The best thing about Obama vs Clinton is that it's a win-win situation

[mtnsnake]

As long as one or the other wins the Democratic nod, it looks like it's a certainty that they'll go on to become President. While my preference would be to have President Obama, I'll also be happy if we end up with President Hillary instead. Either one will win in the general election, and then they'll go on to do a dynamite job as President. Nothing against Edwards, he'd make a fine president, too, but I don't think he'd have anywhere near the same chance of winning in the general election as Obama or Hillary will.

Anyway, the main event in 2008 won't be in the general election. It'll take place prior...during the Democratic Primaries. After that, Obama or Hillary will mop up with whoever the repukes throw at us.

Good times ahead. :smoke:

[blue cat]

1. I agree n/t

[Deep13]

2. Or people will get so sick of both of them...

...that they will either nominate or elect someone else. I admire both Senators and I'm already sick of them and it's not even an election year.

[SaveElmer]

3. I'd pop Richardson in there as well...

I think he is going to make a serious run at this...

I think he will supplant Edwards in the top three by early next year

[Deep13]

4. I hope so.

[Tellurian]

37. I see Richardson as a better bet than Obama..

Obama cannot hold a candle to Richardson's wealth of experience.

[job777]

77. Better choice

He is also a much better choice than Hillary.

[Lerkfish]

5. unless one doesn't like either of those or supports a different candidate

:shrug:

[Ninja Jordan]

6. Hillary isn't guaranteed anything.

[Tellurian]

38. exactly...she'll work hard to earn your vote and trust..

after all- Hillary has made politics into her life long experience.

[mtnsnake]

39. One of the areas where she's worked hard is in rural America

It's starting to pay dividends for her.

Last few elections we've been taking rural America with a grain of salt. We can no longer be so arrogant. Hillary knows this and so do the rest of our people, hopefully.

[Tellurian]

40. Hillary's experience is more than I ever imagined..

Her due diligence has been amazing. The fact she did her thesis on Saul Alinsky is another amazing factoid. She possesses a firm foundation of the importance of community grassroots organizations and it's relative importance to the middle class. She exudes the confidence that she has a complete understanding of what must be done to turn this country around.

"Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people.They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution".

We have arrived at the point in time described by Dostoevshy. The time is ripe to shape our civilization's future. The most important thing of all, is to secure that future in the proper hands. Hillary has the knowledge, the wherewithal and the right hands to make it so.

[Clark2008]

72. She's working hard in rural America?

Where?

Rural America hates her. I'm sorry. I live one foot outside of rural America and they simply don't like her - not even the alleged Democrats.

I'm sorry. I really don't see what you mean.

Rural America's a tricky place. Don't let the early polls mislead you.

[auburngrad82]

7. I agree

The attacks on Obama so far are really far fetched- "he's not really black", "his ancestors owned slaves" etc. and they had 14 years to dig up dirt on Hilary and couldn't do it. There's no surprise with either of them. Which is a good thing when dealing with the GOP's mudslinging tactics.

[BonnieJW]

8. GORE

[OneBlueSky]

9. I disagree . . . while either may win the election, it wouldn't necessarily be . . .

a win for the nation . . . i.e for solving all of the critical problems facing us today . . . Hillary is too tied to the corporate powers, and Obama doesn't have the experience or the gravitas, imo . . .

[bigtree]

10. thing is, it's NOT all about those two important Democrats

ALL of our candidates would serve our country and our party with distinction and would maintain our traditions and values as they represent and advance our concerns. Our party is win-win, and the competition is just beginning.

[blm]

11. That's what Bill Clinton said about Lieberman and Lamont.

.

[catgirl]

17. My thoughts exactly!

Now Lieberman is promoting the war and trying to end
any investigations into the Katrina non- response by
BushCo. Win-win?

[Tellurian]

36. Lieberman is cutting his own throat-

The repugs are using him as cannon fodder because his time is limited.
He sold his soul to stay in the Senate. Now, he's their slave, to do with what they will.

his words are meaningless.

Lieberman is a dead man walking!

