IF HRC is nominated, does she have any hope of holding the new voters Obama has brought in?

[Ken Burch]

Especially if she is elected on the votes of the superdelegates and the Florida and Michigan delegations?

Is it worth risking what happens if those voters decide they don't matter?

Can HRC make them feel that they do matter?

These are important questions when deciding who we nominate.

Obviously, we lose if we nominate someone who inspires no passionate support.

[jackson_dem]

1. Edwards lost. I didn't quit the party after that

But I am a Democrat so I will support the nominee...

[Ken Burch]

4. I will too. But I'm not talking about me.

I'm talking about the millions of people who got behind Obama. HRC represents the politics they reject. Can she have any hope of getting THOSE voters to think the race still matters?

I hope she can.

And I hope, if she does get nominated, she gets nominated on elected delegates. It would go without saying that her nomination would be illegitimate if it was imposed by superdelegates and the Florida and Michigan delegations against the will of elected delegates.

[bellasgrams]

20. I don't think the blacks that are backing BO really reject

Hillary, I think they are proud to have a black man rise to this level and want to support him. Many of the young people look up to him because he looks young and again I think race plays into it a little. I personally dropped him because after listening to all his speeches I found I didn't find anything. He doesn't talk issues. He likes to play to the crowd, more like a cheerleader. That just doesn't appeal to me. Hillary speaks about the problems we face, how she would like to correct them and she speaks in great detail. She takes questions from the audience, and answers all fully. She convinces me more every time I hear her that she is the best.

[papau]

32. millions of old folks will be angry and some refuse to vote for Obama - I suspect the

great majority of the supporters of either candidate will support the other - but some will walk. Then there is the data on how the cohort Obama brings in "young" and "former GOP" do not actually show up on election day.

[pampango]

80. If she gets nominated with the plurality of elected delegates, most Obama's supporters,

young and old, will get over it and support Hillary. In politics, if the voters don't give you the votes (or delegates), then you don't win and shouldn't. There will always be a few diehards on any side who believe that their candidate is the only one who can really confront the "forces of evil" out there.

I agree with you that if Hillary (or Obama for that matter) wins the nomination even though the other won the plurality of elected delegates through the use of SDs or Florida/Michigan delegates, there would be a big problem. Don't get me wrong. The SD's can do exactly that and be following the rules.

I am not arguing that the SDS don't have the power to do whatever they want. It's too late to change that for this election cycle. I just hope that they realize the political danger of handing the nomination to the one with fewer elected delegates. That would risk alienating many "new" Democrats (whether they be young voters, Black voters, women voters, Hispanic voters) who see their candidate get shafted by the party establishment, and some "not so new" Democrats, as well.

[niceypoo]

83. There is no evidence of 'new voters'

This is an Obama campaign slogan

[Ken Burch]

111. Explain then, the massive increase in caucus turnout I saw in Alaska

thousands more people showed up at our caucuses all over the state. 80% of them or better were Obama backers. There were hundreds of new voter registrations in our Juneau caucus alone.

[WillyT]

121. Holy Shit... Are You SERIOUS ???

:banghead::crazy::banghead:

[IndianaGreen]

2. Hillary will lose in November

a combination of factors, including the baggage her husband will bring to the White House with him.

[moosen]

5. And Obama will lose to McCain about 65-35 nationally

And go down handily in pretty much every state

he has completely torn the democratic party apart

[Ken Burch]

7. None of the polling supports that argument.

Obama's campaign, whatever else you can say about it, is based on idealism and enthusiasm. There's no way that a candidacy based on self-entitlement and the arrogance of the Beltway can be better for this party.

Nothing good ever comes of this party crushing new voters and those motivated by hope.

[moosen]

11. Obama can't unite the Base

and McCains crossover appeal is too great for moderate suburbanites. What he loses in the hardcore GOP base, he'll more than make up for.

As for polling, well I remember polls that showed Dean beating Bush quite handily

[harun]

122. Obama doesn't need a united base, even though he would unite it

because the base of the Republican party hates McCain. So it is a wash.

[bellasgrams]

25. The only arrogance in this race is BO's and it oozes from him

all you have to do is watch him. He can't talk about our problems in any detail.

[niceypoo]

84. Yeah, right, McCain's 'war forever' meme just grabs voters

With all of the 'I am a bush clone' psycho statements McCain has made in the last 2 years a matted dog is more electable.

[moosen]

3. Obama has no substance

How would he hold the Democrats who are put off by this wild eyed zombie cult Obama has "inspired". What about the Democrat who's not some poofy haired thick rimmed hipster from college?

[Capn Sunshine]

10. You mean like these guys?

Damn poofy haired freaks

[moosen]

12. not even close

[Radical Activist]

47. lol that was awesome. n/t

[Radical Activist]

46. the people chanting "no substance" over and over sound like zombies

He has a substantive platform on his website, a good book and many substantive interviews. Stop being lazy and look at the substance that is there for you.

