Further, I think the Obama and Edwards camps need to come to a consensus.

[Guaranteed]

One of them is going to need to drop out and give its support to the other to finish off Clinton. Before Iowa.

The alternative, as supporters of both candidates should understand, is just really, really bad. We could actually lose the White House. Again. And we really shouldn't.

[BeyondGeography]

1. I prefer Clinton drops out

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I Prefer That Halle Berry Leave Her Husband And Marry Me But It Isn't Going To Happen

DSB

[Lerkfish]

8. that has more likelihood of happening, actually.

Hallie is not all the stable, apparently.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I Think She's Beyond Perfect

DSB

[Lerkfish]

12. I think you're idolizing an idealistic concept instead of the real person

you're setting up someone you don't know on a pristine pedestal and ascribing perfection to a mere mortal.

oh, and I think you're wrong about Hallie Berrie, too.

:)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I Just Have Exquisite Taste In Women

DSB

[Lerkfish]

44. so if I prefer a male candidate, is it okay to say I have exquisite taste in men?

just curious

[Botany]

6. Bingo

No one vote has been cast but Hillary's machine is selling us the fact
having good strong candidates is bad and will cost us the White House,
please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lerkfish]

7. well, that would be odd and unprecedented.

but interesting.

[Jim Sagle]

3. But who's going to be the noble one and drop out?

Obama's camp, I'm guessing, see Edwards as a demagogue and a poser who conveniently changed his mind on all too many issues, while the Edwards contingent views Obama as an empty suit and a peddler of a suicidal brand of bipartisanship.

It's a tough sell to either side.

[journalist3072]

4. Well, I think your post is actually a compliment to Sen. Clinton.

What you are saying is that either Obama or Edwards (take your pick on which one) isn't strong enough to defeat Sen. Clinton on their own merits...that either Obama or Edwards is going to need the other's help, to defeat Sen. Clinton.

And that's very telling....That they cannot do it on their own, on the strength of their supposed merits.

Says a lot about just how weak and pathetic they are, and how strong Sen. Clinton is.

[jefferson_dem]

10. Well, she is the frontrunner. How exactly does that make the others "weak and pathetic"?

Yours is a pitiful post.

[Guaranteed]

11. No, I'm just looking at a three-way tie in Iowa, with two pretty decent

candidates who could both do the job of the President well, and one who should never have run in the first place. Doesn't belong there at all.

She's got a nice name that she's running on, but a name doesn't make a President. So, we're going to have to solve this problem to ENSURE that bad things don't happen. And I guess a lot of it is that I don't have that much faith in our primary voters, after last year.

No- let me put it another way. I just don't have that much faith in CNN.

[cali]

13. how interesting.

you simply are a sexist. She's not my candidate, but the bullshit that she doesn't deserve to be there, and the insinuation that she's only there because she's married to Bill Clinton is sexist clap trap. No wonder you're so adamant in your denial that "hard and brittle" is a sexist comment.

[Guaranteed]

15. LOL. Alright, it's on, now.

You're saying that my opposition to Sen. Clinton's candidacy is due to my personal SEXISM, is that correct?

[cali]

20. No, and it's dim of you to think that's what I was saying.

Quite simply, asserting that she hasn't the qualifications to run, and insinuating that it's all about her marriage, is sexist crap. You can oppose her strongly on her positions and even on her personal characteristics, but saying she's not as qualified as Edwards or Obama is sexist filth.

[Guaranteed]

24. No. You're simply wrong. Which I guess isn't that uncommon.

I'd be saying the same thing about anyone with the same frontrunner status and name recognition that she has who exhibited the same lack of leadership through possibly the worst years our country has ever seen.

She had the power, and she didn't use it. I hold her to a VERY high standard of leadership. She didn't even come close.

When folks like Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich have to come out of virtual anonymity to stand up for what is right, while those who already have the credibility to make a difference stand down in their cowardice, there is something wrong. She fucked up, for a long time, and badly. THAT IS WHAT *SHE* DID. Nothing to do with her gender. She isn't qualified because she, quite simply, is a fucking coward (or am I only allowed to use that term against men?).

And to top it all off, she STILL hasn't fixed the problem.

[journalist3072]

14. You are really pathetic. To assert that Sen. Clinton has no business running for President.

Just who do you think you are? Maybe you don't have any place being here on DU making such an idiotic post.

Sen. Clinton has just as much right as anyone else, running for President. And she actually has more right----because she's actually qualified!

You don't live in the reality-based community if you think she's running off of her name.

She wasn't asked to serve in the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, because she knew Bill Clinton.

She didn't work for Marian Wright Edelman at the Children's Defense Fund, b/c of her relationship w/ Bill Clinton.

She wasn't the first female to make partner at the Rose Law Firm, b/c of Bill Clinton.

She wasn't elected a United States Senator because of Bill Clinton.

How pathetic of you to assert otherwise.

[Guaranteed]

18. No, she doesn't, because- despite her NAME, which is what she is

now running on- she made NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER over the past four to six years to stand up to the Bush Administration and provide the leadership that the Democratic Party so desperately needed to protect our country from its President.

NOW she wants the Presidency. NOW she wants to be a leader. NOW she wants to be on TV and have everyone know that Sen. Hillary Clinton is out there and ready to do something.

