Elections Clinton looking towards 2012? [Archive]

Laz

04-30-2008, 10:08 PM

I've been saying this since February.

pretty freakin sad then ...... to so deliberately put your own selfish ambitions ahead of the needs of the country.

it's the exact opposite of what being a politician is supposed to be about.

no wonder Deniise has adopted the same pouty,beyotchy immature and petty attitude. Just follow her illustrious leaders bad example. :shake:

the more i see, the more i don't like

i think it's gonna backfire on her ....... cuz i'm pretty close to reaching the conclusion that i won't vote for her EVER.

2008 ... 2012 ....... she's real close to burning any bridge she had for my vote

memyselfI

04-30-2008, 10:12 PM

Jenson71

04-30-2008, 10:16 PM

Is Hillary Clinton doing her best to get McCain elected so that she can run in 2012?

if she can't win then she can't let Obama get elected because that might basically close any presidential window she might have.

apparently Dick Morris thinks so

Why do you think that? Was there something she said?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. That lady's trouble.

DaneMcCloud

04-30-2008, 10:19 PM

So, if the Messiah doesn't get elected it's Hillary Clinton's fault? ROFL

Puleeese. Outside of Obamabots, the entire country is NOT smitten with Baarack Obama. He's going to lose and lose badly in the GE and it will not be anyone's fault but his own and the idiot Democrats who nominated him.

So let me get this straight:

If Hillary Clinton is nominated, the "smart" Democrats prevail.

But if Barack Obama wins the nomination, the "idiots" prevail?

No wonder the Democrats couldn't win in 2000 or 2004.

They're ALL idiots. :shake:

memyselfI

04-30-2008, 10:22 PM

So let me get this straight:

If Hillary Clinton is nominated, the "smart" Democrats prevail.

But if Barack Obama wins the nomination, the "idiots" prevail?

No wonder the Democrats couldn't win in 2000 or 2004.

They're ALL idiots. :shake:

Agreed. Actually, I think the Dems have been very foolish this and the last election. The party really should have done more to get Gore to run. I think he'd win in a landslide vs. McCain. As it is, IF a Democrat wins it will be by a very thin margin. And, I believe if BO gets the nod then they will lose.

Laz

04-30-2008, 10:25 PM

Why do you think that? Was there something she said?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. That lady's trouble.
yes ... he just pretty much came out and said it.

the question was something like "if you were running Hillary Clinton's election what would you be telling her to do?"

Morris says (paraphrased) "i'll be telling her the same thing that Bill is telling her. Stay in the race to get McCain elected so she can look towards 2012"

Laz

04-30-2008, 10:26 PM

Jenson71

04-30-2008, 10:27 PM

yes ... he just pretty much came out and said it.

the question was something like "if you were running Hillary Clinton's election what would you be telling her to do?"

Morris says (paraphrased) "i'll be telling her the same thing that Bill is telling her. Stay in the race to get McCain elected so she can look towards 2012"

Wow. :shake:

Mr. Kotter

04-30-2008, 10:29 PM

It's pretty obvious....that is her ONLY card. Has been since South Carolina, really.

The rest has just been a campaign to wound Obama enough that he doesn't win in November.

We better get used to President McCain....unless the American people are able to see through this bullcrap and separate Obama from his psycho/idiot pastor. I'm not hopeful at this point.... :shake:

Mr. Kotter

04-30-2008, 10:31 PM

jAZ

04-30-2008, 11:05 PM

Baarack Obama... (i)s going to lose and lose badly in the GE...
Quoted for the record.

jAZ

04-30-2008, 11:11 PM

...apparently Dick Morris thinks so
Dick Morris is an idiot with an axe to grind because he hates Clinton. Her strategy is to get elected today. I don't doubt that it doesn't hurt that it has the added benefit of giving her a shot at running again in 2012. But I think the larger purpose is to win now. Her strategy is to convince the Super Dels that he's unelectable. That helps her now and in November (for 2012).

BucEyedPea

05-01-2008, 04:02 AM

Dick Morris is an idiot with an axe to grind because he hates Clinton. Her strategy is to get elected today. I don't doubt that it doesn't hurt that it has the added benefit of giving her a shot at running again in 2012. But I think the larger purpose is to win now. Her strategy is to convince the Super Dels that he's unelectable. That helps her now and in November (for 2012).
That's what I think. I've stopped watching FOX altogether, eventhough I've watched less and less, totally because everytime I surf by it's the same story. I wouldn't be surprised if they wind up disgusting everyone so much that they push more people into Obama's camp in the end.

SBK

05-01-2008, 04:50 AM

Quoted for the record.