[seybor]

54. Have read, have listened, not lazy - not impressed.

[niceypoo]

85. Every candidate has the same boiler plate stuff on their websites

It is his avoidance of talking policy, and reliance instead on catchy slogans, that brings on the 'no substance' meme.

He is telling his volunteers to play up their 'conversion' and not talk about policy. What they do not realize is that his speeches are written by slick, paid, professional speech writers and are not the product of some evangelical inspiration.

He talks 'unity' and 'hope' but his supporters attack, attack, attack, attack and never discuss policy.

He, and his supporters bring the lack of substance accusations upon themselves through their own choice of actions.

[Yossariant]

6. Two talking heads on Charlie Rose last night said that, according to the exit polls,

half of Hillary's supporters say they won't vote for Obama and half of Obama's supporters say they won't vote for Hillary.

Badly divided party.

[moosen]

14. Obama's candidacy is to blame

[Yossariant]

19. He wins the red state caucuses. The biggest state he's won is his home state. He needs to go.

[Ken Burch]

30. Is there something WRONG with winning the Red State caucuses?

Seems to me that indicates a candidate who has the greater chance of turning the Red States blue this fall.
By contrast, nominating HRC is clearly a vote for giving up the chance of increasing the pool of Democratic voters.

[Yossariant]

35. I'm gonna ASSUME that they were Democrats voting in those caucuses.

My point is what he has won, so far.

And, compared to Hillary, it's not much.

He has won competitive primary elections in South Carolina, Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri and Utah.

And he has won those red state caucuses.

Hillary has won New Hampshire, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

She leads the popular vote and the delegate count.

The Party is being torn apart.

It's past the time for Obama to go.

[Ken Burch]

38. She just BARELY leads the popular vote. Basically, it's a dead heat.

Would you be saying it was past time for HRC to go if the math was exactly reversed?

There's no good reason to nominate the smug passionless Beltway candidate.

[Yossariant]

41. "Just barely" and "Basically" are excuses for losing.

[Ken Burch]

44. The arrogance and sense of entitlement in your posts is staggering.

The reality is, HRC and Obama are equal in overall support and Obama is going to beat HRC in most of the remaining contests. She has no momentum anywhere now.

Why fight the rising, positive force? Why insist on the tired old path of the past?

[Yossariant]

45. Compliments will do you no good.

Ah! The inevitable Obama. You're getting sleepy. Relax. Don't fight it.

Ponies, Dude. Free ponies.

[Ken Burch]

51. Why do you want us to nominate somebody we won't be able to tell is a Democrat?

Backing HRC now makes as much sense as backing Humphrey BEFORE he was nominated in '68. And it likely dooms us to the same result.

Does the idea of a candidate people feel enthusiastic about really bother you that much?

[seybor]

58. That's just silly - the republicans hate her even more than you do

Isn't that the other favorite argument - she can't cross over the way Obama can? She's getting the dem base, he's getting the rep-leaning independents.

I'm not bothered by enthusiasm. I'm enthusiastic. I have an 18-month-old daughter and have never felt more invigorated or invested in an election.

[Ken Burch]

60. The Republicans hate her because they hate any woman who isn't barefoor and pregnant!

Their "hatred" is meaningless. She's the one they WANT us to nominate, because she's the one who'll be easier to beat. The fact that she's weaker than Obama in the head-to-heads against McCain proves that.

We need the passion the Obama people bring to the race. HRC can't cause that response in people.

[seybor]

71. And any woman who isn't is clearly a lesbian with "boy part" envy

I don't want to make assumptions - do you remember B Clinton's first term? That's when the Hillary ire arose. Republicans really thought she should be put in her place. There were all kinds of crazy aspersions about her being a lesbian or being too masculine. That was the original "polarizing" effect.

[seybor]

118. But she's the "radical democrat" while Obama is rank & file

Per govtrack, based on senate voting record. Unless that's not what you mean.

I'm thrilled that there were several, and are now two candidates about whom there are so many enthusiastic voters. We all have a lot to be enthusiastic about. I know the caucus you attended was an amazing event with inspired Obama supporters. I find the notion of a caucus very romantic due to just that kind of story. However, I think it's unfair to characterize Clinton supporters as unenthusiastic based on that data point. Both candidates are getting amazing turn out and votes. Alone, each of them had nearly as many votes as all republican votes combined on super tuesday. That wouldn't happen if supporters of both weren't fired up.

[amandabeech]

99. I believe that Delaware was a caucus.

I think that Connecticut, Minnesota, ND, MT and Utah were caucuses, too.

I wish I could find the site that listed them so that I could link.

I get the impression that he does better in caucuses generally than she does.

[seybor]

56. Regardless of state color, caucuses won't determine the general election, period

Hillary is winning in traditional primaries, Obama in caucuses. The general election is traditional private vote, private box time. Obama has alienated me. Of course, I'm old (35), and won't abandon my ideals out of spite if my candidate isn't nominated - so I guess it's ok to alienate me.

[Ken Burch]

64. exactly what has Obama done to alienate you, just ouf of curiousity?

And is that alienation worth potentially losing millions of new voters?

HRC isn't bringing any new people in.

