Why Hillary is not dropping out

[Jon]

You're right, on a technicality, I guess I did "misspeak" about Iraq having nukes. I guess I paraphrased it too much. We were under the assumption Iraq had "nuclear capabilities." Still, we were wrong.

There are ample examples that set Obama and Clinton apart, and unfortunately I don't have time right now to list them all. I'll come back to it later. But really, you can read it on their websites:

http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Plenty of disparities there.

I'm not naive enough to say that they are totally different on everything. I know they have a lot of agreeances. However, McCain shares many of them. And when it comes to trust, I trust McCain much more than I trust Obama. At least McCain votes for most of the measures he supports.

And, in regards to taking things personally, you act as if the Obama supporters turn their heads when someone speaks badly of him. Give me a break.

 

[maneal]

Again, records indicate that more Dems than Republicans participate in Primaries. Why that is, I don't know.

We will have to agree to disagree about Arkansas and its winner in the General, but with as moderate as McCain is, and how popular moderate conservative President George Bush was in your state twice, I can see a very competitive race in Arkansas, however the Republicans don't actually need that state to win.

IF Hillary is the nominee, it will be much more of a battle for McCain, but I do not believe that Hillary will be elected by these United States.

 

[Care4all]

as to iraq having nuclear weapons, it was never claimed that they possessed them, only that they were reconstituting their program and could potentially have the materials to construct one by the end of the year.

actually, this statement of VP Cheney's at the VFW prior to the Iraq resolution vote, DID imply such... and coupled with the statements of President Bush's of Saddam acquiring yellowcake uranium from Africa and Condi Rice's statement made to us about Saddam's smoking gun and not wanting to wake up to a mushroom cloud, that could reach us in 45 minutes...
I don't know of any chemical weapons of wmd that form in to a mushroom cloud or that use yellowcake or that can reach us or our allies in 45 minutes from saddam if it wasn't NUKES that they were implying.....

I don't think we need to rewrite history NOW to say that the administration never told us or strongly implied that....

Note that Cheney says NOW HAS WMD'S, not the chemical wmd's that we always knew he had at one time, but NOW HAS..... so take note of that...

And also take NOTE of the "there is no doubt"...what does "simply stated, there is NO DOUBT....." mean to you? More than a simple implication of such, but an affirmative, positive, confirmed, no room for anything else....there IS NO DOUBT....ya know?

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.

 

[Larkinn]

So where is this Candidate of CHANGE, if your explanation is the simple answer Larkin?

When did I say he was a candidate of change?

I know nothing on this particular issue...and was not speaking on this particular issue, but you do have my interest!

So, maybe you can tell me how NOT voting yes or no on a Planned parenhood bill somehow was taking a "stance" on it, for the "record"?

It wasn't "taking a stance" on it. He voted present so other senators would vote present, instead of no. Hence Hillary attacking him as not pro-choice on that issue is idiotic.

This is NOT cherry picking, I just did not "write off" jsander's link that he gave that went over each and every vote taken in the Senate and how each senator voted on each Bill....this is one of the only ways to get to know ones candidate's positions compared to their own positions on these bills and issues.

Actually thats NOT what his link gave. Unless you think that Clinton never cast a vote until Obama reached the Senate?

Really? I think you are wayyyyyyy wrong on this....I know you are....the only position that could seoarate Obama from the other candidates was his stance that he would not have voted for the war and he would bring the troops home right away....? This is why he was SUPPOSEDLY, the candidate of "change"....not the Insider candidate.... what a crock of shit! hahahahaha...lmao.

Or maybe that he is a young, black, eloquent politician who gave an amazing speech on race, and is running against an opponent who has played a dirty campaign?

Or maybe some of us aren't too fond of having dynasties in the white house?

If thats the only reason you can think of anyone to vote for Obama, you are the one wearing blinders, not me.

