Face it: Obama is the weakest primary frontrunner EVER.

[Austinitis]

Seriously, here's the challenge I'm posing to Obama supporters:

• Find any primary frontrunner who this late in the race had this small a lead over his nearest competitor.
  
  
• Find any primary where this late in the race a candidate had this big a financial or organizational advantage and got this little out of it.
  

Really, this is a major problem for those of us who would like to see a Democrat win in the fall. Right now our party looks worse than even the Democratic party of the 1980's. Mondale lost hard. Dukakis lost hard. And if history is any indicator, Obama, if he gets the nomination, is going to lose wickedly hard. And if that, for Obama supporters, doesn't raise the biggest, brightest, most scarlet of red flags, I don't know what can.

And I think that this, as much as anything else, tells us why we need to get behind Hillary. Because Obama's only real advantages as a candidate are his ability to raise money and his organizational advantage - and Mondale had both of those (and used both of those) to win the primary. At the same time, though, Obama has major weaknesses which Hillary doesn't: Throughout the primary, Obama has been largely inept at winning over blue-collar, socially conservative Democrats (exactly the people Mondale lost when those voters became "Reagan Democrats"). And Obama's supporters are Democrats who aren't really going to defect no matter what (the MoveOn crowd will take what the party gives them).

So let's face it. Your guy's not so hot.

[anonymous171]

1. lol

[grantcart]

2. waste of time = ignore

[Austinitis]

17. Why do you Obama people make such a big performance

out of setting someone to ignore?

Really, if it's not worth your time then why are you taking time to tell me that. Just click ignore and leave it.

I mean you can't seriously think I care if you ignore me, can you? There are tens of thousands of Obama supporters to fill your place.

NEXT!

[Catchawave]

52. LOL...you are so right Austinitis.....

The points you brought worry me too. Obama is not GE material, the hard questions are starting and he can't answer them :(

[lachattefolle]

93. It will go badly in the GE, no doubt. Every time we have a sure

winner, we lose.:(

[formernaderite]

185. actually it's a premise that goes both ways

one of the candidates should have a larger lead. Although I prefer Obama, I am not convinced he can close the deal in November. Of course we are also dealing with repubs who have registered as dems just to vote....we'll have to play this out for a while longer.

[chemenger]

230. You are so right, Catchawave. Cackle! Cackle! Cackle!

We really need HiLIARy to face off against McCain in the GE. Cackle! Cackle! Cackle! She definitely is GE material. Cackle! Cackle! Cackle!

By the way ... :puke:

[JoFerret]

237. He doesn't get close on that

for all his many appealing aspects.

[dchill]

79. I don't have anyone on ignore. And it's usually worth...

my time to tell anyone what I think, if they have a serious point to make. My guess would be that there are more Clinton supporters with sore ignore-clicking fingers than Obama supporters with the same complaint. Nice baseless screed, though.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[Catchawave]

88. We? You people?

Why not just debate her points, or ignore the thread if you can't?

[gateley]

147. "We" meaning Obama supporters. You're not referenced.

You People - because the OP set the tone.

The OP wasn't inviting a debate. Just telling us that our guy's not so hot.

[roguevalley]

138. because you are delusional in your conclusions. What you should

ask yourself is how your dame can win the election when her negatives are Nixonian. She will never have the chance. People just can't stomach her.

[Gore Edwards]

165. Ignore?

They're not just ignoring you, they're holding their breath and sticking their fingers in their ears, and screaming lalalalala until you either join the cult or leave DU. Don't go.

[JoFerret]

169. Sounds about right

Temper tantrums - they have become their own emotiCONS.

[JoFerret]

168. Inconvenient facts

Always best to wish them away.

[dbonds]

3. Somebody doesn't know their history.

[BzaDem]

8. You're that person.

[dbonds]

13. Reaching much?

You need to seriously go back and study history. Don't just make shit up and see if it sticks to the wall.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Name Any Frontrunner Who Came From Behind A 25 Point Lead

The Clintons were up by 25%, and their re-ascendence was inevitable.