[seybor]

66. You're illustrating some of it, but you sound sincere - are you interested in a bit of a long story?

The piece you're illustrating for me is how Bush-like Obama supporters, and in one case in particular Obama himself, sound. The rhetoric that my voting for HRC is a dangerous act - risking millions of new voters just smacks of the same logic that follows from "If you're not for the Patriot Act, you're not patriotic." My favorite button from the anti-war march I participated in NYC was "Dissent is Patriotic".

My disenchantment with Obama began with the MI/FL early primaries - problem for me is not his position, which I can honor and respect - but his posture and behavior surrounding the event. It's a complicated set of circumstances and feelings. If you're really interested, I'll try to gather my thoughts into one cogent post. If you're only interested in exchanging jabs, this is far too important to me to take down into that muck.

The good news is that, in fact, Hillary is bringing in new voters. My little brother who has typically voted libertarian or green has been making phone calls for her campaign (sadly, it's about all we MI voters can do these days). While they're not actively campaigning for her, other independents who run in my circles are also pulling for her. Granted - my brother just turned 32, so he's not a young kiddo. However, he represents the set of independents who could have made the difference in '00 and '04.

If we can agree to drop the vitriole, I'd be happy to discuss. I find it helpful to hear other perspectives.

[Ken Burch]

104. I appreciate your response. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But I respect your views. I wasn't an Obama supporter until Super Tuesday. I was converted by what I saw at our caucus. Four years ago, we had 174 people show up for it. This Tuesday, we had over a thousand(in Juneau, Alaska). In caucus sites in Anchorage, 3,000 and 4,000 people showed up. It was Obama, and only Obama, that accounted for this massive increase.

I want us to hang on to these people. This turnout is something the party needs to respect.
I'd like to believe that HRC could hold them, but at this point, good president though she might be, I can't see it.

And I'm not a part of any CULT(nor do I actually think any Obama person is). I'm just reacting to what I saw. There was ONE candidate in that room who had passionate committed supporters.

[seybor]

117. Arrgh - the cult junk

I didn't use that term, did I?!? I'll have to go back and make sure. I'll be very sorry and embarrassed if I did. I do think the "coming to Obama" stuff is a little creepy and off-putting, but that's Oprah for you. She "comes to" people. It's her way. Forgiveable though, as she does a lot of good.

Now, there's something bothering me about the argument that HRC couldn't hold on to those votes.

It seems to me that, out of a commitment to his party and his values, Obama would rally all those voters to unite behind Clinton were she to win. I'm wondering why Obama voters don't think that would happen, I've really tried to come up with something. Is it that 1) they haven't considered that he could play that role, 2) they don't believe he could, 3) they don't believe he would try, or 4) some other possibility I just haven't thought of yet? You might have a better perspective here. I'd like to think that, given their shared values, either candidate would throw themselves and their full support behind the other.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Kitsune]

34. Turn the argument around

One could just as easily say it's Hillary's fault. She isn't magically entitled to the nomination any more than Obama is.

[Independent-Voter]

74. That is one fucked up line of reasoning

So the dems should have just kissed Hillary's feet and handed her the nomination on a silver platter? What a fucked up world you live in!

[Coexist]

76. that was an extremely well thought out answer.

I come away from this a better person.

[yellowdawgdem]

48. H v. obam

I've heard a variety of repubs say that they'd much prefer to run against Hillary than Obama.
That says something right there, but is far from the whole story. I guess I'm a dreamer,
but I continue to hope that the two of them would run together on the same ticket.
That would repair the rift in some way. Both being alpha types though, I can't see that
happening. Plus, it would be a complete waste of Obama's talents to be vp. Hillary has a
great deal to offer, and I think tends to be underrated. I would be happy to work for,
and support her in the ge. I just think if she narrowly pulls it off for the nom, she is
going to need a highly charismatic vp to do it. And some new pant suits for sure.
I just can't visualize McCain winning unless the dems totally fuck up.

[seybor]

70. Having someone with broad support presiding over the senate

hardly seems like a waste.
I'm an ardent Clinton supporter, and actually have some reservations about his commitment and ability to build the consensus and unity he promises. However, if he could pull it off it could really be a powerful time.

[calico1]

73. It is badly divided and it is a mistake for any

Obama supporters (or Obama) to think that he will not have the same problem.

[Auntie Bush]

120. That's sickening and lately I'm often ashamed of the Dem party. nt

[Whisp]

8. the military industrial complex is a very passionate support.

passion for turning blood to money.
us pleebs, not so much.

[DJ13]

9. I doubt it

These new voters are the Democratic Party equivilant of what the Reagan Democrats were to the GOP in 1980.

Now imagine Reagan had lost the nomination back then to Bush sr., do you believe they would have stuck with the GOP for the GE in 80?

Had that happened, what we came to know as the GOP's power base throughout the 80's and 90's would have splintered, and the GOP would have never had 12 years of a Republican in the WH.

Thats what an Obama loss in becoming our nominee means to the Democratic Party.

A lost base of support we might never regain.