What's funny is that this is going to come back to life and be another 2 weeks to indictment thread, not for her, but for you. LMAO

Saggysack

05-01-2008, 05:33 AM

no wonder Deniise has adopted the same pouty,beyotchy immature and petty attitude. Just follow her illustrious leaders bad example. :shake:

Adopted? Nah, meme is just a big fan of politics of hate. Always has been. If she doesn't have something to hate about she doesn't see any value in it.

She strikes me as a very bitter, attention starved, unsatisfied person.

Ask yourself this... Who in their right mind would willingly subject themselves to the type of universal ridicule she has experienced here day in and day out? Not any of the normal people I know would.

SBK

05-01-2008, 06:03 AM

Adopted? Nah, meme is just a big fan of politics of hate. Always has been. If she doesn't have something to hate about she doesn't see any value in it.

She strikes me as a very bitter, attention starved, unsatisfied person.

Ask yourself this... Who in their right mind would willingly subject themselves to the type of universal ridicule she has experienced here day in and day out? Not any of the normal people I know would.

jAZ?

patteeu

05-01-2008, 07:58 AM

pretty freakin sad then ...... to so deliberately put your own selfish ambitions ahead of the needs of the country.

it's the exact opposite of what being a politician is supposed to be about.

no wonder Deniise has adopted the same pouty,beyotchy immature and petty attitude. Just follow her illustrious leaders bad example. :shake:

the more i see, the more i don't like

i think it's gonna backfire on her ....... cuz i'm pretty close to reaching the conclusion that i won't vote for her EVER.

2008 ... 2012 ....... she's real close to burning any bridge she had for my vote

How clear does memyselfi have to make it for people to understand that she's not really a Clinton supporter? She's just not infatuated with the Obama illusion the way so many of the rest of you are.

memyselfI

05-01-2008, 08:20 AM

How clear does memyselfi have to make it for people to understand that she's not really a Clinton supporter? She's just not infatuated with the Obama illusion the way so many of the rest of you are.

I'm 'supporting' her in so far as she is the lesser evil. If she is the nominee I would rest easier than I would for the Messiah.

I don't see that she is doing anything wrong challenging HIM for the nomination he and his supporters feel he's somehow entitled to. The party is pretty evenly split. He's failed to win a majority of DEMs and the longer primary season has exposed his weaknesses in the white vote and the DEM base.

If she exposes him as the Dukakis I think he is then it's not her fault that his Bots were too blinded to see it before it was too late.

Saggysack

05-01-2008, 08:24 AM

jAZ?

No, not jAZ.

I'm willing to bet that the majority of dems and other fill-ins don't have ill feelings towards jAZ like they do meme. meme has a majority in all groups that dislike her. And IMO it's not because of her as a person, it's because of the craptastic tactics she regularly resorts to.

patteeu

05-01-2008, 09:30 AM

I'm 'supporting' her in so far as she is the lesser evil. If she is the nominee I would rest easier than I would for the Messiah.

I don't see that she is doing anything wrong challenging HIM for the nomination he and his supporters feel he's somehow entitled to. The party is pretty evenly split. He's failed to win a majority of DEMs and the longer primary season has exposed his weaknesses in the white vote and the DEM base.

If she exposes him as the Dukakis I think he is then it's not her fault that his Bots were too blinded to see it before it was too late.

Right. You seem to be supporting her like I'm supporting McCain. I don't really like McCain very much, but I much prefer him to the alternatives.

And I agree with you about how she's not doing anything wrong here. She's playing by the rules that the democrats set up for selecting their delegates. She still has a legitimate path to the nomination and it's hard to fault her for not playing it out until that path is blocked. Afterall, more people have voted for her than any other democrat in the race during this primary season and Barack Obama has been exposed to some extent since the days when he was racking up serial victories. The super delegates are still in play and I can't fault her for continuing to make her case. I just hope she doesn't actually succeed.

patteeu

05-01-2008, 09:35 AM

No, not jAZ.

I'm willing to bet that the majority of dems and other fill-ins don't have ill feelings towards jAZ like they do meme. meme has a majority in all groups that dislike her. And IMO it's not because of her as a person, it's because of the craptastic tactics she regularly resorts to.

It's mainly because she doesn't bow to Obama. There may have been a few dems and fill-ins who expressed a negative view of her in the past, but nothing like we've seen since she failed to fall in line and accept Obama as her savior.

Laz

05-01-2008, 10:01 AM

How clear does memyselfi have to make it for people to understand that she's not really a Clinton supporter? She's just not infatuated with the Obama illusion the way so many of the rest of you are.
i disagree with this ..... she is far to militant against Obama to be a casual in her candidate stance as you suggest.

I understand if someone doesn't think Obama will be good for president. To each his/her own. :shrug:

i prefer Obama over McCain ..... but that doesn't mean i hate McCain. I don't trash McCain or have any kind of disrespect for him. He hasn't earned "hatred" and neither has Obama.

