If Barack were to lose the nomination it is hard to believe that he did so with out back room deals by the powerful Clintons. He has the most pledged delegates. He has the most popular votes. He has the most won States. He has less negatives and more favorable approving when compared to Clinon. He has taken less money from lobbyist. Obama had no part of making rules, that everyone agreed to, nor is he playing victim or advocate, because rules are not being changed.

In almost every way you can think of Obama is beating Clinton, so it is hard to think that she can win with out the stigma of being "crowned".

Now that we have spoke on why the Obama supporter would rather vote for McCain, what is up with the Clinton supporters?? They actually outnumber Obama supporters, in terms of saying they would rather vote for McCain, even though they lost virtually in every way that matters. Where does their anger stem from?? A sense of entitlement??

Now, one could say that Hillary is more experienced, along with McCain, so McCain would be the chose if Hillary was unavailable. But in all fairness John McCain doesn't know the differnce between Sunni, Shiite, Al Queada, Taliban, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard... he only has one word "extremist". And last time Hillary recalled one of her experiences... well it was completely made up. Hillary blamed this on "sleep deprivation". So between the two of them, one may nuke Afghanistan to kill Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the other, when tired, starts seeing things that are not real.
So much for experience...

Still others suggest it is all part of the Clinton 2012 race strategy. Bill is out in Indiana telling people, come on lets argue more.

Simply put this race IS over, but if Clinton stays in and raises Obama's negatives enough that her supporters feel McCain a better choice, she can help to facilitate a loss in November and run a new campaign in 4 years.

Question for debate

What factor do you believe is contributing to the fact that 28% of Clinton voters would rather vote for McCain than Obama??

Do you believe that Clinton's desire to remain in the race is to bruise Obama up as bad as possible to better facilitate a loss to McCain??

Well, you know what they say... Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

What factor do you believe is contributing to the fact that 28% of Clinton voters would rather vote for McCain than Obama??

I think a lot of people will say a lot of things while their candidate is still in the running. The real test will be determined by how much time the Democrats will have to heal the rift that's been generated by the candidates.

Do you believe that Clinton's desire to remain in the race is to bruise Obama up as bad as possible to better facilitate a loss to McCain??

Eh... again. I had a girlfriend who described the difference between men and women:

- If you screw with a man, he will beat you up.

- If you screw with a woman, she will screw your children's college careers.

Obviously, that's a generalization and not every woman is so Machiavellian and there are men who are equally Machiavellian, but it sure disturbed me when she said it.

Is it possible? Sure. I'd hate to think that anyone would do that. But again... possible.

1) I'm shocked that the number of Clinton supporters that would vote for Mc Cain is higher than that of Barak supporters. I honestly find that a bit difficult to believe. If Obama doesn't get the nomination it can only be because of Super Delegates (barring some sort of divine intervention). ... Just had a thought lol.

"The new Gallup poll says that 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Hillary and a whopping 28% of Hillary supporters would abandon Obama for McCain. Whoever wins those numbers will flatten out considerably. But starting from such high numbers is a big, big problem"

Key words being "would vote". Obama is getting a lot of support from first time voters and young voters. For a lot of Hillary supporters voting is not a new idea and they probably see it as a civic duty to vote. So instead of voting for Obama they would choose to vote for McCain; while some Obama supporters just wouldn't vote at all. Also I think there is percentage of Democratic voters that would never vote for a black person for president.

2) I think Clinton is drinking her own kool aid (think that's the expression). I think she honestly believes if she bruises Obama enough she can go to the Democratic Convention and convince the super delegates to go her way. I think she honestly believes that if she gets the nomination by any means necessary Democrats will rally behind her and she will win the White House. So no she isn't staying to facilitate an Obama loss, she actually thinks she can win.

What factor do you believe is contributing to the fact that 28% of Clinton voters would rather vote for McCain than Obama??

I don't really believe that they would rather vote for McCain, alias McBush, than for a candidate whose views and policies more closely approximate those of Senator Clinton.

Clinton supporters are angry and frustrated. Just last year Senator Clinton was touted as the presumptive nominee for the Democrats. Former President Bill Clinton's remarks about Senator Obama's "luck" in South Carolina (or whatever) were construed as racist because he compared him to Jesse Jackson. I really don't think they were racist. Senator Clinton's assertion that Senator Obama has less experience has been seen as mean-spirited. At this point it is very hard for the Clinton campaign to voice any criticism of Obama without having tomatoes or rotten eggs thrown at them.

Do you believe that Clinton's desire to remain in the race is to bruise Obama up as bad as possible to better facilitate a loss to McCain??

No, not at all. She wants to win. She is trying to expose weaknesses in Obama. I don't know of any real Democrat who would prefer to see a continuation of the Bush administration's policies during the next four years by way of Senator McCain.

At this point, I do wish it were over. I'm going to vote for the Democratic candidate regardless of whether it is Clinton or Obama, and it looks like it is going to be Obama. But I don't like the idea of Democrats handing the (Re)publicans ammunition to use against the nominee before the election.