[ShadowLiberal]

21. I agree, we'll be creating a permanent minority for ourselves if we nominate Hillary

Here's the facts of the matter.

-Obama attracts the support of a LOT of young voters.
-How people vote in their first few elections usually determines how they'll vote for the rest of their lives.
-Young people are by far the least likely group to vote, but if we can get them to actually vote, then they stand a better chance of voting in future elections.

The young generation is a great source of support for a strong democratic majority, but if we piss them off by nominating a candidate who doesn't inspire them at all, and instead is very polarizing, then many of them will either not vote at all, or will vote for the republicans. We're really screwing over for generations to come if we don't nominate Obama. Those elderly who support Hillary won't last forever, and will probably mostly go along with Obama if he gets the nomination. Our screw up would indeed be like the republicans not nominating Ronald Reagan, he captured a generation of voters for the republican party, and we're still suffering the damage of doing so poorly back then today over 20 years later.

[seybor]

50. Hey! I still have my teeth! Don't put this Hillary voter out to pasture

My first opportunity to vote in a pres election was B Clinton's first term. It was incredible how he brought young voters like me into the active political sphere. The Clintons captured a generation of voters as well. My republican dad assured me in 1991 that we wouldn't see a dem in the white house again in his lifetime because the very large aging population wouldn't turn on the republican party. Guess what - they have.

60, by the way is still pretty young in terms of years left to vote - at 60, they won't even be eligible for Social Security during the next TWO rounds of presidential primaries. Not to discount the young, but don't disenfranchise the middle aged voters or the elderly during this election in which they are so huge! Seriously!

[caligirl]

13. If a Hillary DU supporter begged for my vote. Offered up some kind words.

[tandem5]

15. everybody votes individually - if Obama draws voters that would

otherwise not vote for anyone else - that is not *ever* going to be a reason for me to vote for Obama. Unity shouldn't be presented in the form of a voting-block ransom.

[Iceburg]

103. In other words if Obama isn't on the ticket, his "new" voters won't vote at all

On the otherhand, Clinton's voters will vote whether she is in or not. However,some, perhaps even a significant share will go to McCain if she is not in. In effect, Obama's "new" voters are neutral if he is not in.
Obama can't win without Hillary's voters, but Hillary can win without his.

[acmavm]

16. If Obama loses who will they vote for? And what's your point? Obama

should win simply because of his fan club and the risk of alienating them?

Are you ever around when the Obamites are slinging that shit that you have to vote for the dem winner regardless of who it is? And then in the same breath they tell you it's gonna be their guy Barrie? The rules are different for all these 'new voters'? They're feelings should override someone's objections to voting for him no matter what those objections are?

[DontFret]

17. The answer is no

This is not an indictment of HRC at all. HRC is seen as the typical politician. People are familiar with her. She is old. She might make a damn fine President, but she doesn't cause excitement.

It's like the brilliant old professor who drones on using powerpoints vs the brilliant young professor who makes lectures fun and interesting. Whose class do you think will be more popular?

Barack Obama has excited people because he is something new. He is inspiring. He is fresh. If he's gone, it goes back to being just another election with familiar politicians and familiar names who seem out of reach to ordinary voters. Whether Obama has substance or not is a matter of debate, but he connects with voters on a level that no politician has in decades.

It's not his message or his policies exciting people. It's him.

[napi21]

18. I think she would. The majority of people are so disgusted with Shrub and the terrible things he's

done that I think they would vote for my 23 year old cat! I'd like to see Obama win but I'd sure like to see him be more aggressive than he has been. Not against Hillary,k but against the Pub ideas! I don't want to reach across the aisle. I want to kick the damn Pub asses! THAT'S my only problem with Obama!

[ShadowLiberal]

23. You're way too overconfident, we could EASILY lose this election to McCain

This election is NOT a lock for a democrat in the white house no matter who we nominate. McCain will be an extremely difficult opponent for us, he already polls ahead of Hillary by 3 points and behind Obama by only 2, well within the margin of error for him to pull off a win.

All of the reasons the republicans hate him will aid him in the general election and hurt us.

[napi21]

82. If he keeps saying stupid thinks like being in Iraq for 100 years,

and sounding like a Shrub rerun, he will lose! It's not overconfidence that shows in poll after poll that the majority of people want OUT of Iraq! I don't think there are very many people who want another Prez who's like Shrub!

[juajen]

22. Are you saying those new voters are republican?

NT

[Ken Burch]

27. NO. I'm saying they're people who haven't been involved before and are involved now.

It seems to me it would be just as damaging to our chances to disregard them as it was for the party to disregard the massive vote for McCarthy and Robert Kennedy in '68, and to impose a bland passionless old hack on a soulless platform in a gesture of utter contempt to those new voters.

If the party had treated THOSE people with respect, there would have been no Nixon administration and no Second Republican Ascendancy.

No one was a passionate Humphrey supporter in '68. Is anybody gonna be a passionate HRC supporter in the fall?

I'm just saying, don't repeat the mistake.