Why haven't you asked for an answer on it as a supprter...tooo mezmorized with His CHANGE that he brings? The war and bringing troops home was a key issue......why couldn't he take a stance on it? Was he just NOT PRESENT AGAIN or was he there and did not want to commit in fear of republican backlash in his presidential bid? WHO KNOWS....but I bet ya, the Mccain group will certainly press to find out.when and IF he does EVER get enough votes to secure his nomination.

By the way, I don't support pulling out of Iraq. And if you think that McCain is going to push Obama on not pulling out soon enough, your a fool.

I was very clear that I could understand Obama's blunder on 57 states and on some other blunders he has made....and even have voiced i did not buy in to hillary being too tired on her bosnia gaf......but youuuuuuuuu.....?

My point was that Obama has screwed up, and so has Hillary. Neither are indiciative of anything more than verbal mistakes. Well Obamas isn't, Hillary's Bosnia gaffe might be considering it was repeated several times afterwards, but I don't think she purposefully lied.

I don't see what I am saying as insulting Obama....you take it as an insult while you do INSULT Hilliary with useless garbage and expect me to sit back and take it "like a woman should" I suppose....?

Ah, now it comes out. I never said you insulted Obama. And considering how much you whined, bitched, and moaned about cries of racism against you, I really think you should reconsider leveling the charge of sexism against me, especially considering I have done NOTHING that is even remotely sexist.

All I am pointing out is that your candidate IS NOT a God, and is not sinless

No shit sherlock. But despite that fact, he is not the ball of evil you seem to think he is. Soon are you going to follow in the Republicans shoes and start emphasizing his middle name, and maybe call him a Muslim as well?

and will not bring any kind of change that any of the Democratic candidates would not have brought after the Bush Administration's reign.

I disagree. He isn't the same as Hillary.

He is a politician as Clinton and Mccain are politicians, as John F Kennedy was a Politician and as Nixon was a politician and as Roosevelt was a politician
and don't want you to het your hopes up that Obama is the Candidate of Change that Washington needs, because he is no more less a Politician than the Best of Politicians, that is why he is where he is...due to his connections and insider position.

He isn't going to single handedly fix washington, but he is significantly more of an outsider than Clinton is. And guess what? The establishment candidate lost. The candidate pushed by the party lost.

No, he isn't there only because of his connections. Does he have them? Yes. Were they anywhere good enough to overcome Hillary's? No. Why did he win? Because the people voted him in.

And really, don't call me blinded when your praying for Hillary Clinton. I'm praying for a nominee. I would prefer Obama, but I'd be alright with Clinton. Who are you going to vote for in the general Care...Obama or McCain?

 

[mattskramer]

Aren’t conservatives better known for having a winning attitude? Keep striving. Try to win. Keep struggling. Climb the ladder of success. Don’t be a quitter. Never give up. Now it seems as though they are criticizing Hillary for trying to do that very thing.

 

[maneal]

Aren’t conservatives better known for having a winning attitude? Keep striving. Try to win. Keep struggling. Climb the ladder of success. Don’t be a quitter. Never give up. Now it seems as though they are criticizing Hillary for trying to do that very thing.

See, I don't think Conservatives are asking her to quit. I have not seen a Republican ask for her to quit. Why? Other than it not really being our business, its better if the Democrats keep fighting.

It is her OWN PARTY who is telling her to quit. Why is this? It really doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that at the end of the Democrat Primary Season, even if Florida and Michigan are counted, there will be NO nominee. Until that time... I see no reason for Hillary, or even Obama, to quit.

 

[Care4all]

See, I don't think Conservatives are asking her to quit. I have not seen a Republican ask for her to quit. Why? Other than it not really being our business, its better if the Democrats keep fighting.

It is her OWN PARTY who is telling her to quit. Why is this? It really doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that at the end of the Democrat Primary Season, even if Florida and Michigan are counted, there will be NO nominee. Until that time... I see no reason for Hillary, or even Obama, to quit.

It's the Media and the Blogs saying she should quit, it has been going on for MONTHS NOW, yet Obama still can't seem to muster up all the votes he needed to acquire the nomination.... no one EVER FOCUSSED on this in the media, but just basically implying for months that she should quit, that she is a loser, or in questions like, Why is she hanging on, or why doesn't she just quit, or Why is she hurting Obama like this etc etc etc....