But she is so far beyond just not wanting Obama to be elected.

She is angry,hateful .... almost ready to go postal against Obama and his supporters. So either she's a "sore loser" or she's just a mean-spirited biitch.

take your pick

Friendo

05-01-2008, 10:21 AM

i disagree with this ..... she is far to militant against Obama to be a casual in her candidate stance as you suggest.

I understand if someone doesn't think Obama will be good for president. To each his/her own. :shrug:

i prefer Obama over McCain ..... but that doesn't mean i hate McCain. I don't trash McCain or have any kind of disrespect for him. He hasn't earned "hatred" and neither has Obama.

But she is so far beyond just not wanting Obama to be elected.

She is angry,hateful .... almost ready to go postal against Obama and his supporters. So either she's a "sore loser" or she's just a mean-spirited biitch.

take your pick

well put Laz--"the Messiah" that's kinda the acid-test for me. I was for Biden, but somehow because I think BO is the next closest alternative, I'm "infatuated" (pat's words) or a "Bot" (meme's term). Fact of the matter is, BC left the Dem party in shambles with his actions in the WH, and submarined any chance Gore had. Many of us defended him because we thought the Right's overwhelming hatred of the Clinton's, outweighed an embarrassing action by the Prez. Now as we've come to see, the Right's opinion of the Clinton's as power-hungry, willing to do anything or rub out anyone or anything that get's in the way of their ambition, was in fact spot on. It has been, and will continue to be for me, more about Hill (and now Bill) than it ever was about BO. I don't want or trust this f***ing shrew in the WH.

jettio

05-01-2008, 10:43 AM

The psychological autopsy on Denise is that she picks her QBs and Presidential hopefuls based on what their looks do for her hormone levels.

Once she caught a load of Johnny Edwards smile and azz wiggle, she had a second puberty, so Obama was destined to catch hell once Obama outlasted Edwards and the hot flashes replaced the acne.

patteeu

05-01-2008, 10:44 AM

i disagree with this ..... she is far to militant against Obama to be a casual in her candidate stance as you suggest.

I understand if someone doesn't think Obama will be good for president. To each his/her own. :shrug:

i prefer Obama over McCain ..... but that doesn't mean i hate McCain. I don't trash McCain or have any kind of disrespect for him. He hasn't earned "hatred" and neither has Obama.

But she is so far beyond just not wanting Obama to be elected.

She is angry,hateful .... almost ready to go postal against Obama and his supporters. So either she's a "sore loser" or she's just a mean-spirited biitch.

take your pick

Or alternatively, the Obama supporters have gone postal on her and stimulated a less charitable response.

I am actually a big fan of Ron Paul and would have happily backed him if it weren't for his misguided views on foreign policy. But that didn't stop me from being a pretty harsh critic of his campaign when he was still relevant. Part of the reason for that was the way his true believers came across from my pov. Many of them believed they were experiencing a small government revolution and lumped everyone outside their revolution into the broad category of evil/foolish big government lovers (or socialists or neocons, etc.).

The same kind of thing is going on with Obama. If you don't approve of Obama then you must be a fan of politics as usual, political dirty tricks, remaining mired in racial competition, or worse. There are two reasons to dislike Obama from my pov. First, he's been steeped in radical liberalism and I don't see any reason why I should expect that he's rejected it. And second, he's devoted to remaining politically ambiguous so that he can be whatever each voter wants him to be in their own minds. I read that and see a guy who wants to mask the fact that he's a radical liberal. Memyselfi reads that and sees a guy who isn't someone she can rely on to be a radical liberal.

jettio

05-01-2008, 10:56 AM

Or alternatively, the Obama supporters have gone postal on her and stimulated a less charitable response.

I am actually a big fan of Ron Paul and would have happily backed him if it weren't for his misguided views on foreign policy. But that didn't stop me from being a pretty harsh critic of his campaign when he was still relevant. Part of the reason for that was the way his true believers came across from my pov. Many of them believed they were experiencing a small government revolution and lumped everyone outside their revolution into the broad category of evil/foolish big government lovers (or socialists or neocons, etc.).

The same kind of thing is going on with Obama. If you don't approve of Obama then you must be a fan of politics as usual, political dirty tricks, remaining mired in racial competition, or worse. There are two reasons to dislike Obama from my pov. First, he's been steeped in radical liberalism and I don't see any reason why I should expect that he's rejected it. And second, he's devoted to remaining politically ambiguous so that he can be whatever each voter wants him to be in their own minds. I read that and see a guy who wants to mask the fact that he's a radical liberal. Memyselfi reads that and sees a guy who isn't someone she can rely on to be a radical liberal.