[laconicsax]

24. Depends on whether or not those new voters

can see that there's a bigger picture here--that it isn't just about whether Obama or Clinton would be better, but that it's about how important it is to keep the Rethugs out of power if we want any kind of progressive agenda to move forward.

[Indenturedebtor]

26. And the answer is....

They don't see it as a bigger issue. Ask just about anyone on the street and they will say "Oh politicians are all the same". Because for the last 3 odd decades little has changed to the casual observer.

Shocking but true. The people that Obama has managed to wake up to the posibility of change will largely go away if he is not the Nom in my opinion.

But even so I don't expect people to be swayed.

I will say that I myself will likely leave the US if we have a brokered convention where the person with the popular vote doesn't get the nom.

If we can even have our votes mean something in our own party this country is worse than doomed. Doomed implies some inevitable future path to the worst possible scenario. We're already FUBAR at that point.

[seybor]

36. I hope you're wrong

I hope I would have stayed involved and empassioned about my progressive values even if the Obama of my early voting years (Bill Clinton) had lost.

As a casual observer who actually remembers the last 3 odd decades, I assure you so, so much has changed:
- women can now have tubal ligation without husband permission
- insurers now cover birth control more often than they cover Viagra
- domestic abuse is actually considered a real problem and is taken seriously by emergency responders
- Jimmy Carter left office just 28 years ago and went on to do amazing humanitarian and diplomatic work
- SCHIP, immunization programs and Head Start all emerged
- both candidates can raise universal healthcare as a positive platform without popular consensus being that they're promoting communism (remember that from HRC's earlier attempts, over 30 crowd?)
- a woman and an African American son of an immigrant are proving that, indeed, anyone with the heart and perseverence can become president

Things are always changing. Women couldn't even vote in presidential elections until just 88 years ago. African American men only gained that right (with a lot of nasty caveats) 60 short years earlier.

Assuming he's sincere, like Carter and Gore, Obama will stick around the party scene to unite them and bring them along. If this batch of young voters does leave, I really hope they find their way back.

[nonconformist]

28. The problem is when Obama makes this all about him.

Not about the issues, not about the party. Just him. He's telling the press that his voters won't vote for Hillary, but that hers will... because the reason they care now is because of Obama. His wife says she will have to think about supporting Hillary if her husband loses the primary, because Obama is the only one that can save the nation.

These things don't exactly scream party unity, and some of his supporters seem to be influenced by that.

[seybor]

42. Well put, thanks! Unity, indeed...

They will likely do as he tells them. He's essentially telling them to denounce her. They are. Surprised? That's why I say it's going to be on him to keep them, even if he isn't the nominee.

[seybor]

29. It is on both HRC and Obama to unify voters and ensure she does (and vice versa)

Full disclosure - my response may be biased by my passionate support for Clinton.
Super delegates and a limit of 4 pre 2/5 primaries are DNC rules. Question is, should we scrap those rules now because they've proved problematic? What impact would that have?

Under the current rules, MI/FL delegates don't count and HRC could win on super delegates even if Obama won on pledged delegates - taking the votes out of the hands of the many and giving them to the few goes against liberal values, so I see where this smells rotten.
Aye, but here's the rub...If we pitch the rules, MI/FL delegates do count and HRC is even further ahead of Obama based solely on pledged delegates.

Some suggest that the Michigan primary wasn't fair because Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. That was a bed of his own making - not something agreed to as part of the party's consequence for MI's early primary. At any rate, here in Michigan Obama's camp promoted "get out the uncommitted vote" rallies with great success, capturing a large share of the vote in a state that would likely have gone even more heavily for Clinton due to demographics if she, too, had campaigned in any way. Besides, we Midwesterners have national news, radio, and, yes, access to the internet. People had plenty of access to information about all of the candidates. Didn't work out very well for us, but it was OUR primary in OUR state held OUR way - we all have to live with it. Obama also ran regional ads that aired in FL. Effectively, his campaign reached both states. They just weren't his type of states. It pains me to admit that it would not be fair for the results to count since MI/FL clearly broke the rules. However, the results of the election are fair.

So, I completely agree that counting the super delegates AND MI/FL would be inappropriate and would disenfranchise voters in a very unbalanced way. However, not counting super delegates AND not counting MI/FL would be inappropriate for the same reasons. Our party. Our rules. I'm leaning toward following them (even though Hillary would benefit from the switch to counting all pledged delegates and only pledged delegates).

Hey - on the upshot - at least we're all feeling inspired and fiery - we can reform both the primary process and super delegate rules by working together.

[loveangelc]

31. no.

[Jed Dilligan]

33. Absolutely not. nt

[SeattleGirl]

37. I hope they do (no pun intended at all).

It's always good to get new people into the party; I hope they stay around if Clinton gets the nom.

[Ken Burch]

40. That will very much hinge on HRC's treatment of them.

She will need to work on the understanding that, if nominated, it is her responsibility to reach out to them and make it clear that what they fought for will be honored by her.