No, I don't fucking think so.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Bill Clinton Wasn't Up There Thursday Night When She Ripped Johnny Boy A New Face

DSB

[journalist3072]

21. Thank you! You hit the nail on the head there!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I Was Going To Use Another Part Of The Anatomy But I Didn't Want To Be Vulgar

What galls me is that the Edwards apologists want to blame the crowd... Hillary Clinton had Johnny Boy's scalp before the crowd even had a chance to become engaged...

[journalist3072]

25. Also...they seem to forget that Sen. Clinton has been booed before...

There was another debate where there was audience reaction and participation, and I recall her getting some boos....

They also seem to forget that Sen. Clinton is polling WAY ahead of her rivals in Nevada right now....Her message is resonating with a large majority of Democrats in Nevada...and THAT'S why she was received so well the other night...beause her message is resonating in Nevada.

[Guaranteed]

26. What did she say? That we should invade Iran?

What do you expect with the ridiculous positions she is taking?

[journalist3072]

27. Don't be such an ass....you know she's never called for invading Iran.

[jefferson_dem]

28. Why not try to comment without calling fellow DUers childish names?

:shrug:

[journalist3072]

30. Well, when a DUer ACTS LIKE A CHILD by implying Sen. Clinton has called for invading Iran...

then I treat them like the child they are acting like.

[Guaranteed]

31. I didn't imply that. I was making the point that it's not surprising that she

would get boos- because she takes positions, especially with regard to foreign policy, that aren't well in line with the views of strong Democrats.

[journalist3072]

32. So now you think you speak for ALL Democrats? What a stupid statement on your part

"She takes positions.......that aren't well in line with the views of strong Democrats."

WTF? Newsflash, you don't speak for the Democratic Party. So who are you, to define what a "strong Democrat" is?

[Guaranteed]

33. So....you think strong Democrats are in favor of invading Iran? nt

[journalist3072]

34. Don't put words in my mouth.....YOU are the one pretending to speak for ALL Democrats...

which is mighty arrogant and stupid on your part.

Who do you think you are? Who annointed you the head of the Democratic Party?

[Guaranteed]

35. What particular issue do you think I *don't* speak for strong Democrats on?

I'm pretty much a populist. Very practical. I'm somewhere in between Clinton and Kucinich.

There really are three sects within our party- the centrist/corporatists, the moderate liberals, and the hardcore leftists. The centrist/corporatists would include Sen. Clinton, Lieberman, Biden, etc. The moderate liberals would be Dean, Gore, Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Kennedy etc. Then the left wing would be composed mainly of Kucinich, but also a number of others in the House (really none in the Senate).

I'm a moderate liberal. A populist. I think it would be a massive clusterfuck to invade Iran. I think, and have thought since well before we did so, that invading Iraq was an unbelievably bad idea. But I did support invading Afghanistan. That's basically the moderate liberal position on foreign policy.

Do you see anything in particular wrong with that? Anything out of the ordinary as to what the strongest of Democrats would believe?

[journalist3072]

36. The problem is I'm sick of labels........

I'm sick of all the talk of DLC Democrats...etc...

How is that going to help anyone put food on their table?

We've got to get away from labels in our country.

[Guaranteed]

37. I'm not just using labels, though. I'm giving you positions

to justify some categorization.

Totally agreed on the label issue. Which is partly why I split the party up into three groups, as opposed to just "mainstream" vs. "far left."

[Guaranteed]

29. No, but she hasn't ruled it out, certainly, AND she gave the Bush Administration an excuse

to do it by voting for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.

[Guaranteed]

22. Yeah, well when Howard Dean and Al Gore- lesser names than hers, arguably-

were ripping the Bush Administration a "new face," and taking heat for it, as well, where was Sen. Clinton?


THAT is the point.

[cali]

5. how ridiculous can you possibly get?

Both candidates have worked their butts off. Neither is going to drop out, and neither camp is going to come to an agreement on such a silly proposal. Just work for your candidate and stop whinging.

[Guaranteed]

38. I don't really "have" a candidate. I think any of them will

win except for Sen. Clinton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. I Don't Think Edwards And Obama Are Electable

They have proven themselves to be weak and callow...They are candidates waiting to be McGovernized...And it is the height of folly to think Johnny Boy's southern accent will save him from that fate...Rudy Ghouliani stared down mob bosses and corrupt Wall Street traders as a federal prosecutor...I shudder what he would do to Johnny in a debate...

[Guaranteed]

40. Any of them will be fine if they take solid positions.

The question then becomes only who can actually take solid positions. Sorry, Sen. Clinton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Forget It

I'm not going to waste a perfectly fine Sunday morning arguing about something that has no chance of resolution...

[seriousstan]

16. Gee, I haven't heard that since.....2003.

Rerun the retread. Same song different names.

[Adelante]

41. What are the assumptions you're making, BGL?

What's the scenario? That Obama and Edwards voters will go where they are told. But do voters really do that? The latest Iowa data says, for example, that half of Obama's voters and half of Edwards's voters choose Clinton as their second option. Would they change that choice in order to "finish off Clinton"? It seems a bit doubtful to me since they must have their reasons for not choosing one or the other, Edwards or Obama, as their second choices to begin with. Elsewhere in the country, including New Hampshire coming up after Iowa, it's even worse, both Edwards and Clinton voters choose Clinton 2 to 1 as their second choice. I realize there is a stop Clinton sentiment online, but it hasn't evidenced itself on the ground in any significant way that I have seen. Edwards and Obama are opponents, not some sort of anti-Hillary once in combination. I'm not getting the sense of this proposal.

[LWolf]

42. How about if all 3 drop out?

Then people would have to choose from the pack that the media has sidelined.