I am AMAZED she has MANAGED to rack in half the votes of Democrats in America voting...with the media hounding about her quitting or shouldn't she be quitting by nowwwwwww? for months.... utterly amazing to me how a media outlet (msnbc)can actually be the one who picked our Democratic nominee FOR US via their coverage and discrimination against Hillary....reminds me of FOX News only now the Democrats doing it... on to their own kin....and salivating while doing it? A Sad Day in America's history imo.

Care

 

[maneal]

It's the Media and the Blogs saying she should quit, it has been going on for MONTHS NOW, yet Obama still can't seem to muster up all the votes he needed to acquire the nomination.... no one EVER FOCUSSED on this in the media, but just basically implying for months that she should quit, that she is a loser, or in questions like, Why is she hanging on, or why doesn't she just quit, or Why is she hurting Obama like this etc etc etc....

I am AMAZED she has MANAGED to rack in half the votes of Democrats in America voting...with the media hounding about her quitting or shouldn't she be quitting by nowwwwwww? for months.... utterly amazing to me how a media outlet (msnbc)can actually be the one who picked our Democratic nominee FOR US via their coverage and discrimination against Hillary....reminds me of FOX News only now the Democrats doing it... on to their own kin....and salivating while doing it? A Sad Day in America's history imo.

Care

It is amazing that she has done what she has done. I think that if Obama does win the nomination, we will not see Hillary campaigning for him. If she ever has any hopes of becoming President, she will need McCain to win on 08'. If Obama wins the general, she is done, except for the Senate.

 

[Ravi]

It is amazing that she has done what she has done. I think that if Obama does win the nomination, we will not see Hillary campaigning for him. If she ever has any hopes of becoming President, she will need McCain to win on 08'. If Obama wins the general, she is done, except for the Senate.

I don't think she's as vindictive as you make her out to be. And the senate can be a very powerful place to be.

This election has been quite an eye-opener for me.

 

[maneal]

I don't think she's as vindictive as you make her out to be. And the senate can be a very powerful place to be.

This election has been quite an eye-opener for me.

I wouldn't say she is vindictive. I would say that she wants to be President at any cost. Obama becoming President basically makes her chances close to zero, because he would probably be a 2 term President if he wins.

 

[Ravi]

I wouldn't say she is vindictive. I would say that she wants to be President at any cost. Obama becoming President basically makes her chances close to zero, because he would probably be a 2 term President if he wins.

Define win at any cost...does that mean she'll gas anyone that doesn't agree with her? Commit suicide if she doesn't win? Abandon her principles? Become a facist? Suddenly think Bush is a God? Agree to stay in Iraq for 100 years? Vindictively fuck up liberal ideals?

And while you're at it, please tell me how there is a difference between being vindictive and wanting to be president at any cost...or were you talking about McCain?

 

[maneal]

Define win at any cost...does that mean she'll gas anyone that doesn't agree with her? Commit suicide if she doesn't win? Abandon her principles? Become a facist? Suddenly think Bush is a God? Agree to stay in Iraq for 100 years? Vindictively fuck up liberal ideals?

And while you're at it, please tell me how there is a difference between being vindictive and wanting to be president at any cost...or were you talking about McCain?

To be a bit more respectful...

Hillary will probably not "help," per say, Obama get elected, should he win the nomination. A few photo ops and a nice congrats to Mr. Obama, but not much after that. Why? Because she wants to become President. She was really co-President with Former President William J. Clinton. She got a taste of that power and wants it all to herself.

If Obama wins the nomination, Hillary (whether made public or not) would love to see McCain win, because it will give her a chance to become President in 2012, seeing that in my opinion, McCain will only be a one term President. Should Obama win the nomination, he would probably snag 2 terms, making Hillary less likely to get a nomination down the road (if she was to run at all).