P.E.



I don't think it was racist either, but wouldn't you agree it was racially motivated?? I mean why did Clinton pick Jess Jackson of all the candidates who have won SC. Why mention it at all , except to introduce race?? And why are Democrats who usually stand against these type tactics willing to accept it from Clinton??



Now come on P.E., it's one thing for Clinton to say she is more experienced it is quite another for her to say something like

“I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

She is going to lift Senator McCain a republican to a higher level than a fellow democrat running for President?? It's this kind of talk that makes people wonder... "wow to what extent will she go to to win" Not just her saying she is more experienced. Do you agree with the difference.

Droop, I don't like what the Clinton campaign has been saying. And that's a problem for me, because I would like to see Hillary Clinton as President.

I think that if both sides quit sniping and concentrate on the opponent the Democrats have to beat in November, we'd all do a lot better.

No, I do not lend my 'seal of approval' to the way the Clinton campaign and Hillary and particular are trying to "point out differences," especially playing up to McCain. I see it as a ploy to woo some GOP people who have reservations about McCain continuing the failed policies of the Bush administration. I don't think it is going to work, and it doesn't cast Hillary in a favorable light.

Beyond that, so Bill Clinton brought up the name of another black candidate who did well in South Carolina--so what? It's still a far cry from what Geraldine Ferraro said.

There is a degree of hypersensitivity regarding both Democratic candidates. While epithets are being thrown at Hillary Clinton on a regular basis (harpy, witch, b-word, "Crypt keeper," etc.) with eyebrows barely being raised about it, it seems like any characterizations of Barack Obama tend to garner some inference of it being racially-motivated or mean-spirited. It is hardly a balanced situation. Not to defend Hillary for what she and her campaign has done that is divisive to the party, but the situation has hardly been fair.

I could easily assert that these types of criticism and poking fun at Clinton is sexist. I guess she is supposed to change everything about herself, her laugh, her heavy calves, and get Botox injections in order to make her more attractive because she is a female. And that's about as ridiculous as Obama's critics saying 1) he isn't black enough, or 2) he isn't white enough.

I don't like the tactics of the Clinton campaign or the talking points her handlers are apparently assuring her will give her the best chance of winning. But I still like Hillary Clinton. If she doesn't get the nomination, and the probability of her winning it is at best remote, at worst a lost cause; I will be voting for Barack Obama.

I remember when George H.W. Bush called Reagan's program "voodoo economics" when he was running against him in the primaries. Nevertheless, he became Reagan's running mate and they were ultimately successful. I'm not saying that I expect Obama to choose Clinton as his running mate after all of this, but I am saying that the cliche' "politics make for strange bedfellows" is very much in play, and many, many times we have seen politicians suck it up and end up endorsing someone whose comments and tactics drew blood during the primary/caucus season.

What factor do you believe is contributing to the fact that 28% of Clinton voters would rather vote for McCain than Obama??

I think that Obama has been shown to have real negatives. Latte sipping liberals may not understand it, but blue collar Democrats (and Republicans) are genuinely turned off when a guy's pastor is yelling "Not God Bless America, God D*** America!!". Instant negative and a huge one at that.

You might argue that people shouldn't care but the fact of the matter is that some people DO care about this. It is a huge negative now and will be a bigger one in the general election.

Another factor may be veiled racism, but I discount this as too insignificant to count. Much more likely is the experience factor and John McCain's reputation (probably soon to be tarnished) as a bi-partisan agent who doesn't agree with many of the Bush policies.

Do you believe that Clinton's desire to remain in the race is to bruise Obama up as bad as possible to better facilitate a loss to McCain??

Clinton's desire to stay in the race stems from the never-brought-up fact that it is going to be just as hard for Obama to secure the nomination as it is for Hillary to do so. Both candidates must appeal to the Super Delegates. Neither can win without them. These are party insiders largely, and the Clintons have their hooks in some of them and influence with many more. Obama's popularity in the primaries is a factor in their decision, but this arcane system of super delegates was intended to thwart the will of the people to begin with. So, "Thwart away!", Hillary says. That, unlike this business with reseating the Michigan and Florida delegates, is not against the rules of the party.

I do not think Hillary wants the Republicans to win. She wants the Clintons to win. A tiger can't change its stripes.

Yep, people might be upset by a candidates associations to people like Wright... or a major endorsement from a guy who said the anti-christ was alive and walking around as a male Jew.

QUOTE

Well, now she's saying that even the pledged delegates can ignore their pledge. Also not against the rules, but highly unethical. It seems that she's willing to do what it takes to secure a party nomination even if it cements a fracture in the party itself. If it is revealed that pledged delegates ignore their pledge, I will vote for McCain.

What factor do you believe is contributing to the fact that 28% of Clinton voters would rather vote for McCain than Obama??


