[Precturge]

Which of them would you prefer in a head to head vote?
Hilary or Obama




(Thanks Brooklyn)

[Swidemaiskikemu]

i think i'd prefer hilary, because she's a woman

[ProomoSam]

Des the mis-spelling of Hillary's name in the title of this thread exhibit a bias towards Obama?

[uniopaypamp]

Don't wonder why one of the names is italicized, or you'll give away how you voted.

[flnastyax]

Des the mis-spelling of Hillary's name in the title of this thread exhibit a bias towards Obama?

Nah.

Neither does first-name vs last-name.





This would probably have been bias:

[apodildNoli]

I'd voted for Obama.

Clinton should just throw in the towel because the odds are stacked against her.

[estheticianI]

See, in the USA we have this odd tradition involving Conventions where political candidates and policies are decided. If y'all look at the calendar you'll see it's merely April 1 -- and in the past a Presidential candidate has rarely been decided prior to sometime in May, if not much later.

The first Presidential campaign where I got out and worked for a candidate was back in '68. I coudn't vote yet, but there was this guy named Bobby Kennedy who seemed like the Savior come to earth, and in my home state of California it looked like he was going to pull off a big win early in June of that year. So I walked the neighborhoods and tried to get folks to come out to vote. Bobby won the vote that day in California. But things went downhill from there. And let's not even tlak about the Convention later that summer.

For those who can count it appears that neither Obama or Clinton will have wrangled enough delegates via primaries / caucuses to sew up the nomination prior to the Democrat Party Convention coming up in August. The process needs to play out.

Lots of things can happen in a few months time.

[Angry White American]

A snooze-fest for me. Am not thrilled with ANY of the candidates, on either side. Certainly we can do better than THIS. Can't we??

[zU8KbeIU]

Far from a snooze-fest for me. There is one candidate out there who is more inspiring than either Hillary or the unmentioned John, on the other side of the Party divide. Of course that candidate is Barack (pardon my departure from the 'Obama' tag in the thread title).

Although Hillary has the right to battle to the end, and "horror of horrors," make for a deadlock at the convention, I think she has already accomplished what Republicans needed, the unthinkable bludgeoning of the Party as it turned on itself with her relentless push to discredit her Democratic opponent. And not because Barack deserves it, but because he is in her way. This may all serve her well if she succeeds, but more likely she has also laid the foundation for her own demise.

• If Barack is not experienced enough, how would she stack up to John? Although younger than John, the senior moments and crotchety behaviour he has frequently illustrated would not be held in relief with Hillary speak, and her profile among younger and new voters.
• And while she can claim to be an opponent to President Bush's war in Iraq once the intelligence was disproven, it is far less dramatic, again by degrees, from Barack versus John, since Barack opposed the war in Iraq at the outset.

Hillary knows that John still supports an illegitimate Iraq war, that continues to drag down America in a number of areas from economic to world leadership. But as her husband, and former President Bill relates, they like and respect each other a great deal. Curiously, Hillary was so confident that she and John were better positioned to be President, that she created that 'threshold' (aka 'barrier') argument, in which she determined that Barack not only did not make the grade for President, but later, did not yet make the grade for Vice President. Not a very normal thing coming from a so-called Democrat, and it won't be forgotten.



Courtesy nymag.com

That threshold argument could have also applied to her husband if it actually was based on experience rather than the code words that some saw. Without Bill in office the rest of the charade would also fall apart. She wouldn't have been First Lady. She couldn't have then stretched the First Lady duties as executed by her, that turned into a fantasy world of dodging bullets and conducting negotiations in troubled areas of the world. And who backed her up on all this rubbish? Not those that were there, but good old Bill, who knew better. I am sure her colleagues must have fallen over in laughter after hearing all this, not once, but at least three times before visual and other evidence exposed her unmercifully. Is that what you want from your Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party?

Meanwhile we have heard that not only Hillary but also John having disrespect for the young upstart from Illinois. Such convergence. There are many other distinguished Senators that have endorsed Barack, but then again. none of them have that threshold magic that both Hillary and John currently have, so what does any of that matter?

Hillary, you might consider - aside from Bill - JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, and even Abe Lincoln as candidates that didn't have enough of what you call experience to allow them to become Presidents. They seem like they were more than capable of handling crisis and the rigours of office. Or how about elective office? Barack actually has had more legislative experience than you have based on combined years, and at both the state and national level, not just the latter.



Time Magazine / Courtesy deplique.net

America has an opportunity to turn a page to a newer, younger, and potentially more vibrant leadership in Barack. And I hope that voters can see through all the distractions and rhetoric and make it happen. Or find yourself years later, wondering why you didn't.

[WaysletlyLene]

Certainly we can do better than THIS. Can't we??

Who?

[Faungarne]

Zippy the Chimp for Prez!!! ^^^

[casinobonbone]

Who?

Brenda Vaccaro

[bribiaLaubysdggf]

Bob's view of the 2008 elections:

[entaifsfets]

Zippy can be the president of the government of himself !

[Anavaralo]

See, in the USA we have this odd tradition involving Conventions where political candidates and policies are decided. If y'all look at the calendar you'll see it's merely April 1 -- and in the past a Presidential candidate has rarely been decided prior to sometime in May, if not much later.

The first Presidential campaign where I got out and worked for a candidate was back in '68. I coudn't vote yet, but there was this guy named Bobby Kennedy who seemed like the Savior come to earth, and in my home state of California it looked like he was going to pull off a big win early in June of that year. So I walked the neighborhoods and tried to get folks to come out to vote. Bobby won the vote that day in California. But things went downhill from there. And let's not even tlak about the Convention later that summer.

For those who can count it appears that neither Obama or Clinton will have wrangled enough delegates via primaries / caucuses to sew up the nomination prior to the Democrat Party Convention coming up in August. The process needs to play out.

Lots of things can happen in a few months time.

True but in this country everyone is suppose to vote once, except if your one of about 800 so called superdelegates that get to vote twice. The convention system is fine, superdelegates are not. The party that says its for the people seem to not want to have equality among the people

[penpizdes]

If y'all look at the calendar you'll see it's merely April 1 -- and in the past a Presidential candidate has rarely been decided prior to sometime in May, if not much later.

You can't make comparisons by calendar, because the 2008 primary season was front-loaded - Iowa began earlier, and Super Tuesday. As it stands now, over 80% of pledged delegates have been voted for.

Rule changes that gradually went into effect after 1968 led to proportional allotment of delegates. If you're way behind, you can't count on winning big states, because it's not winner take all.

For those who can count it appears that neither Obama or Clinton will have wrangled enough delegates via primaries / caucuses to sew up the nomination prior to the Democrat Party Convention coming up in August. It's a certainty that neither will get to 2025 by the end of the primary season, but:

It is almost impossible for Clinton to catch Obama in pledged delegates.

It's less so, also highly unlikely that she'll catch him in the popular vote.

The process needs to play out. Yes, but how should it play out?

No one should force any candidate to quit a race. The candidate has to come t a conclusion as to what to do?

There are two ways to stay in a race that you are almost certain to lose.

1. You run a positive campaign, concentrating on your platform. If something should happen to the other candidate, there you are.

2. Scorched earth policy.

The reason you have a convention, instead of just declaring a winner after the voting is done is twofold:

To decide party policy going into the general election, and beyond.

In case of unusual developments, even pledged delegates can change their vote. If something were to happen to Obama, they could nominate Clinton, Edwards, or even Al Gore. The Convention isn't the semi-final of the general election.

What Clinton is doing is #2. She is not only damaging Obama, but herself as an alternate choice.