[seybor]

43. And on how gracious Obama is about losing

[Bodhi BloodWave]

39. While i'm not a voter, an Hillary win will delay my US visit 4 to 8 years n/t

[seybor]

52. Wow - that means even less than my vote for her in the Michigan primary!

[Bodhi BloodWave]

57. Hehe, your vote for Hillary was the best in your instance, she is the one you

want to be president as such she was the correct and most wise choice for you(while i don't trust her further then i can throw myself one-handed thats just my personal view)

[seybor]

62. What? You lost me.

My reference was to the MI primary - our delegates won't be seated, so her win in MI won't be counted. Since you can't/don't vote, your opinion means even less than my useless MI primary vote. We're miles apart and in the same ol' boat.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

63. my apologies, my mind is quite tired at the moment so i didn't

recall that MI didn't count, something that is embarrassing considering how closely i watch the US election(would have expected that i could recall that instantly even when tired)

And i wouldn't call it useless, your vote may not count but you still participated in the process and registered who you prefer which i consider quite important(I don't even care one iota about the politics here in Norway, all the alliances the myriad of parties here in Norway have to do to hold a majority kinda makes it impossible to know what you vote for since the agenda will change depending on who allies with who )

[seybor]

69. Thanks - yep, I actually took time off of work to vote by absentee ballot

I'm an empassioned Clinton voter - I know, I know - people think we're like bigfoot, but we do exist! :)

You shouldn't be embarrassed. Few here (outside MI and FL) even notice.

It really saddens me how hostile this race has become. Unity and change should come so easily given our current nightmare of an administration. Hopefully we can pull it together. Truth is, both candidates have great credentials. They've both done more harm than good - they've both had their conflicts of interest in public/political life, but they're both committed to great social ideals and they're both inspiring speakers. I saw Hillary speak in 1993 when I was a bit down and out, and was so inspired. I left the stadium determined to go back to school (I had dropped out due to an illness and financial troubles in my family). Two days later I had enrolled in my local community college and by Tuesday I was attending night classes. It took another 7 years to finish my bachelors, but I finished with perfect grades. I also became really active in my community - volunteering in schools and as a girl scout leader. I've waited 15 years for the opportunity to vote for her. So, when I realized I would be out of town on our primary date, I filled out special forms and took time off work to schlub my poor 18-month-old to city hall and cast my lowly vote. Ah - I'm a sucker for civic involvement...

[Radical Activist]

49. Many will show up to vote against the Republican and the war.

But that only goes so far especially when you have a candidate compromised by her vote for the war. Its time the party run someone who gives people something to vote for other than not being a Republican.

[seybor]

53. Vote for...

Hmmm...How about...
- Universal healthcare coverage
- A solid track record and policies on the economy, education and human rights
- Maybe, um, an effective plan for leaving the war

It's time we all vote based on substance. I know...It's a very radical idea.

[Radical Activist]

61. Voting on substance sounds good.

I'm not voting for the candidate who abandoned for over a decade the issue she claims is most important to her when she failed to pass health care on the first try in '93. Her "record of accomplishment" looks like a string of failures to me.

I'll vote for the candidate who had the good sense and conviction to take the right stand on the war.

I'll vote for the candidate with a better record on labor and the environment.

Just because people keep chanting that Obama lacks substance doesn't make it true.

[McCamy Taylor]

55. Yes, if they know what is at stake--peace, the economy, the environment, healthcare.

:dem:

I honestly think that the nation hates Bush-Cheney so much we can nominate the proverbial yellow dog and win.

[VotesForWomen]

59. it's pretty sad if obama voters are not mature enough to see that hillary supports nearly

all the same policies that obama does.

[woolldog]

65. No. I will not vote for her under any circumstances. (eom)

[FrenchieCat]

68. Not me.

As much as I used to Like Hillary Clinton, tonight, I have experienced the last straw.

[rolleitreks]

72. I think the kids will drift away. She's competent, but not exciting. n/t

[catgirl]

75. If HRC gets the nom, many will go to Bloomberg if he jumps in

Obama is more electable, so hopefully he'll get it. Bloomberg probably won't
jump in if Obama is the nominee. Nader will probably stay out as well.

[workinclasszero]

77. Proceed at your own peril Hillary supporters

If Obama enters the convention with a lead in delegates, he damn well better be the dem choice for President. If Hillary and her DLC backers try to arm-twist super delegates or even worse try to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, there is gonna be trouble.

I mean like Chicago 68 trouble.

If Hillary emerges the dem candidate after all the arm twisting, breaking party rules and quite possibly rioting in the streets, she will be fatally wounded and will lose in a landslide to McCain.

You can kiss all independent support good-bye for one, not to mention the 80% black support for Obama. Think Hillary can win after that? LOL!


Its up to the democratic party I guess, do you want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory??

[paulk]

86. you don't think that there would be trouble if the FLA and MI

delegates aren't seated?

Do you really think it's ok to disinfranchise those voters if it gives Obama the win?

Party "rules" be damned - the people of those states will have a voice in this election. Anything else would be undemocratic. I doubt that Obama would want that word hung around his neck going into a GE.