I don't think that number is going to hold into November should Obama become the nominee. Right now I think it's more a reflection of a very intense competition between the two Democrat camps. They both desperately want to win and there's nothing wrong with that. I think the question of electability in November is a valid question to consider for the Democrats as it was for the Republicans. I think at the end of the day that's why McCain ended up with the nomination. He was really the only candidate we had with a real chance of winning in November.



Do you believe that Clinton's desire to remain in the race is to bruise Obama up as bad as possible to better facilitate a loss to McCain??



I don't know. It could I suppose especially if it forces the Obama campaign into making some major mistakes. I've always thought a bruising primary process served to "toughen up" a candidate for the general election. But, this one is something else! I know I warned my AWOL buddy NT about what his guy was going to face taking on the Clinton political machine. Those folks go for the throat.

But, should Obama win the nomination, he's going to have to shift gears going into the campaign against McCain because McCain doesn't fight his battles the way the Clintons' do. McCain's best shot at winning is to be McCain and he's beginning to define himself that way now. He has a long and distinguished record of service to this country and established positions on a number of the issues that will be debated. Obama better be ready to define himself with specific policies, not platitudes. Otherwise, the GOP will do the same thing we did to Kerry and define him. It should be an interesting campaign, although not nearly as fun as the current Democrat food fight.


Aquilla

What suprises me is how many people thought she should be president in the first place- she is truly an awful candidate outside her party.

I don't know what it is with this cycle of Bush(I consider McSame as just a tired continuation of failed policy) and Clinton going on here in the US- a vote for Hillary or a vote for McCain is pretty much the same politics as usual between Dems and Repubs- both of which are extremely negative for the country- Hillary because of her association with bill, and McSame for his association with the same old failed policies.

McCain I can understand as a candidate being put forward by the Republican party, even though he is super lame as well- but the Dems seem to be shooting themselves in the head by even allowing Hillary the run she has had- she WON'T win against McCain, period. People just hate her too much, more than that support her in a general election.

Once again- having Clinton even in the race is the equivilent of the "Dean Scream" that torpoeded him, but instead, she torpedoes the entire chance of the presidency completely.

I blame the American voter overall as being extremely stupid, as a bloc, repub or dem, for thier continued insistance in giving us craptacular candidates.

I do like Obama though, and will vote for him.

If it is Clinton or McCain- I will vote for some offbeat third party.

What factor do you believe is contributing to the fact that 28% of Clinton voters would rather vote for McCain than Obama??

I think this boils down to two things: reputation and experience. First, let's not forget that McCain does have long-standing renown as a moderate and a "maverick". In 2000, he considered joining the Democratic Party and, in 2004, many (myself included) thought he'd be a good Vice Presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket with John Kerry. The memories of many older voters is not as short as those of many participants here. Of the two Democratic candidates, Clinton has been perceived (or painted) as the more conservative candidate and has therefore attracted more moderates - more "Reagan Democrats", even many moderate Republicans. It would be only natural for such voters to transfer their support to McCain should Sen. Clinton not be the nominee.

Had McCain been the GOP candidate in 2000 or even 2004, he would have garnered a lot of Democratic support. I don't think that much has changed, despite McCain's recent (and transparent) flip-floppery. Why do you think he was so unpopular among Republicans?

Second, I think that, to many voters, experience does matter. After eight years of a virtual amateur in office, wholly dependent on his advisers, a lot of people want a candidate who knows what the hell he or she is doing. Barack Obama simply does not have the curriculum vitae to satisfy such voters.

And, obviously, race will factor in the election - in a big way - if Obama is the nominee. I doubt many people would admit as much in an opinion poll, even an anonymous one, but racism is still rampant in our society. I suspect that the 28% shift will prove to be an underestimation (possibly a gross underestimation) should Obama become the candidate.

Do you believe that Clinton's desire to remain in the race is to bruise Obama up as bad as possible to better facilitate a loss to McCain??

No. As a few others here have said, I think she wants to win. I think she feels she's the best candidate and the candidate most likely to defeat Sen. McCain. I don't agree that she was the best candidate (I would have put Biden, Dodd, and possibly even Edwards ahead of her), but I do agree that she's the only remaining candidate that can win in the general. Sen. Clinton not only wants to see a Clinton back in the White House, she wants also wants to see a Democrat back in the White House - and I think she's correct in assuming that she is the best remaining candidate to make it so.



You know, before people start criticizing a system, they should know what the system is. The "pledged delegates" (who used to be known as "state delegates", "base delegates", or even, simply "delegates"), have sworn no oath. They vote according to the will of their state's voters on the first ballot and the first ballot only (and, even then, it is only a matter of conscience). If there is no clear winner on the first ballot - and if Clinton remains in the race until the convention, there will not be - they can vote for any candidate on the second ballot, even Mike Gravel. Now I'm sure Obama supporters will argue that only delegates casting votes for Clinton should change their vote on the second ballot, but that's not the way it works. A national party convention is its own democracy. The base delegates can do whatever they damned well please - and most of them shift their vote toward the candidate they feel has the best chance of winning the nomination, the general election, or both. The PLEO delegates may not even figure.