That is one hellabig balloon that Obama popped.

[jackson_dem]

43. John Kerry. Carter also came out of nowhere. Obama started in a strong 2nd place

[EVDebs]

44. HRC = The M/I Complex's candidate

Defense Industry Embraces Democrats, Hillary By Far The Favorite
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html

War without end, amen.

[Barrymores Ghost]

5. Brilliant! Get behind the person in SECOND place...

It's the only way to win!!

LOL!!!

[gateley]

87. Much more rewarding than getting behind the presumed winner,

and seeing that person and her lead disintegrate.

[bhikkhu]

6. There is one weaker I can think of

But she is not the frontrunner

edit to say - this week's plan seems to be tear down the front-runner, by any means necessary. First, it isn't working. Second, its a miserable excuse of a political strategy. Its a bitter loser strategy, which doesn't care how much of the party it sends to ruin. Fortunately all indications are it will be over soon.

[rocktivity]

7. So what's the solution--pick a candidate whose performance has been even WEAKER?

:eyes:
rocknation

[trof]

9. You're saying Obama isn't HOT?

Hey, when you're hot, you're hot.
When you're not, you're not.
He's hot.
I rest my case.
:-)

[bhikkhu]

20. That was so much simpler and better than my reply!

[cali]

10. no two primaries are the same, genius.

posts from hill supporters or obama supporters proclaiming what a weak general election candidate one or the other is, are pure unadulterated dog shit. peddle it over on freeperville, dearie.

[stahbrett]

11. Hillary was the inevitable one, with the establishment, name recognition, etc.

Yet she's lost the nomination to a one-term Senator who's black and named Barack Hussein Obama. Who's the weak candidate again?

[newmajority]

39. If I could recommend a reply, this one would get it.

And your signature as well :evilgrin:

[mythyc]

48. second on the sig line

BEST SIG EVER

:rofl:

[sellitman]

188. *Ding* Ding*

You rock! Sig line and all.

[Barking Spider]

193. We have a winner.

That sums it up perfectly.

[racaulk]

212. R! O! F! L!

:rofl:

Spot on!

[FrenchieCat]

Find any primary race where the frontrunner was a Black man

and the 2nd place runner was the wife of the last Democratic two term President.

I dare you!

[jackson_dem]

45. Jesse Jackson was the frontrunner at one point in 1988

What is the best performance a woman not named Hillary has had as a presidential candidate?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. If he's that "weak" what does that make 2nd place Hilly? Strong?

I think not.

[Kitty Herder]

177. My thoughts exactly. nt

[Avalux]

14. If you say so! Thank you for coming here and persuading us to vote for Hillary.

I think your use of the words "wickedly hard" is what really convinced me. :rofl: :spray:

[Burma Jones]

15. Oh Well, I guess it'll be President McCain then

At least Obama is ahead.....Are you suggesting that nominating the second place candidate is better than nominating the winner?

[Blue_Roses]

you, again?

:eyes: you give Austin a bad name. I really like the town too.

[malik flavors]

16. It's funny how Clinton supporters under estimate their own candidate so much.

Is it that he's a weak front runner? Or that she's a good competitor?

If he should be beating her so easily, you must not think much of your candidate.

[boppers]

18. Name one primary season that had the same schedule as this one.

While you're at it, name one candidate who got the nomination after earning *less* delegates that their competitor.

[jackson_dem]

46. Many of them. Primaries didn't become the path to the nomination until the 70's

[boppers]

61. FACEPALM

Yeah. This is why Florida doesn't count. *sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary

[caligirl]

19. This si the kind of bull pucky we don't need at DU.

[Catchawave]

Like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5595191

[lachattefolle]

98. Wow, thanks for pointing out that elevating discourse, catchawave! LOL

[texas_indy]

21. No, Hillary is according to you since she is LOSING to Obama. LOL ...nt

[blm]

22. Name a Dem who had ALL the power$tructure help and BLEW IT as badly as Hillary did .

.

[Austinitis]

115. Dean?

And we should have picked him over Kerry.