That woman is sick in the head. WTH are you talking about?

I put her on ignore because she has lost her mind over not getting to see little Johnny Edwards azz wiggle. She scours the internet looking to post BS stories and innuenedo suggesting that the american public is too stupid to vote for the best candidate.

You and her ought to go to the international betting sites and bet all of your spare dollars against Obama and tell us about it.

If you two want to insist that Obama won't win, make some money off of it.

BucEyedPea

05-01-2008, 10:57 AM

Many of them believed they were experiencing a small government revolution and lumped everyone outside their revolution into the broad category of evil/foolish big government lovers (or socialists or neocons, etc.).
You know what they say? Truth hurts.

Laz

05-01-2008, 11:13 AM

Or alternatively, the Obama supporters have gone postal on her and stimulated a less charitable response.
ya right ..... anyone that agrees with you is ALWAYS the victim.

you are right, everyone else is wrong

you and your side are the victims, everyone else is being stupid or unreasonable.

that's the ticket :rolleyes:

Chiefnj2

05-01-2008, 11:34 AM

...or she's just a mean-spirited biitch.

take your pick

Maybe the country needs a mean spirited bitch.

patteeu

05-01-2008, 03:25 PM

ya right ..... anyone that agrees with you is ALWAYS the victim.

you are right, everyone else is wrong

you and your side are the victims, everyone else is being stupid or unreasonable.

that's the ticket :rolleyes:

I challenge anyone to go back through all the posts of the past few months and compare the "angry, hateful" things she has said to Obama supporters to the "angry, hateful" things that have been directed at her. She's taken a lot more than she's dished out. There's really no disputing that.

ClevelandBronco

05-01-2008, 03:31 PM

...it's the exact opposite of what being a politician is supposed to be about...

It's exactly what being a politician is about.

It's not what being a public servant is about.

ClevelandBronco

05-01-2008, 03:35 PM

memyselfI

05-01-2008, 03:39 PM

i disagree with this ..... she is far to militant against Obama to be a casual in her candidate stance as you suggest.

I understand if someone doesn't think Obama will be good for president. To each his/her own. :shrug:

i prefer Obama over McCain ..... but that doesn't mean i hate McCain. I don't trash McCain or have any kind of disrespect for him. He hasn't earned "hatred" and neither has Obama.

But she is so far beyond just not wanting Obama to be elected.

She is angry,hateful .... almost ready to go postal against Obama and his supporters. So either she's a "sore loser" or she's just a mean-spirited biitch.

take your pick

Ah, but when that venom was directed at DUHbya how many of you now :deevee: were whining about that. Not many. MOF, not many of those now supporting Baarack were as hormonal about my posts re: DUHbya then they have been over BO.

The possible exception is Dirk. I think he complained I was being too hard on DUHbya. Of course Jim but then he came to the dark side. The rest of you rather enjoyed it or certainly didn't bitch and moan about it. But now that it's turned on your guy you aren't so thrilled...

so tell me, who's changed their tune?

I can look at my rep and tell you exactly who it is. Conversely, I can tell you who used to cry like pmsing bitches when I was doggin DUHbya but who is high fiving me now that the dog is the Messiah.

dirk digler

05-01-2008, 03:50 PM

well put Laz--"the Messiah" that's kinda the acid-test for me. I was for Biden, but somehow because I think BO is the next closest alternative, I'm "infatuated" (pat's words) or a "Bot" (meme's term). Fact of the matter is, BC left the Dem party in shambles with his actions in the WH, and submarined any chance Gore had. Many of us defended him because we thought the Right's overwhelming hatred of the Clinton's, outweighed an embarrassing action by the Prez. Now as we've come to see, the Right's opinion of the Clinton's as power-hungry, willing to do anything or rub out anyone or anything that get's in the way of their ambition, was in fact spot on. It has been, and will continue to be for me, more about Hill (and now Bill) than it ever was about BO. I don't want or trust this f***ing shrew in the WH.

Yep totally agree.

I wouldn't necessarily mind having a conservation with Denise if she would cut the name calling and quit calling people who support Obama "obamabots" or quit calling him "the messiah". But I don't think she can have a normal conservation without resorting to name calling.

memyselfI

05-01-2008, 04:00 PM

Yep totally agree.

I wouldn't necessarily mind having a conservation with Denise if she would cut the name calling and quit calling people who support Obama "obamabots" or quit calling him "the messiah". But I don't think she can have a normal conservation without resorting to name calling.

Not all of HIS supporters are bots. But I do think a good many of them jumped on his bandwagon without a real knowledge of who he is as a person. They are the ones who will be sorely disappointed later on.

dirk digler

05-01-2008, 04:02 PM

Not all of HIS supporters are bots. But I do think a good many of them jumped on his bandwagon without a real knowledge of who he is as a person. They are the ones who will be sorely disappointed later on.