So, I hate to break it to you, entspeak, but numerous "pledged delegates" will have to "ignore their pledge" - according to the party's rules. Obviously, if they change their vote from Clinton to Obama on the second (or third or fourth or fifth) ballot, there will be no crime. But if they change their vote from Obama to Clinton, the Democratic Party will fracture, the four horsemen of the apocalypse will ride forth bringing about war, famine, and pestilence, and the world will come to an end. Either way, you'd better start preparing your McCain vote because, one way or another, "pledged delegates" are going to ignore their sacred vow: according to the rules, they must. (Unless you mean you won't vote for McCain if they "ignore their pledge" the way you want them to - in which case, your principles speak for themselves.)

One of the most amusing aspects of Obama supporters' ignorance of the process is the recent insistence that the PLEO delegates vote according to "the popular vote". Of course, this is yet another instance of the Obama camp wanting to force a rule change in the middle of an election, but we'll let that hypocrisy pass. If we look at the states that have held primaries so far (and that means including all of the Republicans that voted in open primaries - and let's not forget that the "Democrat for a Day" strategy originated not with Rush Limbaugh, but with the Obama campaign), that would mean Obama would have 330 "superdelegates" and Clinton would have 329. Were Sen. Clinton to take Pennsylvania, she'd have 349 to Obama's 330. Of course, it's unlikely that the DNC will change its rules in the middle of an election cycle, no matter how stridently Obama supporters make such demands, but it would be hilarious to see so many of Obama's key endorsers - Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Bill Richardson, possibly Bob Casey, being forced to vote for Clinton - at the insistence of Obama supporters. Ignorance, they say, is bliss. But it's still ignorance.

An assumption that undermines your previously expressed view that sexism, not racism, is the greater evil in this campaign:

(emphasis added)

So despite your claim that the U.S. is more sexist than racist, you claim Clinton is more electable than Obama. Curious. Apparently, you and Reverend Wright agree that American racism is systemic, entrenched and static. Who knew?

Your analysis also glosses over an inconvenient truth, Wertz. Merely putting a woman in the place of a man means little if she governs no differently than the testosterone-filled male that preceded her. Hillary Clinton is our Margaret Thatcher. Obama supporters are constantly accused of being so only because he is Black. Conversely, it is equally valid that Clinton supporters do so only because she is a woman.

I am a supporter of Obama because I believe he is the right person to lead the country at this time. He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to start over, and to do better. It is a deep sadness to me that many of my feminist white women friends cannot see him. Cannot see what he carries in his being. Cannot hear the fresh choices toward Movement he offers. That they can believe that millions of Americans –black, white, yellow, red and brown - choose Obama over Clinton only because he is a man, and black, feels tragic to me.

When I have supported white people, men and women, it was because I thought them the best possible people to do whatever the job required. Nothing else would have occurred to me. If Obama were in any sense mediocre, he would be forgotten by now. He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. We look at him, as we looked at them, and are glad to be of our species. He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change America must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves.

It is hard to relate what it feels like to see Mrs. Clinton (I wish she felt self-assured enough to use her own name) referred to as "a woman" while Barack Obama is always referred to as "a black man." One would think she is just any woman, colorless, race-less, past-less, but she is not. She carries all the history of white womanhood in America in her person; it would be a miracle if we, and the world, did not react to this fact. How dishonest it is, to attempt to make her innocent of her racial inheritance.

I can easily imagine Obama sitting down and talking, person to person, with any leader, woman, man, child or common person, in the world, with no baggage of past servitude or race supremacy to mar their talks. I cannot see the same scenario with Mrs. Clinton who would drag into Twenty-First Century American leadership the same image of white privilege and distance from the reality of others' lives that has so marred our country's contacts with the rest of the world. link

Alice Walker is the author of one of the greatest works of feminist fiction and the triumph and empowerment of women--specifically Black women--in The Color Purple. I do not recall her taking such a public stance to support any politician--Black or White, male or female--prior to this beautifully written piece. Not that I needed the reassurance, but Walker's endorsement of Obama confirms to me that he will be a ardent defender of all rights regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or class. As a child of White privilege and corporate power, I cannot say I trust Mrs. Clinton to do likewise.



Only if the Democrats want to guarantee a McCain presidency; a suicidal scenario you suggested in another thread. Fortunately, the polls reflect a bit more practicality than that:

In a Gallup poll released yesterday, 59 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans said they believed Obama would be the stronger nominee in November.

William E. Nelson Jr., a professor of political science at Ohio State University, said the shift in superdelegate support toward Obama reflects a belief among leading Democrats that Obama would have a better chance in November.

"Part of Clinton's strategy was to convince people that Obama was not electable," Nelson said. "But given the kind of campaign that he has run and the grass-roots support he is receiving, he seems to be far more electable than she is." link

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll mention I know Dr. Nelson as a grad of OSU and his former status as a associate member of the Columbus Association of Black Journalists. The guilt-by-association segment of the populate may deduce this means Dr. Nelson is in the bag for Obama, but I believe he is providing his professional and not his personal opinion.