[mtnsnake]

18. and that's what John Kerry THOUGHT about Kerry/McCain

Say what you want about Bill, but at least his first choice for his running mate was a Democrat...a true win-win when he courted Al Gore to be his VP and got him...and the two of them went on to enjoy one of the best Democratic presidencies in history. :smoke:

[blm]

19. Why do you persist in spreading a RW generated lie that even McCain said never happened?

Ever see anyone persist in spreading RW lies against the Clintons here at DU? Nope.

[mtnsnake]

20. Practice what you preach

Stop blaming Democrats for RW lies. Unless you've lost your memory, it was Democrats who perpetuated the Kerry/McCain stories.

Ever see anyone persist in spreading RW lies against the Clintons here at DU?

Got a mirror?

[PresidentObama]

22. Actually it was McCain's camp and empty speculation by the media.....

Not Democrats ;)

Got any more RW hit pieces or speculation articles hidden to 'back' up your claim?!?

[mtnsnake]

26. Your word against a slew of people in the know, most of them Democrats.

Guess who I'm gonna believe.

[PresidentObama]

29. It's not my word. It's the truth. Anymore RW hit pieces and speculation articles to post as sources?

[mtnsnake]

30. If you wanna believe the RW myths about the Clintons be my guest. nt

[PresidentObama]

32. What are you talking about?

Bill Clinton was one of the greatest President's of all time. And Hillary would be very good if we nominated her. Whats this about believing RW myths about the Clintons?

:eyes: Truth. Look it up in the dictionary, please!!

[PresidentObama]

21. What does that have to do with blm's point?

It's a bitter attempt to throw salt in the wounds of Kerry supporters, and continue your long and unwanted 'war' against Kerry supporters on DU. We've been down this Kerry/McCain road more times then I can count, and each time it's debunked. Each time you supply opinion piece articles, RW sources, and speculation 'news'. And each time you refuse to face reality, and use it as an opportunity to attack.

Until you can counter blm's point, please don't use it as a launching pad to change the subject and not address the issue at hand.

Oh, and I agree with the original post. But I would add that I think Edwards has just as good of a chance as Obama/Clinton!!

[mtnsnake]

24. What's her point have to do with the OP?

...other than to change the subject to her negatives about Bill Clinton.

It's a bitter attempt to throw salt in the wounds of Kerry supporters

WTF do you think she was doing when she initiated her change of subject?

Until you can counter blm's point, please don't use it as a launching pad to change the subject and not address the issue at hand.

That's probably the most hypocritical post I've ever read. Go back and look for yourself. It wasn't me who jumped into the fray with some negative attacks on Bill Clinton. Don't waste my time.

[PresidentObama]

27. Her point had a lot to do with the OP.

If I read it correctly, she was saying Clinton called Lamont and Lieberman a win/win situation and it really wasn't. The point she was making was your OP is not quite correct.

Though I would agree, it is correct. It's just so inappropiate for a poster who claims no evil to pounce on ANY opportunity to drag Kerry into arguements and dig up the past to throw salt in the wounds of Kerry's supporters.

She said NOTHING negative about Bill Clinton. She made the point Clinton said Lamont vs. Lieberman was win-win, and he was wrong. She was basically calling the OP post wrong, not bashing Bill. WTF? I don't see how this gives you a right to drag John Kerry, who has nothing to do with ANY of this, into the fray because you can't counter her point.

Don't waste the boards time.

[mtnsnake]

31. The more you talk

the deeper you dig...

[PresidentObama]

34. Mmhmmmm sure.

:eyes: Do you think DU buys the fact that you used blm's point to attack John Kerry, and that you only did because she attacked Bill? When in reality, she didn't. She was making a point, which you obviously missed or purposely ignored.

Now, I'll let you get the last word. Lord knows the board is getting tired of hearing lie after lie, attack after attack, day after day. So I'll stop adding some fuel to your fire.

[mtnsnake]

35. I'll bet blm really appreciates you weakening her case. lmao

She had a much better chance without you coming to her aid.

[Tellurian]

41. Really, mtnsnake...and the fact Kerry2008 condones blm's vicious attacks on the Clintons..

blm is his back door attack team because he prefers the illusion of "clean hands".

Kerry2008's hypocrisy is amazing but not surprising. Thats how he operates.

feh! I have zero respect for him!