No kidding? Listen I respect the fact that you don't like Obama and that is fine and if you want to have an honest conversation I am all for it just cut out the name calling and we're good. And I promise I will do the same.

memyselfI

05-01-2008, 04:10 PM

No kidding? Listen I respect the fact that you don't like Obama and that is fine and if you want to have an honest conversation I am all for it just cut out the name calling and we're good. And I promise I will do the same.

I don't care if you call me names, honestly. I don't take it personally. It is sure amusing to see folks try though. But I do think it's offensive to women in general when you call a woman a whore and say she loves anal just because you disagree with her politics. That was over the line and not just about Hillary Clinton.

dirk digler

05-01-2008, 04:30 PM

I don't care if you call me names, honestly. I don't take it personally. It is sure amusing to see folks try though. But I do think it's offensive to women in general when you call a woman a whore and say she loves anal just because you disagree with her politics. That was over the line and not just about Hillary Clinton.

So is that a no? I am offering you an olive branch.

I am just curious why it is offensive to women in general? I am only talking about 1 woman. Though I do know a few women that are whores and that do love anal. :)

memyselfI

05-01-2008, 04:45 PM

So is that a no? I am offering you an olive branch.

I am just curious why it is offensive to women in general? I am only talking about 1 woman. Though I do know a few women that are whores and that do love anal. :)

No, I'll take you up on your offer. I'm just pointing out that I am insulting Obama's personna that HE has created because I think he's fake and will be exposed as a fraud. He, himself, said things that got the entire Messiah label affixed to him.

"A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama" - Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.January 7, 2008.

His campaign actively worked to get that sort of movement started. They did not even remotely imagine how many folks would willingly play along and it would get out of hand and they'd have to change strategy.

Attacking Hillary using sexist terminology because of her beliefs is wrong. Just as it would be wrong for me to call Obama racist terminology because of his.

dirk digler

05-01-2008, 04:54 PM

No, I'll take you up on your offer. I'm just pointing out that I am insulting Obama's personna that HE has created because I think he's fake and will be exposed as a fraud. He, himself, said things that got the entire Messiah label affixed to him.

His campaign actively worked to get that sort of movement started. They did not even remotely imagine how many folks would willingly play along and it would get out of hand and they'd have to change strategy.

Attacking Hillary using sexist terminology because of her beliefs is wrong. Just as it would be wrong for me to call Obama racist terminology because of his.

Cool we are good then.

In regards to your quote IIRC wasn't he joking around because Hillary was saying things about him and his supporters and that lights are coming down from the sky? Or was that later?

dirk digler

05-01-2008, 05:09 PM

Denise this is why I don't like and never will support Hillary. She will say and do anything to get elected. Is that who you really want in the WH?

Not mentioned on the conference call, but making its way around the Internet on Thursday, was a story from Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign in New York, when she came out in opposition to a gas tax holiday.
It is "a bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies," Clinton said of her Republican opponent Rick Lazio's plan to repeal 4.3 cents of the gas tax.

ClevelandBronco

05-01-2008, 05:12 PM

...She will say and do anything to get elected...

It's reassuring that you've found a candidate who has led you to believe that he's nothing like that.

dirk digler

05-01-2008, 05:20 PM

It's reassuring that you've found a candidate who has led you to believe that he's nothing like that.

All politicians are like that to some degree but Hillary is probably one of the most deceitful and very untrustworthy people running for office.

memyselfI

05-01-2008, 05:23 PM

Cool we are good then.

In regards to your quote IIRC wasn't he joking around because Hillary was saying things about him and his supporters and that lights are coming down from the sky? Or was that later?

No, she said that later.

memyselfI

05-01-2008, 05:24 PM

Denise this is why I don't like and never will support Hillary. She will say and do anything to get elected. Is that who you really want in the WH?

How much was the price of gas in 2000? :doh!:

Friendo

05-01-2008, 05:52 PM

if you can prove to me that that quote from BO is legit at face value, then I'll give it another look. otherwise, I'll consider it in the same light as I do the Vince Foster conspiracy's...and the lunatics who proffer same btw.

if you don't get that in light of BC's actions as Prez, and it's effect on the Dem Party, that the Clinton's should be playing by a different (read: clean) set of rules for this Primary, then there's no basis for discussion. many of these so-called "Bots", have a moral compass, and instinctively sense that the Clinton's are navigating by the position of the sun alone. the way they've conducted themselves in this primary is all the proof I need that they are the wrong choice--never mind all of the high-profile, traditional Dems that have bailed on them. you may see us as naiive, however much truth there is in that--we see any Clinton supporters at this point as morally rudder-less.