Despite Bill's claims to the contrary, there is a third candidate who loves America and is a Democrat in good standing as well. His name is Barack Obama if an introduction is required.



Does that mean lions will lie down with lambs and Coke will turn into Pepsi, too?

Presently Hillary still leads Barack in the pledged superdelegates count 250 to 217, but Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar recently endorsed Obama joining Claire McCaskill, Janet Napolitano, and Kathleen Sebelius as other prominent female Democrats who don't think the world will end if Hillary isn't the nominee. Klobuchar makes the 17th Democratic Senator to endorse Obama over Clinton's 13. These are the people who work with both of them the most and apparently more of them agree Obama is the one and Clinton is not.



Speaking of ignorance, how dumb do you think members are Wertz, that they can't spot the difference between a flyer made on somebody's cheap home printer an official and authorized one from the Obama campaign. There is ample evidence Limbaugh has directed his listeners to vote for Hillary and as I have detailed previously in Mississippi, the bulk of her White support came from crossover votes. Man, you are reaching.

Your Pennsylvania delegate math is interesting but flies in the face of every other analysis I've seen or do you anticipate Clinton winning by over 50 percentage points? She leads Obama by 11 points prior to the April 22nd primary. Nobody expects him to win Pennsylvania, but is there any doubts he will narrow her lead to under double digits?

Since Super Tuesday on Feb. 5, a total of 64 superdelegates have announced their support for Obama, compared with just nine for Clinton, who has also been aggressively courting them. That trend is increasing pressure on Clinton, who trails Obama in two other important benchmarks - total delegates and the overall popular vote - to consider stepping aside.

Before Obama began cutting into Clinton's lead among superdelegates in recent weeks, he and his campaign suggested that superdelegates ought to endorse based on how their states voted. But once Obama began picking up key superdelegates from states he did not win - including Kerry and Senator Edward M. Kennedy in Massachusetts, where Clinton won handily on Feb. 5 - that argument faded.

Though every superdelegate matters in a close race, Obama's most significant recent endorsements are Richardson, whose stature in the Democratic Party lends his preference additional weight, and Casey, a freshman senator who hails from a well-known Democratic family in Pennsylvania, where Obama is trailing Clinton by double digits in the polls heading into the state's pivotal April 22 primary. link

Whoops! This poll has Clinton's lead down to five points. Sorry about that.

I still think Clinton is going to win Pennslyvania, but not nearly by enough to change the dynamics of the race. Of course, I also thought Obama was going to win New Hampshire, so what do I know?

In the campaign, yes. In the actual vote, I've always maintained that Clinton is the more electable candidate. Key quote from the post you cited:
People can refer to Hillary Clinton with any derogatory slur for or stereotype of "woman" under the sun - with perfect impunity - and have done so frequently. But God save anyone who would use a racial slur or stereotype in reference to Sen. Obama. God save anyone who even mentions his race (I guess Emanuel Cleaver is an unregenerate racist now, too). Such a double standard could have a huge impact on a campaign and I believe, in this case, it has. But when it comes to actually electing a candidate, I have serious doubts about how many people will go for the "black candidate". All those slurs and stereotypes are lurking right beneath the surface of the (non-black) American psyche, whether any dare utter them or not, and they will have an impact on the vote. Hillary Clinton, personally, has confronted and risen above many of the female stereotypes - or used some of them to her advantage - and could be elected in spite of being woman. Barack Obama isn't even able to raise many of the African-American stereotypes, never mind addressing them.

The gender prejudice has, to an extent, protected Obama from racial prejudice so far. With the maipulative, race-baiting ice queen to kick around, the Republican Noise Machine has given Obama a relatively free pass. With Clinton out of the equation, though, where do you think the GOP is going to go? To the high moral ground?


Who knew? Anyone who's read my previous posts on Rev. Wright - in which I've stated that I agree with some of his positions and feel that many of them are at least worthy of debate. Further, anyone who doesn't know that I believe racism is systemic and entrenched hasn't read any of my posts on race issues - a forgivable oversight, to be sure, but I question your mock surprise. I don't know that racism is necessarily static, though - some progress has certainly been made over the past few generations, especially in legal terms (on paper, anyway), but it seems to have been slowest in sociological terms. I don't believe we've evolved enough as a nation to elect an African-American president - at least not one without considerably more (or more apparent) cross-over appeal on specific issues. I could be wrong - and would be very encouraged if I were proved wrong - but I'll believe it when I see it.

People wearing their sexism on their sleeve has one advantage: they are less likely to lie to pollsters about their sexism than they are about their racism. It's okay to say you don't think a woman would make a fit president - not so much when it comes to a black president. There is no real equivalent to The Bradley Effect for women. And that is why I think the 28% shift to McCain may be an underestimation.