[PresidentObama]

42. Please explain how blm attacked Bill Clinton here?

She purely used him as an example, and pointed out he said Lieberman-Lamont was win-win and it wasn't. The point, I think, she was trying to make was it's not necessarily win-win and we have to evaluate each candidate and their abilities. I don't agree with blm, like I said. I also don't agree with bringing up attacks against John Kerry for no real reason and ignoring the point blm made

;)

And I'll let you know how I operate. My mother taught me a long time ago to always stand for something, and always tell the truth. Those are the principles I bring to DU. If you don't like when I point out lying, distorting, and slime machine bashing...so be it!! I've said I don't agree with blm's point, but it also wasn't bashing or attacking anyone like the other posters was.

[Tellurian]

43. Who in the World do you think you're fooling?

you appear, time after time, after one of your surrogates refutes an unpleasantry associated with John Kerry.

I've said I don't agree with blm's point, but it also wasn't bashing or attacking anyone like the other posters was.

Why don't you live up to your CREDO of being honest and stop these unfounded attacks against the Clintons, as if you were defending John Kerry as the nominee. hmmm?

[PresidentObama]

44. I'm not fooling anyone.

And neither is mtnsnake whom right after this thread jumped to another, and tried to get a rise out of me--again. It's his/her agenda to go after certain groups of people: people who don't want Hillary as the nominee, people who don't like the Clintons, and the one I'm most troubled with personally his little war against John Kerry and his supporters. Obsessively he/she stalks us waiting for an opportunity to seek blood.

I find it hypocritical to bitch and moan if anyone gives fair criticism of Hillary (not talking about bashing--Bashing is NOT ok) and yet on the other hand make it a point to throw salt in the wounds of ANY Kerry supporter that posts in the GDP section. As long as it's Kerry and his supporters, anything goes. Draw as much blood as possible. But if you give even appropiate criticism of Hillary you're RW, you're anti-Clinton, you're not a Democrat, etc. etc.

What are these attacks against the Clintons? The fact that I've said TIME AFTER TIME I like Bill Clinton, and he was among my favorite Presidents. The fact that I've said I like Hillary, and will support her if she gets the nomination. Are you saying I'm anti-Clinton? And saying that solely on the fact I don't want her as my number ONE pick for the nominee? Thats not anti-Clinton, my friend!! She'll have my support when she wins the nomination. GLADLY.

I've been fairly impressed by Clinton's campaign. In the beginning before she announced, I thought Hillary as the nominee meant we were going to lose because I didn't feel she had what it takes. Which by the way, isn't anti-Clinton at all. I had serious questions about a Hillary candidacy, and my questions have been answered. I think looking at how her campaign has evolved, and developed....she has a well oiled machine!! She's got the money, the support, and the appeal to be President. If she's the nominee will I support her? You bet your ass I will. Money, volunteering, bumper sticker, and the whole nine yards.

From now on I'll let posters bash John Kerry when someone brings up any point once so ever you don't like, and I'll let posters ignore their point and use it as an opportunity to go after that persons idol or candidate. :eyes:

[Tellurian]

45. Ok, I'll give., not me. Then you're fooling yourself....out of convenience..

mtnsnake came back with a response after blm's hit post #11..

"I had serious questions about a Hillary candidacy, and my questions have been answered. I think looking at how her campaign has evolved, and developed....she has a well oiled machine!! She's got the money, the support, and the appeal to be President.

But, my dear, K08...all of the above isn't enough reason to support Hillary..Don't you get it? She has the will, the knowledge and the plan, a workable plan.

Read my post #40..

She didn't put a plan together overnight..she's done her homework for the last 30 yrs.

If you do nothing else- Please call off these BS attacks by the remnants of a foregone campaign by your psychopathic attack dogs. Don't we have enough to do without taking time to address nonsensical attacks?

Please, take the high road for a change. The real high road.

[PresidentObama]

46. I do believe I'm in no man's land with the Kerry supporters....

That actively post in the John Kerry group because I like Hillary Clinton, respect her, and wouldn't mind one bit if she got the nomination. I disagree with blm a lot of times with the tactics she brings to the table in attacking Hillary and Bill, but this wasn't an attack. It was comparing this win-win situation of Hillary and Obama to Bill Clinton saying Lieberman and Lamont is win-win. The point you've obviously missed or ignored is blm's real point. It wasn't anti-Clinton, it was basically suggesting we evaluate the candidates and not see it as a win-win situation like it doesn't matter which is the nominee. I disagree with that, as you do too. But that doesn't change the point she made, and the fact that mtnsnake spinned it to attack John Kerry out of the blue.