[pampango]

93. That's the problem. There will be trouble either way.

If the Florida and Michigan delegates are not seated, there will be outrage about their disenfranchisement, regardless of any party rules or candidate agreements prior to their primaries.

If they are seated, and their votes plus those of the SDs, reverse an Obama elected delegate lead (if he has one), then there will be trouble also.

[workinclasszero]

96. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...again!

Number 1; No one is being "disenfranchised" and you know it! They will cast their ballot for president in the general like everybody else!

Number 2 Hillary Clinton AGREED to not seat the Florida and Michigan delegates because they broke party rules and moved up their primaries. If she goes back on her WORD now it PROVES she is a stone cold LIAR!

If she lies and cheats her way into the nomination, she will lose big time!

Jeez the thug party will say, look Hillary lied to her own party and stabbed them in the back! You want that in the whitehouse??

I cant believe Democrats will pull this idiocy and AGAIN lose the presidency to a right-wing nut case!

[paulk]

101. if this is what passes for an argument from Obama's people

then he is truly in trouble.

You can not disenfranchise the primary voters in Florida and Michigan.

Period.

Obama knows this

[ShortnFiery]

78. Nope, no matter who HRC selects as VP, we will be saying "President McCain" come Jan 2009.

:thumbsdown:

[paulk]

87. and you will be doing your damn best

to make that come true, I'm sure.

[KeSs]

79. As a Young Voter with many Young voter friends

I can honestly say that I WILL NOT support Hillary Clinton and none of my democratic friends will support Hillary Clinton (11 of us). We are all Obama supporters for various reasons......we are also all highly educated.

It comes down to one important factor. HRC is totally full of shit. She is POLITICAL. I am fucking sick of people who are full of it and change their image for votes. I heard her talk on Tuesday night and she literally sounded like Obama (well, attempted to sound like him)....

Don't get me wrong, I dont want McCain to win anything. However, I am sick of voting for people who are fake. And to be honest, even though HRC and Mccain disagree on issues, they share the same sort of political "fakeness".

[paulk]

102. this is a problem with Obama bringing in young people -

they are coming in for him and not the party. Their support is shallow, as you have so ably indicated.

Also, if you're even telling the truth, which is debatable, you seem to be voting against Hillary rather than for Obama.

ps - if your little rant is any indication of how the "highly educated" youth of America make their voting decisions, then we, as a nation, are truly in trouble.

[samrock]

81. Yes .. IF.....

She gets Obama to take the veep slot... Which I would hope he would take to beat McCain...

[lse7581011]

88. No! n/t

[BenDavid]

89. I TAKE OFFENCE with your statement that somehow there is

no passionate support for HRC....What? just because we do not get goose bumps running up and down our body and we do not shed tears and flip and flop on the ground like one is at a revival meeting does not mean there is not any passion for HRC.We know who the real deal in this campaign is and not some sideshow barker with a golden voice.

Maybe if you would stop and think for a moment and check the voting that has gone on since January and it seems to me HRC has matched Obama vote for vote and in some cases less votes and in some cases more votes...you better be glad obama can mesmerize enough people to show up and vote because if not obama would have been finished.....but he will be when those same young folks he goes after sees the lies then they too will depart.

[Independent-Voter]

94. HRC was up 20% going into the primaries, now notsomuch

Holy shit some of you guys are fucking dense. Obama is kicking HRC's ass, and you can be damn sure that independent voters are not going to be swinging to HRC if she gets the Dem nomination.

[surfermaw]

90. HOw quickly we forget...Bill beat Obama by going into the college counties

Pulled enough votes away from Obama for Hill to win, then the out cry they are cheating, they are cheating..haha

[surfermaw]

91. Watching the board and Obama posters, turned me to Hillary

They can dish it out but can't take it,, if you intend to run for President then you had better get a thicker skin the republican you have got to face the republican party,

[elana i am]

92. doubt it.

let me put it this way - i hated the clintons (both of them but especially bill) before i ever cared about politics and before i was old enough to vote. they were the britney and lindsay and tom cruise of my teenage years. the whole sordid mess that was bill's presidency was a blight on my otherwise insulated little world. my mom lectured me at the time about not letting any man do to me what bill did to hillary. consequently i've never even given a moments thought or consideration for hillary as president, especially considering that getting hillary also means getting bill. no way no how will i vote for a clinton. ever.

the way i see it is the people who vote in primaries tend to be the people who are more serious about politics than the average person. these people may have some appreciation of the clintons. they may actually remember them fondly and respect their politics. these people are the ones voting for hillary in the primary. i also notice that an upstart, pretty much unknown a year ago, is nearly keeping pace with her amongst at least half of these politically involved individuals prone to voting in primaries. that means that even amongst the politically savvy and engaged dems, the clintons are not always a happy thought.

i think obama has an advantage that hillary doesn't. the young people he pulls in are post-clinton era, obviously so if follows they don't have an attachment to the clintons. hillary might pull away some young women whose first priority it is to vote for a woman, but that leaves a lot of young people for obama. we already know obama is getting the lion's share of the independents and repug crossovers.