We're really starting to stray from the topic here, but such a calumny can't stand. "Hillary Clinton is our Margaret Thatcher"? You have got to be kidding, nighttimer. We both lived through the Thatcher years (though, residing in Ireland at the time, I was possibly more immersed in them) and we both know that Hillary Clinton is no Margaret Thatcher. We know that. When it comes to the admittedly stereotypical "women's issues" - kitchen table issues like health, education, and unemployment - as well as "nurturer" issues like human rights and the environment - There. Is. No. Comparison. Like many Obama supporters, you may wish to characterize Sen. Clinton as bloodthirsty hawk, but even in this regard there is simply no comparison. And in terms of economic policy, they are miles apart.

In any event, I certainly don't think Clinton is more electable because she is a woman - and don't feel anyone should use that as their sole basis for supporting her. But I believe she is, in part, the more electable candidate because she's white (or, to be accurate, not black). Gender can serve as an effective weapon in a campaign, but I don't think it would outweigh race in the voting booth - especially not with Hillary Clinton as the "gender-challenged" candidate in question.


The suicidal scenario I was suggesting was the nomination of Sen. Obama. This point can be taken up in that thread. (In fact, I interrupted my response there to respond here. )


Or they agree that Obama is getting better press and that he is the more politically expeditious candidate with whom to associate themselves at this point. These are politicians we're talking about, right? Regardless of their current endorsements, they will all rally behind whoever the convention nominates. But if Obama is so clearly "the one" (wasn't that Nixon's slogan?), why have so many of them waited so long to cast their lot with him? At least Ted Kennedy seemed to be endorsing Obama out of some sort of political conviction following the South Carolina primary, but I am somewhat suspect of the conviction of those who put off their endorsement until after Obama was leading in the delegate count.


Sorry - I thought that was the most graphic link. It was produced by an Obama precinct captain in Nevada - and the Obama campaign has acknowledged as much. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether it was engraved on quality card stock or scrawled on construction paper with a crayon. A similar campaign was launched by ObamaFlorida2008 nearly a year ago. They produced a video called "Be A Democrat for a Day", which has since disappeared from YouTube, as well as bulk email instructing voters on how to register or declare and online instructions. Their site has since been taken down. But Sen. Obama himself appeared in a video last month directed at Pennsylvania voters:
Not only is this clearly soliciting the participation of non-Democratic voters in the Democratic primary, but the implication that you must re-register as a Democrat "if you want to vote in the Pennsylvania primary" at all is also more than a bit misleading.


Uh, no - I was only talking about what the "superdelegate" breakdown would look like if some Obama supporters got their wish and PLEO delegates were forced to vote according to "the popular vote" of their state. The figures I cited reflected that absurd scenario and that absurd scenario only. As you noted yourself, the argument that PLEO delegates "ought to endorse based on how their states voted" disappeared from the official Obama campaign rhetoric once it started to look like such a strategy might backfire - though the talking point is still alive among many Obama supporters who haven't got the memo.

Anyway, as I've said repeatedly, I don't think the PLEO delegates will figure that prominently at the convention - or, at least, their votes won't. Their lobbying could well come into play on second and third ballots, but it's impossible to predict on whose behalf any of them will be lobbying come August. And that's why I feel that, if the convention were to go with Clinton, it would be relatively bloodless, with little (if any) lasting damage.


I think she'll still take Pennsylvania, as well - though probably not by the "double digits" predicted by Sen. Murtha - but the primary is still a few weeks off and anything could happen in the meantime. And you're right: it won't change the dynamics of the race. The fact will remain that neither candidate has the requisite number of delegates to win on the first ballot. Dragging this back toward the topic, I think Clinton could carry Pennsylvania, Florida, and probably Ohio in the general election; I'm not so sure Obama could (indeed, I've already heard a few Obama supporters writing off Florida to McCain and even expressing concern about Michigan). And it will, again, be the larger battleground states that will be decisive in November. There are a lot of blue collar workers in these states, a lot of veterans, a lot of older voters, and, yeah, a lot of women. Many of these people could easily go for either Clinton or McCain. In those states, though, it would be a tough, uphill battle for Obama.

Well, I hate to break it to you, Wertz, but unless Edwards never releases his delegates by officially dropping out, there will be two candidates at the convention. This means one of them will get enough delegates on the first ballot to achieve the nomination. It will be impossible for it to be otherwise. There will be no need for a second ballot. So, the numerous pledged delegates should vote according to the will of their state's voters on the first ballot. If they don't, I will vote for McCain.

If they do not seat the Florida and Michigan delegates - which they should not - then the amount of delegates required for the nomination decreases. While the convention may be contested, there is no possibility that it will be brokered unless Edwards never officially drops out. So, before you start calling people ignorant and questioning my principles, perhaps you should learn the basics of mathematics. Odd numbers do not divide evenly. How's that bliss right about now? Feeling pretty good?