question for you: SHOULD the Clinton's (in light of Bill's damaging actions to the Country and the Dem Party in particular) be operating on a higher plane for this Primary? Do they owe the Party a higher standard? I think a lot of people think so, myself included.

memyselfI

05-01-2008, 06:21 PM

if you can prove to me that that quote from BO is legit at face value, then I'll give it another look. otherwise, I'll consider it in the same light as I do the Vince Foster conspiracy's...and the lunatics who proffer same btw.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-obama-must-beware-of-turning-into-a-cult-787298.html

Obama has a stock line which seems to play straight into the notion that he is an instrument of the divine. To a number of audiences, he has declared: "My job is be so persuasive that if there's anybody left out there who is still not sure whether they will vote, or is still not clear who they will vote for, that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down on you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realise that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama."

To be fair to Obama, this is said in a manner which just leaves open the idea that he is not being entirely serious. Yet I don't believe that those applauding this riff see it as elevated irony – and it is slightly creepy even as a joke. Perhaps it isn't a joke at all, but completely sincere: Obama's speeches are studded with religious rhetoric. For example, last October he told an audience of 4,000 that he hoped to be "an instrument of God" and that "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth".

Friendo

05-01-2008, 06:33 PM

ok-slightly creepy I can go with--now what about my question?

memyselfI

05-01-2008, 06:52 PM

ok-slightly creepy I can go with--now what about my question?

What about the Clintons and your perception that they are doing something damaging to the party by trying to win?

I think they saw Al Gore get robbed and Kerry roll over too easy. They don't want to lose again. As a Democrat, I completely understand and appreciate their view. They delivered the WH for the Dems once and believe they can do it again. I don't begrudge them for feeling that way.

dirk digler

05-01-2008, 07:21 PM

How much was the price of gas in 2000? :doh!:

Who knows maybe $1.50 but the point remains that she was against it and now she is for it. When she says it could be a boon for the oil industry is that somehow going to magically change?

memyselfI

05-01-2008, 07:22 PM

Who knows maybe $1.50 but the point remains that she was against it and now she is for it. When she says it could be a boon for the oil industry is that somehow going to magically change?

Obama was against dumping Rev. Wright before he was for it. That change happened in 4 weeks not 8 years.

Friendo

05-01-2008, 07:24 PM

un---huh, I see. as long as Al was gettin rolled for the $10 in his wallet, no point in paying back that twenty they borrowed from him the week before. the "trying to win" is not the problem.

I'll borrow a line from Harry Dean Stanton to Jack Nicholson in The Missouri Breaks: "you're pretty far gone aintcha"?

whoman69

05-03-2008, 10:24 PM

Agreed. Actually, I think the Dems have been very foolish this and the last election. The party really should have done more to get Gore to run. I think he'd win in a landslide vs. McCain. As it is, IF a Democrat wins it will be by a very thin margin. And, I believe if BO gets the nod then they will lose.

Wow, you must have been smoking some serious dope in 2000. Al Gore!? You sound just like the Republicans from that year remebering with great fondness the presidency of Bush Sr. and getting his son nominated. Al Gore raised zero excitement in his candidacy.

The problem with the Democrats has been the representational system they have to pick delegates. How is it that McCain could win Florida which only has half their representation for breaking party rules and that propels him to the nomination while Obama wins 12 contests in a row (decisively) and can't pull away. Who was the genious that thought that system up? Just look at Georgia. Huckabee won the state by 2 % over McCain and 4% over Romney. In the delegate count Huckabee got 54, McCain 12 and Romney was shut out. On the Democratic side Obama wins 67-31% but Clinton still got a third of the delegates.

ClevelandBronco

05-04-2008, 02:40 AM

I really appreciate a guy like whoman69 who has eight consecutive posts showing up as the most recent opinion.

This is a guy who obviously knows about a broad range of subjects.

Perhaps we ought to listen to him.

ClevelandBronco

05-04-2008, 02:45 AM

Wow, you must have been smoking some serious dope in 2000. Al Gore!? You sound just like the Republicans from that year remebering with great fondness the presidency of Bush Sr. and getting his son nominated. Al Gore raised zero excitement in his candidacy.

The problem with the Democrats has been the representational system they have to pick delegates. How is it that McCain could win Florida which only has half their representation for breaking party rules and that propels him to the nomination while Obama wins 12 contests in a row (decisively) and can't pull away. Who was the genious that thought that system up? Just look at Georgia. Huckabee won the state by 2 % over McCain and 4% over Romney. In the delegate count Huckabee got 54, McCain 12 and Romney was shut out. On the Democratic side Obama wins 67-31% but Clinton still got a third of the delegates.

Nope. I was wrong.

What the hell. I misjudged Sen. Obama as well. Pretty much par for the course.