hillary vs. mccain - hillary loses the repug crossovers, who when faced with equally shitty choices decide to stick with the repug as opposed to voting against their ideology for the other shitty choice. independents who hate hillary go with mccain. dems like myself who have no use for clintons just stay home. now the question is, how many dems would not vote for hillary. we here at DU are the fanatics and we're determined to keep a repug out of the white house. but that's just us, not the general public who voted for shrub's second term. even with a record turnout it wasn't enough to win. people who wouldn't vote for a black man probably couldn't be counted on to vote for a woman either. i think the racist/sexist vote is a draw. the other big problem is the repugs who otherwise might not have voted could be drawn out to help defeat hillary. i don't necessarily think the reverse is true for mccain. he had cross-over appeal to dems last time didn't he? oh yeah, i almost forgot, you get hillary you also get bill. what's worse for the anti-clinton folks than 1 clinton? 2 clintons for the price of one.

obama vs. mccain - aside from inherent ideology no one but gay people really have a reason to hate him. he doesn't have the sordid past and built in opposition from it coming from his own party. fortunately for him, the only real negatives he has is that he's a newbie, he's black and he's got an image problem with gay people. he and clinton are pretty similar on the issues. where they differ is on personality and on integrity issues. up against mccain he's going to get the repug crossovers, the independents love him and about half of democrats are in love with hope and change. repug crossovers would hopefully cancel out any repugs drawn out to defeat him.

eta: i just remembered something. obama has one HUGE advantage. he didn't vote for war. i really think that matters more than anything else to a sizeable subset of dems. it matters to me.

[MethuenProgressive]

95. No, they'll go back to the Republican Party.

Or Spring Break.

[sundancekid]

97. 3 words: no.fukkkking.way

[RoadRage]

100. No...

There are a lot of people in this race that are voting for OBAMA. Not the "Democrat".. not the "Black Guy".. not the "Young Guy". They are voting for Barack Obama because they like HIM, His policies, his enthusiasm.

Clinton is not a "2nd choice" to many of those independents.. she is frankly not a choice.

I'm voting for Obama. I will probably vote for Clinton if she is the nom, because I dislike McCain's social issue and war issue policies. But, I will probably be going to the polls alone, where as if Obama wins, I'll be going with many friends.

[romana]

98. She will if

She will if Senator Obama urges everyone who would have voted for him to vote for her in the general election and works on her behalf to get a Democrat elected to the White House.

[Ken Burch]

116. She will have an even better chance if she gives up on the Scoop Jackson foreign policy

All hawkishness leads to is war after war and Democratic presidents that govern like Republicans. It limits us, at best, to the Johnson Administration AFTER 1966. That can't be worth even bothering to work for. And we don't have to settle for that.

It's enough for our foreign policy to defend our country from external attack.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. Some.

But there's definitely going to be a lot of voter disenfranchisement.

[AJH032]

106. Pretty easy answer to that question

give him the VP spot.

[rug]

107. If they don't support her against McCain, what exactly are they supporting now?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

108. You, Sir, have nailed this one down.

[Ken Burch]

110. They're supporting a new, idealistic presence.

It's likely they'd see a Clinton-McCain matchup as a fight between two dreary old has-beens, like a lot of McCarthy/RFK supporters were made(by their treatment by the hacks and the cops in Chicago)to see the Nixon-Humphrey contest.

HRC needs to reach out to those people. She can't let her supporters keep taking this "get out of the way, you punks, this is MINE" attitude. She has to accept that the Obama faction is equal to hers and treat it with equal respect.

[rug]

112. Sounds to me the approach is BO or the GOP. Period.

[Ken Burch]

115. No. For a lot of them it would be Obama or not voting.

In any event, there's nothing so inherently superior about HRC that's worth losing these people over.
If she's nominated, it's on her to reach out and be conciliatory.
And it will be sad if once again, the party chooses the "no passion, no enthusiasm" strategy for the fall campaign.

2004 proved that approach will never work again.

[TexasObserver]

109. No, not a chance in hell.

Ask them. They consider her a mean grandmother figure who hasn't a clue what they're about.

[thoughtcrime1984]

113. Hell no

I am losing faith that I'd even vote for her. I may yet, but I am very tired of their campaign.

[MadHound]

114. I'm sure she'll hold on to some portion of them, but that's the least of her problems

If Hillary gets the nod, she will energize a demoralized right wing, and they will turn out in droves to vote against Hillary. She will also lose much of the anti-war left, who will either go Green or go home, and many conservative Dems, and possible the majority(at least a sizable minority) of independents will go to McCain.

She will lose, and possibly lose badly.

[Auntie Bush]

119. That depends on how many people are patriotic and really care about what happens to our country,

their children's future and the direction the Supreme Court is going. Seems p like a pretty simple decision to me...but some people will bite their nose off in spite of their face. Those are very vindictive people. I will gladly, without hesitation, vote for Obama if he wins...although I'll probably have a tear in my eye...but I certainly don't have a stick.