What factor do you believe is contributing to the fact that 28% of Clinton voters would rather vote for McCain than Obama??
McCain is a Hispanic magnet equal to Hillary while Obama isn't. There are more women than blacks that are voting based on gender/race factor. There are many white Democrats that do not support Obama's minister's position nor agree with Obama's explanation for staying in the church.


Do you believe that Clinton's desire to remain in the race is to bruise Obama up as bad as possible to better facilitate a loss to McCain??I think she will make him unelectable, she wants to win and will be quite happy to present general election negatives of Obama for the party to consider when considering electability. If you look at the matter from the outside without a dog in the race you can clearly see the Democratic Party desires Obama to be the candidate because is is further to the left than Senator Clinton. Just days ago party leadership was saying the pledge vote should force the super delegates to vote with the folks and not use their judgment. This was Speaker of the House until yesterday when she changed her position when she indicated Super Duper Delegates should use judgment verses the popular vote/pledge delegates majorities. It is clear that party leadership has questions on the damage done by Rev. Wright to Obama and other unknowns that may be learned following his nomination. If you look at unfavorable rankings in polls in the general election Obama still has a lot of problems, these negatives will be expanded in the general election cycle regardless if he is nominated early in July or later in Denver. Clinton will be the nomination because it is a Democratic year to win and she will win whereas if Obama is the nominee he will be talking about race until he loses the election.

I'm no expert on the DNC rules for this year's convention, perhaps you can direct me to them. But, I'm not sure that a delegate has to vote for an "official candidate". In past conventions sometimes delegates would vote for a "favorite son" like their governor in order to gain leverage in subsequent ballots. I could for example see maybe some super delegates from New Mexico voting for Bill Richardson or Virginia delegates voting for Mark Warner, maybe in the hope of securing him the VP slot with either Clinton or Obama. Not sure if this sort of thing is still allowed or not, but it sure would make for an interesting food fight.


Aquilla

Assuming John Edwards officially drops out. As it stands, his delegates can vote for anyone they want - technically, it should be Edwards, but it can be whoever he endorses (assuming he makes an endorsement) or any other candidate. If his delegates don't decide the first ballot, the convention will be brokered.


So if Ted Kennedy votes for Barack Obama, you're voting for John McCain?


I would personally agree that the Florida and Michigan delegates should probably not be seated (though that would bode very ill for Obama were he to be the nominee, as it looks like he will be), but, were I a Democrat, I'd support whatever decision the rules and credentials committees make.


And he's shown no sign of doing so yet.


The "ignorance" referred to those insisting that the PLEO delegates must vote according to "the popular vote" - I did not realize you were among their number (especially since even the Obama campaign itself has stopped pursuing that rule change). You do realize that if Pennsylvania goes for Clinton and the remaining states break more or less even, that a majority of PLEO delegates would have to vote for Sen. Clinton, regardless of who they've endorsed, right?

The question of principles was - and remains - conditional. If you're planning to vote for McCain should a single "superdelegate" from a Clinton state go against the popular vote in that state and vote instead for Obama, your principles (such as they are, being dictated, it would seem, by the actions of people doing what they're supposed to do rather than breaking the established rules) would remain intact. If, like many, you are exercising more than one standard in this regard, well...

I think the vote should be determined by the standing convention rules (I thought that's why rules were established): the state delegates vote on the basis of the primaries of their respective states and the PLEO delegates vote as they please. Again, though, I suppose one of the committees could change the rules at the convention and, were I a Democrat, I'd accept that decision. But the convention process itself - especially if conducted according to the standing rules - will not affect my vote one jot. I doubt the candidate him- or herself will affect my vote much, either. I will not be casting a vote for John McCain no matter who the Democrats choose. And, sorry, I do find it a bit, well, silly to vote for McCain simply because either Clinton or Obama be chosen by means of which one disapproves. To me, it is ultimately the candidates that figure in an election, not how or by whom they were selected. If how each "superdelegate" votes - regardless of who they choose - is one's sole criterion for casting a vote in the general election, then I couldn't take that voter seriously at all. We're electing our next Commander in Chief, not our next Homecoming Queen. I'd like to think that peoples' decisions are not so frivolously determined. I thought most people took this process seriously - and, yeah, my ignorance in that regard was relatively blissful.



According to the Call for the 2008 Democratic national Convention, a "presidential candidate" is:
When it comes to the actual nomination process, names must be submitted to the Chair during the convention:
So ti doesn't look like the favorite sons have much of a chance any more. Edwards, though, could easily figure on a ballot or two.

Well darn. Leave it to the Democrats to spoil a perfectly good food fight. Whatever happened to the good ole days of wooden ships and iron men?

Going way back, I remember watching the Republican Convention in 1964 when the name of one of the elder statesmen of the party at the time was placed into nomination. I forgot his name but he was a retiring governor. Some of his friends in the party nominated him so the convention delegates could cheer for him in front of his kids and grand kids. I thought at the time how cool that was. What a nice way to say, "thank you" for a life of public service. We seem to have lost something since those days.......