I just can't play left to save my ass.

ClevelandBronco

05-04-2008, 03:05 AM

My bad, BTW. Three of the last four for me.

I owe you one for breaking my streak, Kotter, so it's just the last two.

patteeu

05-04-2008, 09:31 AM

Wow, you must have been smoking some serious dope in 2000. Al Gore!? You sound just like the Republicans from that year remebering with great fondness the presidency of Bush Sr. and getting his son nominated. Al Gore raised zero excitement in his candidacy.

The problem with the Democrats has been the representational system they have to pick delegates. How is it that McCain could win Florida which only has half their representation for breaking party rules and that propels him to the nomination while Obama wins 12 contests in a row (decisively) and can't pull away. Who was the genious that thought that system up? Just look at Georgia. Huckabee won the state by 2 % over McCain and 4% over Romney. In the delegate count Huckabee got 54, McCain 12 and Romney was shut out. On the Democratic side Obama wins 67-31% but Clinton still got a third of the delegates.

If the democrats used a winner take all scheme, Hillary would be in the pledged delegate lead, if not the nominee already.

whoman69

05-04-2008, 11:42 PM

If the democrats used a winner take all scheme, Hillary would be in the pledged delegate lead, if not the nominee already.

I don't think that a winner take all system is the answer either. There just needs to be a system which rewards increasingly for big wins. I just can't see how Obama didn't pull away significantly when he won everything after super Tuesday up until Ohio and Texas. Prior to that Clinton was ahead in pledged delegates 818-730, but that figure includes her big early lead in superdelegates 193-106. He didn't pull ahead until Feb. 12 with the Potomac primaries. He was winning all those contests by 15 points or more yet she still managed to get 35% of the delegates. Even in the non winner take all states the Republicans had they would not have given her that many delegates. The Democrats system has it built in that in a competitive race nobody is able to pull away.

patteeu

05-05-2008, 07:37 AM

I don't think that a winner take all system is the answer either. There just needs to be a system which rewards increasingly for big wins. I just can't see how Obama didn't pull away significantly when he won everything after super Tuesday up until Ohio and Texas. Prior to that Clinton was ahead in pledged delegates 818-730, but that figure includes her big early lead in superdelegates 193-106. He didn't pull ahead until Feb. 12 with the Potomac primaries. He was winning all those contests by 15 points or more yet she still managed to get 35% of the delegates. Even in the non winner take all states the Republicans had they would not have given her that many delegates. The Democrats system has it built in that in a competitive race nobody is able to pull away.

So you don't like proportional allocation and you don't like winner takes all. Instead you're looking for the kluge of the two that gives Obama the decisive victory? Sounds like you're more interested in the specific result than the process. In that case, might I suggest that you go with winner take all in the small traditionally red states and in the states with either a very high percentage of black voters or a very low one and then go with proportional allocation in the large traditionally blue states particularly if they have a lot of union workers and a diverse voting population.

Frankie

05-05-2008, 09:47 AM

So, if the Messiah doesn't get elected it's Hillary Clinton's fault? ROFL

Puleeese. Outside of Obamabots, the entire country is NOT smitten with Baarack Obama. He's going to lose and lose badly in the GE and it will not be anyone's fault but his own and the idiot Democrats who nominated him.

I'm not as against Obama as you are. In fact I will root for him to win if he's the nominee. But the Obama phenomenon reminds me a lot of the 1972 McGovern phenomenon. George McGovern was also popular like this in the '72 primaries, especially among the young voters. He lost the general in a landslide. I prefer Hillary to Barrack for many reasons, one of which is I really believe she will beat McCain. I can't comfortably say that about Obama.

Mr. Kotter

05-05-2008, 10:30 AM

... I prefer Hillary to Barrack for many reasons, one of which is I really believe she will beat McCain.....

If the dems want to really motivate conservative voters to vote, nominating Hillary will do that more than anything else....

The ONLY way for Hillary to win in November is for a full-scale recession, or for a complete collapse in Iraq....otherwise she will be beaten, and probably badly, by McCain in November. She is hated like no one else in all conservative and many independent groups....OTOH, Obama would not be fighting that.

Frankie

05-05-2008, 11:14 AM

If the dems want to really motivate conservative voters to vote, nominating Hillary will do that more than anything else....

The ONLY way for Hillary to win in November is for a full-scale recession, or for a complete collapse in Iraq....otherwise she will be beaten, and probably badly, by McCain in November. She is hated like no one else in all conservative and many independent groups....OTOH, Obama would not be fighting that.

I think a lot of that is hype. Sure some more conservatives will come out to vote but not enough to beat her.

Rain Man

05-05-2008, 12:50 PM

I think a lot of that is hype. Sure some more conservatives will come out to vote but not enough to beat her.

