate on for Hillary. Politically she is very close to Obama's policies so is it just her personalty or maybe her seemingly strong support from women libbers that scares male voters. I prefer Obama but Clinton is a viable alternative.

Scarier for me is McCains VP choice as the old man may drop dead at any time.

I don't like Hillary either, but I'd rather have her being President than Obama.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't like Hillary either, but I'd rather have her being President than Obama.

Care to explain why? (or link to a post where you previously did, since I missed it)

I like Obama best, but I was perfectly happy with Clinton as a second choice (at least until the past month or so when it was obvious she couldn't win without undermining the process, yet she refused to concede for the good of party unity). Their proposed platforms are very similar aside from a few minor details. Specifically, what is it about Obama that you dislike?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Care to explain why? (or link to a post where you previously did, since I missed it)

I like Obama best, but I was perfectly happy with Clinton as a second choice (at least until the past month or so when it was obvious she couldn't win without undermining the process, yet she refused to concede for the good of party unity). Their proposed platforms are very similar aside from a few minor details. Specifically, what is it about Obama that you dislike?

Because she has executive experience, something a lot of people think is over-rated....and because I think she would do the best job trying to fix the health care system.

Plus, her spending proposals aren't as high as Obama's are, and she isn't making ######ed comments about foreign policy ideas.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Azure

Because she has executive experience, something a lot of people think is over-rated....and because I think she would do the best job trying to fix the health care system.

Plus, her spending proposals aren't as high as Obama's are, and she isn't making ######ed comments about foreign policy ideas.

Executive experience?

IMO that argument is lame, if the President is to be a Democrat let it be Obama.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Executive experience?

IMO that argument is lame, if the President is to be a Democrat let it be Obama.

Like I said....some people think experience is over-rated. I don't.

[MarchHare]

Because she has executive experience

She does?

Last I checked, being the spouse of an executive doesn't make her an executive herself. In terms of actual experience as an elected official, he has more experience. She has eight years in the senate to his four, but prior to running federally, he was an Illinois state senator from 1996-2004.

and because I think she would do the best job trying to fix the health care system.

I'll concede this point; on an ideological level, I like Clinton's healthcare plan better than Obama's, but with the political climate in the US being what it is, I think his plan has a better chance of overcoming Republican opposition and actually being implemented.

she isn't making ######ed comments about foreign policy ideas.

To what is this referring?

[Azure]

There is no Republican opposition.

Congress is Democrat controlled.

I'm not going to argue about Obama's foreign policy...again. We've already discussed it in this thread.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Azure

Like I said....some people think experience is over-rated. I don't.

Please explain this so called "experience". Being the secular life partner of the president doesnt mean you were also president.

She might have had her hand in the cookie jar a bit more than most but it wasnt a team running it.

Does the partner of a CEO make him/her a great business magnet. Does being Wayne Gretzkey's wife make Janet a great hockey player etc etc.

She has roughly the same actual experience as Obama. I have heard this same argument before and Obama should have taken the sexist hit to stop it in its tracks but he chose not to. Being the spouse of someone (man or woman) doesnt count for your experience IMO.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Like I said....some people think experience is over-rated. I don't.

I'm sure Obama can't keep abstaining on tough votes in the White House, and a brief stint as state senator surely fulfills all the experience needed for the most complicated position in the world in the most complicated time we've ever experienced.

He means so well!

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Please explain this so called "experience". Being the secular life partner of the president doesnt mean you were also president.

She might have had her hand in the cookie jar a bit more than most but it wasnt a team running it.

Does the partner of a CEO make him/her a great business magnet. Does being Wayne Gretzkey's wife make Janet a great hockey player etc etc.

She has roughly the same actual experience as Obama. I have heard this same argument before and Obama should have taken the sexist hit to stop it in its tracks but he chose not to. Being the spouse of someone (man or woman) doesnt count for your experience IMO.

^ Another vote for McCain I'm sure.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I'm sure Obama can't keep abstaining on tough votes in the White House, and a brief stint as state senator surely fulfills all the experience needed for the most complicated position in the world in the most complicated time we've ever experienced.

He means so well!

That is kinda my point.

The upcoming presidency will probably be one of the most challenging ones in history, and I'd rather have someone experienced as POTUS, than someone with VERY little experience.