Understanding the Clinton's is key here. The Clinton's have controlled the Democratic Party since 1991/92. Even when Clinton was out of office, the DNC basically followed the Clinton legacy. Now, certain "ultra-liberal" Democrats are attempting to overthrow (for a lack of a better term) the Clinton's from being the defacto leaders of their party. Obama and his crowd are much more Liberal that the Clinton's, and do not necessarily represent the "core values" of the Democratic Party. Instead, they are attempting to drive the party to the far left (which is why I believe Gore lost in 2000). Clinton is closer to the definition of a True Democrat (doesn't mean she is one, but much closer than Obama).

We can say this while citing the 2006 Mid-term elections. Democrats took over in congress NOT because people wanted to see their Liberal Agenda, but because the Democrats ran Conservative Democratic candidates instead of the Liberal Dems the leadership has been attempting to run since a year or two before the Republican take-over in 1994. Illinois 14th congressional district is a prime example. Oberweiss, a moderate conservative, ran against Foster, a moderate / conservative Democrat. He was dubbed a "Blue Dog Democrat."

Why is all of this important? It all comes down to what is left of the actual Democratic Party, vs. The "New-age ultra Liberal" Democratic party (which is in the minority when it comes to Democrats). They use their voice more than real Democrats and even conservatives (which is why I'm frustrated with my own party).

I hope this explains my point better.

-Mike

 

[Ravi]

That all may be true, I can't say...though I don't think Hillary is ready to give up politics so doing anything to hurt the Dem party would be silly. IMO, if Obama wins the nomination, she won't do much campaigning for him after his camp has gone out of it's way to portray her and Bill as racists.

 

[manifold]

That all may be true, I can't say...though I don't think Hillary is ready to give up politics so doing anything to hurt the Dem party would be silly. IMO, if Obama wins the nomination, she won't do much campaigning for him after his camp has gone out of it's way to portray her and Bill as racists.

In other words, sour grapes will rule the day!

 

[maneal]

That all may be true, I can't say...though I don't think Hillary is ready to give up politics so doing anything to hurt the Dem party would be silly. IMO, if Obama wins the nomination, she won't do much campaigning for him after his camp has gone out of it's way to portray her and Bill as racists.

This election has hurt Democrats big time. I really hope that the True Democratic Party can rise up and retake their party before its too late.

 

[Ravi]

In other words, sour grapes will rule the day!

If she campaigns for Obama I'll be disappointed. To me it would be the same as when McCain campaigned for Bush after the black baby incident. It made McCain look like a craven suck-up. Though as we can see, it did benefit him.

Besides, why would Obama want a racist on his side?

 

[jillian]

If she campaigns for Obama I'll be disappointed. To me it would be the same as when McCain campaigned for Bush after the black baby incident. It made McCain look like a craven suck-up. Though as we can see, it did benefit him.

Besides, why would Obama want a racist on his side?

Because Obama isn't the one saying Hillary is a racist. That would be his supporters... not even his spokespeople.

And she will campaign for him. And it is highly possible she'll be his VP.

As for craven suck up...they're politicians.

 

[Ravi]

Because Obama isn't the one saying Hillary is a racist. That would be his supporters... not even his spokespeople.

And she will campaign for him. And it is highly possible she'll be his VP.

As for craven suck up...they're politicians.

I dunno, Jillian. Bush wasn't the one that did the black baby thing either. He just looked the other way...which is exactly what Obama is doing, imo.

 

[jillian]

I dunno, Jillian. Bush wasn't the one that did the black baby thing either. He just looked the other way...which is exactly what Obama is doing, imo.

But if we're going to be fair, Hillary's surrogates have said some pretty dumb stuff... as has Hillary. I think we can probably trace the ugly tenor of the campaign to Geraldine Ferraro. At that time, Hillary let Ferarro go. And Obama let one of his foreign policy folk go for calling Hillary a "monster".

As for McCain...no, he didn't attack Bush in that fashion at all in 2000. On the other hand, he also lost. So... I'm not sure what the answer is.

 

[JimH52]

Hillary will be a party supporter and back Obama 100%. She knows what the alternative is...

GO BOB BARR!