She needs to worry less about conservatives than about people with ethics.

whoman69

05-06-2008, 01:36 PM

So you don't like proportional allocation and you don't like winner takes all. Instead you're looking for the kluge of the two that gives Obama the decisive victory? Sounds like you're more interested in the specific result than the process. In that case, might I suggest that you go with winner take all in the small traditionally red states and in the states with either a very high percentage of black voters or a very low one and then go with proportional allocation in the large traditionally blue states particularly if they have a lot of union workers and a diverse voting population.

The problem with most political discussion is everything has to be extremes. You can't be for gun control without wanting to take all guns away from everyone. There is a middle ground to everything. Winner takes all ignores representation while just going by representation ignores the fact that we are trying to have a clear cut mandate for a candidate.
Here is an example of a system gone wrong. In the last election there was an amendment before the voters of Colorado to split their electoral vote by representation. Colorado has 9 electoral votes. What this means is that unless a candidate gets 60% of the vote then their votes would be always split 5-4. If all states were to do this then the electoral college would almost always look like our last three elections. You would never see a candidate with over 300 electoral votes unless the election was a runaway. Let's take the same scenario with Colorado increasing their electoral vote to 10. Candidate A has won the general election 59% to 41%. Even though candidate B has had their ass handed to them in an 18% loss, the electoral votes would be split 5-5.
What I propose is a system which allows for representation without going overboard to forget the winning candidate needs a mandate. A larger portion of the delegates would go to a candidate that wins by 10%, an even larger portion for 50%. I gave an example of the election in Georgia in which Hillary was beaten by 36% points. Does she really deserve a third of the delegates. The party wants a clear cut consensus. In proposing this system I have no idea if it would help Hillary or Obama more, after all she has had some large wins as well. What it would do is create separation and allow for a consensus candidate.
I proposed a system earlier to all for the winner take all electoral college to be more representative by awarding electoral votes for states by congressional district and giving the two EV for the states' senators to the overall winner. Some pointed out that in recent elections that would have favored the Republicans. The case is only true slightly and would not always be so. I don't think that awarding all EVs for a state to someone who beat his opponent by only a percentage point is representational. It creates a false sense of mandate that we have been talking about. Yet in order to create a mandate, some sense of separation has to be instilled.

whoman69

05-06-2008, 01:48 PM

I think a lot of that is hype. Sure some more conservatives will come out to vote but not enough to beat her.

Really? Look at the results in Iowa when the general thought was that no matter who ran on the Republican side, the Democrats would win. Republicans came out in droves to vote against her, as did independents. In my caucus more than 50% of the voters were independent or Republican. Now that there is a chink in the Democrats' armor the Republicans are coming out to vote for her as the candidate most likely for the Republicans to be able to beat. When the issue of who would be running on the Republican side was undecided, Hillary got almost no independent or Republican support. You don't think that's telling?

whoman69

05-06-2008, 02:02 PM

Let's not forget what Hillary is up against here. Let's say that she wins every contest out there with 56-57% of the votes. I would say that's pretty consistent with her largest victories. She would still have to win more than 70% of the superdelegates to win the nomination. Mathematically she still has a shot to win the nomination, but does she realistically? What is she holding on for if not to cause Obama to lose in November and leave the throne open for her in 2012?

patteeu

05-06-2008, 03:13 PM

Really? Look at the results in Iowa when the general thought was that no matter who ran on the Republican side, the Democrats would win. Republicans came out in droves to vote against her, as did independents. In my caucus more than 50% of the voters were independent or Republican. Now that there is a chink in the Democrats' armor the Republicans are coming out to vote for her as the candidate most likely for the Republicans to be able to beat. When the issue of who would be running on the Republican side was undecided, Hillary got almost no independent or Republican support. You don't think that's telling?

I'm sure there are some Republicans/conservatives who think Hillary is the weaker of the two dem candidates. I disagree. I think Obama is the weaker one.

Rush Limbaugh, the highest profile conservative calling for people to cross over and vote for Hillary, specifically explains that he's not doing it because he thinks Hillary would be easier to beat. As far as I know, he doesn't take a public position on which one he thinks would be weaker.

Rain Man

05-06-2008, 09:00 PM

sportsman1

05-06-2008, 10:24 PM

Is there a middle ground to right or wrong?

Adept Havelock

05-06-2008, 10:48 PM

Is there a middle ground to right or wrong?

Considering the Dems are offering 92-00 redux and "hope", and the GOP was offering a flip-flopper, a Senator who sold out his principles, a big-government authoritarian from NY, and a big-government nanny state huckster from Arkansas, what right or middle ground are you referring to? LMAO

Frankie

05-07-2008, 02:48 PM