[blm]

192. Nope - Dean didn't have the powerstructure behind him and neither did Kerry.

In fact, Terry McAuliffe was making sure the DNC infrastructure stayed in its collapsed state after 2000's theft, because he was holding for Hillary2008.

[TML]

23. Then how come your candidate is LOSING?

:rofl:

[jefferson_dem]

24. Wow. A month at DU and your already bashing our eventual nominee.

Enjoy your stay. :hi:

[cliffordu]

25. Are you still here??

Hmm....

[jackson_dem]

49. Another Obamite threatening to ban an Obama critic

[Catchawave]

71. I've noticed that all too frequently....

so much for that free speech they "cherish" so much any other time when they're trashing Hillary :rofl:

[cliffordu]

75. I can't ban anyone.

I'm just asking a simple question. Hatemongers usually go their way by 200 posts or so.



:patriot:

[lachattefolle]

99. Someone resigned and left him boss??

[jgraz]

223. No Obama supporter can ban an Obama critic

That doesn't stop us from dreaming, though...

[TheCowsCameHome]

26. Hey, it's tough to beat a hard-drinkin', bullet dodgin' woman. .

*****Braaaaaaappppppppp***** Ahhhhhhh.

Set up another round, barkeep..........................:rofl:

[madrchsod]

123. you are bad......

[mcctatas]

27. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps, instead of Obama being

the weakest frontrunner ever, OUR party (you know the democratic one) has two very strong candidates? If there's a neck-and-neck horse race, it's not because the lead horse is slow. But, whatever get's you through the mire.....:eyes:

[JBoy]

28. LOL! This is too funny.

Your guy only has a small lead, so he should step aside.

That's like telling a team that's ahead 3-2 in the World Series to give up, because they only have a slight lead.

[jordi_fanclub]

29. BTW, how did you call the UNDERDOG of such a WEAKEST frontrunner? (n/t)

:rofl:

[TheCowsCameHome]

33. If he's second, that makes her third.

:eyes: :crazy: :silly: :shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

30. You do know that the "blue collar Democrats" picked Mondale over Gary Hart, right?

Gary Hart had Obama's present day coalition, without as much African American support. Polls showed him dead even with Raygun, but the party in their infinite wisdom decided to go with Mondale instead.

[newmajority]

31. Is that a mosquito I hear?

That's what these desperate Hillbots are starting to sound like - a really small swarm of mosquitoes.

Tuesday night, the big can of "Off" comes out.........

[roseBudd]

32. Excuse me..did Mondale have a personality? Because I heard he didn't, in fact it was Hart

who actually had charisma

[Dbdmjs1022]

34. Thanks, I needed the laugh

Weakest? I could just be an ass and say that Hillary was the weakest frontrunner since, you know, she's now losing. Or I could point out that the fact that he overcame the biggest primary machine in memory to become to apparent nominee shows how tough he is.

But honestly, I'm just gonna say that you sound really bitter.

[Austinitis]

106. Obama's come-from-behind was nothing like Kerry's

against Dean. Kerry basically had it wrapped up against Dean in 04 right after Iowa. Obama came from behind in Iowa and couldn't finish the job. If even Kerry lost, what does that say about our prospects for November with Obama?

We should have gone with Dean in 04 and we should go with Hillary now. Obviously, coming from behind early on doesn't mark you out as a good candidate...

[graycem]

142. Barack Obama

is no John Kerry, and he won't be running against an incumbent president during a time of war, but against McCrazy who has to be the Republican to face the music on the economy. Kerry did exceptionally well all things considered, but he didn't have that personality, that whether we like it or not, matters in a presidential race. Obama most certainly DOES have it (plus many other advantages) so you can't even begin to compare the two to make a valid argument.

[verges]

153. I'll agree that Dean

would have been a better candidate in '04. However, Kerry was able to come from behind because of Dean's unfortunate implosion. Had the media not crucified Dean because of the scream, Kerry would not have been able to catch up. Senator Clinton's campaign implosion has been more gradual and more complete than Dean's. She just doesn't see it herself. And Obama has a more charismatic appeal to Republican and Independent voters than Kerry could ever hope to have had!

