The Obama supporters who won't vote for Hilary, and the Hilary voters who won't vote for Obama are spoiled brats who will be responsible for more far right Supreme Court justices and more war and more exportation of US jobs. Thanks.
oafishcad: The Obama supporters who won't vote for Hilary, and the
Not "winning"? OK, after years of coming too late in the game to matter, this year California finally went early, and now we still don't matter? Hillary won huge here--a state with a population and economy that dwarfs that of most sovereign nations--but it's not a "win"? OK, come on New York, let's give up. You lead the way South Carolina!
antaeus: Not "winning"? OK, after years of coming too late in
Right on. So Obama can win sates like Nebraska and Alabama, where Republicans will win the general election anyhow. How about where the base of the Dem Party lives and votes, the Big Blue states? Hillary wins them all - ok, Obama got Illinois, great even Mondale won Minnesota in '84.
Jonny38103: Right on. So Obama can win sates like Nebraska and
Are you saying that Obama would not carry N.Y.,Cali,N.J.,Mass. heck even Gravel would carry those states. I want to see a Dem carry Missouri,Virginia,Ohio,Florida and some of the purple states. You need crossover appeal in a general to carry those.
mito21: Are you saying that Obama would not carry N.Y.,Cali,N.J.,Mass. heck
Way to generalize! Obama supporters are young, old, rich, poor, White, Black, Hispanic, Asians, even Native Americans.
Why don't we put a name to some of Obama's supporters. Sen. Leahy, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Obey, Sen. Kennedy e.t.c. Not to talk of more than 9 million Americans across the country.
I am guessing they are all a nuisance to you?
Zhonni: Way to generalize! Obama supporters are young, old, rich, poor,
Perhaps you should read some history books instead of the meaningless general election "match-up" polls you cite...which, for the record, also happen to show Hillary doing better than Obama against McCain in many key states.
And also, let me get this straight...
1) Superdelgates shouldn't be allowed to vote as they wish, even though that is the long standing system?
Translation: Screw the DNC's rules if they're hurting our guy
2) 'We want the votes of the people to count in deciding the nominee' ...well other than in Florida anyway.
Translation: we have to enforce the DNC rules if it helps our guy
Talk about trying to have it both ways.
DKR: Neophytes unyte! Perhaps you should read some history books instead
DKR: Wrong! After ALL candidates, including Hillary, agreed not to run in Michigan and Florida, Hillary broke her promise and now wants the delegates in these states, which she swiped without competition. Sorry, we don't like elections being decided by stolen votes.
DasBoot: DKR: Wrong! After ALL candidates, including Hillary, agreed not to
Having it both ways. Isn't that what the Democratic National Committee is doing here? I wasn't there, but I can imagine the meeting where they generated the Super Delegate process. I'm guessing it went something like this.
Party hack #1: "We need a process that lets the people have the illusion that the Democratic Party is actually democratic.
Party hack #2: "Yeah, but we also need to maintain actual control."
Party hack #1: I know, lets give them some caucuses and primaries and hope for the best, but if the voters deviate from our choice, then we'll need a backup plan."
Party hack #2: "Maybe a system of Super Delegates."
Party hack #1: "But who could we trust to take on this function?"
DNC Chorus: "I know, let's appoint ourselves."
Yeah, that's democracy at work.
standforpeace: Having it both ways. Isn't that what the Democratic National
Well said. Senator Obama has surprised everyone, after being so much behind in the polls, a few months ago, and he has done superbly, beating the "inevitable nominee". The Dems will be foolish not to support this candidate; because he has brilliantly brought in new voters, especially younger voters, and been attracting people from all walks of lives, from all parties.
It is so refreshing to have a candidate, who is not polarizing, and with less baggage.
Rianna: Well said. Senator Obama has surprised everyone, after being so
Yes, it is all about winning. Obama has no clue about what it will take to win in the general election. Some of you poor whiny people are going to be crying a lot when the republicans start attacking him. Just like with Kerry it will be poor us when the republicans are so mean to Obama and you will cry that it is not fair and how could they be that way. Fairness is not a republican value and they won't back down like Clinton did every time someone like you complains how unfair they are being in their anti-Obama attack ads. Unlike Clinton they don't care what you think is fair or not. Stealing elections is becoming a republican tradition and why would they stop now that a new democratic hope has emerged.
dumitch: Yes, it is all about winning. Obama has no clue
I hope you're right. He still has to win a big state coming up. If he wins I will vote for him, but I'm not convinced he can win against a republican party that has no conscience. Don't confuse her running a bad campaign with success on his part. I believe if he wins the nomination the only hope for a win is that McCain is another Dole and runs a really bad campaign.
dumitch: I hope you're right. He still has to win a
You are unbelievable. Obama has no clue about what it will take to win? My goodness, have you noticed the effective campaign he's running for the nomination?