Aquilla

1) McCain is a pretty liberal Republican and a populist. If you saw CNN today, you'll know that HC and Obama both had tens of millions in earmarks; McCain had zip. A good sell. But, poll numbers are one thing, real behavior another--we'll see.

2) Before she can get to McCain, she has to beat Obama. She is doing all she can to beat Obama. This is not unusual at all. If she gets the nomin, then she'll beat on McCain. She wants to WIN.

If he drops out and releases his candidates, they are free to vote for whomever they want. He has an even number of delegates. He has 16 delegates. The vote would have to be that close in order for their to be a brokered convention. It would have to come within the number of Edward's delegates. Chances are it will not be that close and someone will have the 50% plus 1 to win. Chances are greater that Edwards will drop out after the primaries are over (at the latest) and release his delegates. He may endorse someone - and if his wife's recent words are any indication, that will be Clinton. But the chance of it going past the first ballot is extremely, extremely unlikely.



What are you going on about, Wertz? Ted Kennedy is an unpledged PLEO. There are two kinds of PLEOs... pledged and unpledged. The pledged PLEOs are the ones that were included on the ballot. They pledge support for a particular candidate and the voters of the state select them to go to the convention. Then there are unpledged PLEOs who are free to vote for the candidate of their choice. Now, I am and have always been referring to pledged delegates, those selected by the voters to support a particular candidate. Those delegates should vote for the candidate that they were selected to support at the convention. The Rules of the Convention also state this:



Does this mean that it is required? No. That is the open secret.

What I am saying is that if delegates reflected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate do not reflect the sentiments of those who elected them, I will vote for McCain.



Pledged PLEO delegates should vote according to the will of those who elected them. Unpledged PLEO delegates can vote for whomever they choose. I would hope that they would vote with the popular vote, but they may do as they wish.

But Clinton is going after pledged delegates. Those that I voted for solely because they supported a particular candidate.



Should a single pledged delegate, Wertz... emphasis on the pledged. PLEDGED, PLEDGED, PLEDGED.



If a candidate is nominated against the will of the people, that is not a party I want anything to do with. Unpledged delegates are a wildcard and I'm willing to accept that, but pledged delegates are a different story entirely. If a candidate is willing to undermine the will of the people in order to achieve that nomination, that is not a candidate I can support. I don't find that silly. How would I be able to trust such a candidate? We have had 8 years of a President who has shirked the will of the people. I will be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils - the candidate I don't trust the least... and I trust Clinton about as far as I can throw her. If I'm going to have to deal with another 8 years of dealing with President I don't trust, I'll go with the devil I know.


And to me, going after the pledged delegates of your opponent says a lot about a candidate.


Pledged, wertz, pledged, pledged, pledged. I said pledged - and I've never said anything other than pledged. And now I make frivolous decisions?



And now I don't take this process seriously?

I would think that someone who took this process seriously would at least be aware things like the difference between pledged delegates and unpledged delegates.

I don't think there's any doubt that HC is in it to win it, this year. As many have posted, she will do anything and everything to win, regardless of the collateral damage it might cause the dems. This is not about what's good for the party, country, or anyone else. It is all about what's best for HC. Period!

As for HC supporters who would jump to McC instead of BO, well that's nothing but sour grapes. There is a certain portion of her supporters who believe she is absolutely entitled to the presidency, just as she does. And they would never vote for the upstart nobody who upended her dream. That 28% is of the same mold as HC, it's all about them.

What factor do you believe is contributing to the fact that 28% of Clinton voters would rather vote for McCain than Obama??

First off, excellent topic. THE Factor that has the most influence in regards to this phenomenon, is the fact that this is such a contested race. Had it not been a close race, one of the parties would've settled for second place, or at least, a cabinet position in the winner's administration. Huckabee's concession speech is a fine example of that to a "T." However, as the race has progressed for the democrats, the lines have become a bit more pronounced with people who like her experience, and who chafe at his supposed "inexeprience." Obama supporters don't like her ability to speak out of both sides of her mouth when it comes to issues like NAFTA. She comes off to them as insincere, and someone who expected a coronation, not a campaign. What does all that add up to? Dedicated and opinionated supporters who view the other person as the antithesis of what they want in a candidate and who would be likely to vote republican, no matter how bad, than a democrat who beat their candidate, no matter how good.

Do you believe that Clinton's desire to remain in the race is to bruise Obama up as bad as possible to better facilitate a loss to McCain??

This phenomenon goes both ways, hate to tell ya. While 19% of his supporters is smaller than hers that would defect, it is still a sizable number to consider in a general election. I don't believe that the answer to the question here posed is "yes." This woman has been a fighter her entire life. How many campaigns has she worked in? Did she give up during the Ken Starr fiasco? Quitting and boqwing out are not in the Clinton lexicon. They are very competitive, something that is almost innate with them like competition was with the Kennedys, from backyard touch football to politics. You don't switch the "off" button after spending many years in close campaigns and fights that mirror, and in some cases, make this competition look like small 'taters.