But I also know I don't like valid points turned into attacks on John Kerry for no specific reason, and launching logicless attacks against the posters favorite Senator because you have no real answer to back up a defense.

I have no control over other Kerry supporters, and it's interesting that you lump all supporters of a candidate together. I guess if one Clinton supporter bashes Obama, I should hate all Clinton supporters and vice versa?

Again, I'll say this. I, Kerry2008, like Hillary Rodham Clinton. I respect, and admire her. She isn't my first choice, but she is in my top five. I wouldn't have any problem if she was the nominee, because I know she'd be a good President and better then the GOP.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PresidentObama]

57. I understand where you're coming from about blm.....

I understand blm doesn't like Bill Clinton, and the Clintons period. I've said that already above. But I don't get how this point she made wasn't fair criticism, and wasn't valid? She didn't attack Bill, she didn't attack Hillary, she merely made a point. My issue with that was mtnsnake used it as an opportunity to attack John Kerry out of the blue. And you came to his/her defense, why? I surely hope you understand I'm sick and tired of the attacks on Senator Kerry, just as you are of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Do you like one of our fine Democratic Senators to be attacked with debunked talking points that mtnsnake has twice used RW talking points as sources for? I surely don't, and that was my issue. I didn't attend to respond to blm even though I didn't agree, I only responded because of the baseless attack on Senator Kerry.

Like it or not, there is bashing of Obama. It's small, mind you. But just the other day I was listening to my Democratic friend going on and on about how Obama would lose it for us, and how he'd make it "three in a row" They're there. Just as people are there that attack Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards, and anyone else.

I appreciate that you agree bashing other candidates and Democrats isn't ok. Fair criticism is very much ok, but bashing gets tiresome and isn't needed. I hope we can both keep our word to not bash fellow Democrats (minus Lieberman and those types) and move on with unity supporting whichever candidate we decide to support. And eventually we'll all (most of us) be together rallying behind the nominee. If it's Hillary Clinton, then I welcome President Clinton!!

[mtnsnake]

63. So now you're putting words into blm's mouth, too?

I understand blm doesn't like Bill Clinton, and the Clintons period.

What makes you say that? (snicker)

[PresidentObama]

64. *crickets* (snicker)

:boring:

[mtnsnake]

59. Don't give me this crap how you love the Clintons. Sucking up will get you no where

Do you EVER tell the truth? Jayeeeeesus!!!!

[PresidentObama]

61. *crickets*

:boring:

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PresidentObama]

62. Annndddd more *crickets*

:boring:

[mtnsnake]

56. What a load of hypocritical blabberspout

Each and every time you chirp in, the crap gets deeper. On one hand it's fine for you and your pals to bash one of the best Democratic presidents ever, but on the other it's not so good if a loser campaigner gets criticized.

If you're gonna cry about Kerry getting criticized then you better learn it's going to happen when someone crashes a thread with the sole intent to unfairly bash Bill Clinton, when the original subject had nothing to do with him.

Now go dry off with some Kleenex.

[PresidentObama]

60. *crickets*

:boring:

From now on this is how I'll respond to any posts you make towards Kerry supporters to get a rise out of them. I see right through you, I really do!! And no more fuel to your fire from this Kerrycrat. Please go on, you're proving my point about you perfectly.

Now moving on to bigger fish that need frying....

B-)

[mtnsnake]

65. Try some Quell

It should get rid of them. Hope that helps.

[PresidentObama]

66. *crickets*

:boring:

[earthside]

12. Nope.

Barring the radical Republicans nominating someone like Brownback, Clinton is a sure loser.

Forty-plus percent of Americans have already said that they will not vote for H.C. under any circumstances.

Besides, trading the presidency back and forth between two families is just plain against the notion of egalitarian democracy.

If the Democratic Party is so soulless as to nominate Hillary, it will be a blow-out defeat.