As far as I can tell, it's the Clinton camp that does most of the whining and crying. I worry about her supporters if she's the nominee. They'd probably bust a collective artery whining about the "irrational Hillary hatred" of the Repubs.
zebra3: You are unbelievable. Obama has no clue about what it
You fool. John Kerry was "winning" until the last day when he actually lost in 2004. Republicans want Obama to be the nominee so they can beat him...that is why they are voting for him now that their nominee has been set in stone. Remember when Bush was the uniter before he became a decider? He ran on the same slogans that Obama is running now. I really don't want to unite with neocons. If you do, go ahead...be my guest
SomewhereInTheMiddle: You fool. John Kerry was "winning" until the last day
You fool, I am a Dem and I will not vote for Hillary and I am not alone in that thought. Until the Clintonites get that into their thick skulls, the Dem party is heading for disaster. We can't take another Mondale, Dukakis or Kerry shoved down our throats.
ProgressiveNotLiberal: You fool, I am a Dem and I will not
Agreed. I'm also a progressive Dem who cannot in good conscience support Hillary in any way. Her (and Bill's) actions and tactics throughout this campaign have disgusted me beyond words. To me they are scarcely better than Republicans. I won't vote for McCain, but she certainly doesn't deserve my vote. She can't beat McCain anyway, with or without my vote, it won't be close.
And idiot who says Republicans want Obama because he is easier to defeat need to look at the polls, they need to look at the demographics, they need to look at a history book, they need to use a little common sense.
once again, more clinton bullshit. show me one republican that believes they have a better chance of beating obama than clinton. it's simply NOT true. virtually all of the republicans that have weighed in on the matter have all said that they want to face clinton in november, including john mccain.
greejambri: once again, more clinton bullshit. show me one republican that
Thank you for posting this.
Ross is having a sale this weekend and I am buying myself a pink and yellow pantsuit.
Chelsea Clinton 2012!!
Has anyone considered Ms. Clinton may be dyslexic? Her whole approach could be explained by a simple error in reading Me, the People...
Don't cry for me Argentina
In the Republican Party the candidates are more the issue, which is the way it should be.
Why don't we put a name to some of Obama's supporters. Sen. Leahy, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Obey, Sen. Kennedy e.t.c. Not to talk of more than 9 million Americans across the country.
I am guessing they are all a nuisance to you?
Perhaps you should read some history books instead of the meaningless general election "match-up" polls you cite...which, for the record, also happen to show Hillary doing better than Obama against McCain in many key states.
And also, let me get this straight...
1) Superdelgates shouldn't be allowed to vote as they wish, even though that is the long standing system?
Translation: Screw the DNC's rules if they're hurting our guy
2) 'We want the votes of the people to count in deciding the nominee' ...well other than in Florida anyway.
Translation: we have to enforce the DNC rules if it helps our guy
Talk about trying to have it both ways.
Party hack #1: "We need a process that lets the people have the illusion that the Democratic Party is actually democratic.
Party hack #2: "Yeah, but we also need to maintain actual control."
Party hack #1: I know, lets give them some caucuses and primaries and hope for the best, but if the voters deviate from our choice, then we'll need a backup plan."
Party hack #2: "Maybe a system of Super Delegates."
Party hack #1: "But who could we trust to take on this function?"
DNC Chorus: "I know, let's appoint ourselves."
Yeah, that's democracy at work.
What say you now, Tom Hayden?
Still convinced?
It is so refreshing to have a candidate, who is not polarizing, and with less baggage.
As far as I can tell, it's the Clinton camp that does most of the whining and crying. I worry about her supporters if she's the nominee. They'd probably bust a collective artery whining about the "irrational Hillary hatred" of the Repubs.
And idiot who says Republicans want Obama because he is easier to defeat need to look at the polls, they need to look at the demographics, they need to look at a history book, they need to use a little common sense.
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/25882167