Don't misunderstand me. Kerry is a fine Senator, and would have made a good POTUS. He just didn't have the charisma to pull off the win. And let's face it, that's a major point.

[quakerboy]

35. What does that then indicate about the person coming in second?

Brilliant thinking. Several large portions of Obama's supporters are not core dems. EG the youth, who are largely jaded with both parties, but are giving it a chance because they know that they don't like the current plan any. And as so many of your ilk have pointed out, the youth have a way of not showing up when they don't care about the candidates. And they are not the only ones.

Try again, this time use some of those silly "Facts" and "logic".

[Orangepeel]

36. Hah! Well, he's a stronger candidate than the person losing to him

So I guess he's the best we got.

[Mz Pip]

37. That would make Hillary?

What, exactly?? Coming in behind the weakest primary frontrunner EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

Says a lot about Ms. Clinton's campaign.

If she can't beat THE WEAKEST PRIMARY FRONTRUNNER EVER than how can she expect to beat McCain????

:rofl: at your logic.

[ladywnch]

66. exactly! She was the presumptive nominee a year ago and going

into Super Tuesday and is now struggling for her survival and OBAMA is the weakest frontrunner?!?!?!!!! It takes alot to fall that far.

[YDogg]

38. austin texas. ah. that might explain it.

[WillyT]

40. Face It, You Are An Idiot !!!

:wtf:

[Maribelle]

41. Obama would never have gotten this far if the DNC had stuck to their 50% rule for Florida & Michigan

[ScarletSniper]

47. Hillary would never have gotten this far if she wasn't married to Billy

[PinkTiger]

58. Billy would never have made it this far if it hadn't been for Hillary. nt

[Catchawave]

64. Good one :) n/t

[ScarletSniper]

67. Hillary wouldn't have made it this far if she wasn't married to Billy

[Catchawave]

85. Ever heard of the Power behind the Throne ?

Most successful men have them.

[ScarletSniper]

...

[ScarletSniper]

..

[ScarletSniper]

...

[ScarletSniper]

...

[ScarletSniper]

...

[ScarletSniper]

...

[ScarletSniper]

...computer went whacky

[ScarletSniper]

113. If she is the power...she certainly doesn't know how to transfer it to work for her...

in a winning way...

[ScarletSniper]

...

[Revanchist]

154. Well that's one way to increase your post count!

:9

[ScarletSniper]

...

[ScarletSniper]

114. ...

[Austinitis]

229. It does look strange when your lead in a race is the product of disenfranchising people...

[NRaleighLiberal]

42. No, that would be Hillary. NT

[ClericJohnPreston]

50. Absolutely accurate

He makes Kerry look like JFK. Obama is a self-nullifying candidate, who throws the politics and activism of his historical Party under ther bus, for political expediency.

I predict the same demise for him, which can only benefit our Party if it pushes a stronger candidate forward.

[Condem]

51. Nearest competitor, Austinitis?

This is the great Hillary Clinton we're talking about. You know - the one who had it wrapped up by Iowa. Hey Austinitis, I'll ask you this and I'll borrow a title from the great English Beat album. Wha'happen?

[izzybeans]

53. What's that say about the candidate losing the race?

You aren't a logician are you?

[Yael]

54. I forgot all about you

Trolling through tonight for my TS watch list.

Added. :thumbsup:

[Austinitis]

117. TS?

watch list?

[mythyc]

137. holy feigned mock ignorance batman!

[quantass]

55. Well.... IF SHE CAN'T WIN AGAINST HIM then.... 1 + 1 = n/t

[GoesTo11]

56. Or Hillary is the strongest challenger ever.

Obama's leading Clinton, so either he's strong or she's weak. Two candidates came into this race with a lot of political assets.

Hillary seems like a stronger challenger than - oh - Ted Kennedy in 1980. More institutional support, more money.