Sorry ... but that's what I hear everywhere I go in the suburbs of the national convention city.

[Labors of Hercules]

15. you've got that right... a blow out worse than a lit cigarette in a dynamite factory.

[AshevilleGuy]

28. You got it right

Not only Hilary, Obama too. They will poll high, then go down like Dukakis. Please, we HAVE to win this time, don't do this...

[election_2004]

13. What about President Richardson? Or President Clark?

The MSM whores have done a thorough job of drilling in the either/or Hillary-or-Barack dichotomy into people's heads.

[mtnsnake]

14. Both would be fine by me, but neither is a threat to Clinton or Obama, last I knew

to win in the primaries, and I'm not so sure that either Richardson or Clark could be as huge a force in the general election as Obama or Hillary will be. I'd love it if Clark would've won the nod in 2004, but he didn't.

[election_2004]

73. The primaries are still months away....

And donors can give to multiple candidates, regardless of what McAuliffe would have us believe.

[thoughtcrime1984]

23. I have been wanting Obama to run since 2004

so forgive me for saying that not everyone is influenced by the media. One can support Obama or Hil without actually having been brainwashed.

[election_2004]

74. I'm not saying you're brainwashed if you support either of them

I'm saying that the media is trying to frame the Democratic primaries in the context of Clinton and Obama being the ONLY realistic or legitimate choices.

[PresidentObama]

48. President Clark will do!!

:patriot:

[manic expression]

16. Really?

You think it's that much in the bag? I'm no expert on electoral politics (because I don't think it matters one bit), but do people think any Democrat has the presidency wrapped up? I can't say I'm too sure about that.

[thoughtcrime1984]

25. It seems Rudy would be a threat.

We all know what a clown "America's Mayor" really is. But, there seems to be tons of support for him, and he could turn NY red. It is most certainly NOT in the bag.

[FrenchieCat]

33. It's about the National Security thingie....that's where Rudi's support is coming from....

As long as the Bush Admin doesn't engineer a "terrorist" threat or attack or offensive (Iran?) right around the time that we are about to vote in the General election, then the Democratic party may certainly win. However, I agree with you......it is not in the bag.

Doesn't take much for a large number of the middle of the American voters to turn...on a dime!

That's why I want a nominee with real national security experience on the Dem side. With that, my first paragraph won't be a situation that can be manipulated to win the election.

I don't put anything past this administration and the GOP and the media.

After the election, then they will find out that it really wasn't what the said it was prior to the election, but then...it will be too late; again.

[Larry in KC]

47. Wow. No offense, but I'm amazed people can see it that way.

I don't know about Obama... I worry about his chances in a general election, for 2008, at least. I could imagine a scenario in which he won (and think he might make a fine president if he could win), but it seems a long shot.

I have to say, though, I truly believe that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, we'll lose in a landslide of Reagan-Mondale proportions, and one that will seriously damage us in Congress, as well. What states that went red last time could she realistically flip? I think it much more lucky that many of the states that went narrowly for us would flip to Republican. It scares the hell out of me.

[Learn2Swim]

76. Larry in KC,

you're no the only one.

[AtomicKitten]

49. Gobama.

That is all.

[PresidentObama]

50. I prefer O8AMA!!

Gobama works.

[AtomicKitten]

51. nice one!

[PresidentObama]

53. I bet I can top it.

Gore 08'

;) Do I pass?

[AtomicKitten]

54. with flying colors

[mtnsnake]

69. I think that's nice

how you two are working together to pick out a nice nickname for Obama, all warm and fuzzy like. :grouphug:

:evilgrin:

[Colobo]

52. Obama is the man!

I really don't understand why some people here just don't want to see him succeed.

[ProudDad]

67. Actually, it's win-win-win

Barack and Hil beat the shit out of each other then...

Either Gore or Clark steps in and wins the Presidency...

Win-Win-Win!!!

[fuzzyball]

68. Good to see Hillary getting some acceptance on DU

IT IS ABOUT TIME!!!!

[Clarkie1]

70. And it was so written as if in wet sand on a beach....nt

[mtnsnake]

71. Deep, very deep. nt

[leftofthedial]

75. yeah

especially if the winner is Kucinich, or perhaps Edwards