[peoli]

57. Jerry Brown in 1992 beat Bill Clinton in Colorado

[jackson_dem]

63. Jerry Brown was never close to Clinton in delegates

[anonymous171]

65. Guess who has the most delegates now?

[ScarletSniper]

70. Not hard to figure out is it ? :-)

[jackson_dem]

76. You're comparing a 130 delegate lead to a 1,200 delegate lead after PA?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/q-did-the-1992.html

The only modern race that went down to the wire and was close was Ford vs. Reagan in 1976. Carter vs. Kennedy went to the convention but Kennedy was down 2:1 in delegates.

[peoli]

105. I wish he would have kicked Bills ass. He would have been far better.

[Condem]

59. Austinitis is a burner

Unlike the great JacksonDem who sees his threads through , this poster is one and done.

[Condem]

60. Austinitis is a burner

Unlike the great JacksonDem who sees his threads through , this poster is one and done.

[Austinitis]

72. What are you talking about? I make tons of replies on my threads.

Not always right away, but I certainly don't do hit and run posting.

[Condem]

81. Welcome back to the conversation, Austinitis.

How about commenting on post #51.

[gcomeau]

62. What does that say about the person losing to him?

Even if we were to accept your argument... which I for one don't. He was up against the candidate who was supposed to be pre-ordained to be given the nomination... who has an ex=president for a husband and the bulk of the pre-existing Democratic establishment starting off in her corner, instant nationwide name recognition and the advance endorsements of like 150(?) superdelegates before the first primary votes was even cast (but now all of a sudden the Clinton campaign is all about the remaining supers not endorsing until after all the primaries are done so they can judge things properly, that's pretty precious)... and he still kicked the crap out of her campaign using an organization he built from the ground up at the grassroots level.

This is quite possibly one of the STRONGEST primary frontrunners ever judging by the fact that he is the frontrunner at all given how heavily the deck was stacked against him to begin the race.

[olkaz]

68. And that guy that you're talking about, that guy who is so weak...

Is beating Hillary.

So, if Obama is weak, Hillary is weaker. So we should go for an even WEAKER candidate?

Jesus christ, I wasted my 1000th post on this?

[and-justice-for-all]

69. I think McSame is the weakest frontrunner...

and If you people do not stop clubbing each other over the dumbest and most pathetic shit you can find, you are going to be the victims of your own demise.

[madrchsod]

131. gee.... a voice of reason

my dog could beat john in a general election

[graycem]

143. Hmm.. maybe

What's your dog's position on the capital gains tax? :p

[madrchsod]

148. sorry i tried to wake her

....she was complaining all day about the amount of dog treats i give her.i`ll ask her about cap gains tomorrow

[dchill]

73. Weakest ever? Or maybe...

Hillary Clinton is the most firmly entrenched, most politically powerful, most hypocritical also-ran EVER!

[Barack_America]

74. You sure about that?

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M4/C00431445.html

[dansolo]

77. But what does that say about Hillary

By your own logic, wouldn't that make Hillary an even weaker candidate?

[Nitrogenica]

78. You are not so hot.

[Austinitis]

90. Your mom's not so hot.

:eyes:

[JeffR]

80. You have some sort of comprehension problem.

Essentially, this guy came from underdog status to edge out the presumptive front-runner, and you're talking like he was the king of the hill the whole time and couldn't keep his competitor at bay.

Your post is intellectually dishonest. Get a grip and stop wasting your and everyone else's time with crap like this.

[Catchawave]

92. So she doesn't get a Duzy this week ?

Speaking of crap.

[JeffR]

96. The Duzy Awards are just intended to give people a quick laugh.

Not to advance political arguments that are absurd on their face. Of course, you being so thoughtful and all, I'm sure you knew that already. Right?

[Catchawave]

187. Oh yes indeed....

:silly:

[bridgit]

196. Pft-Bhwahahahahaha, you got that right!!

:spray: :thumbsup:

[girl gone mad]

82. Recommending..

so that everyone can see just how delusional Clinton supporters have become.

[bluerum]

83. FACE IT - Two very strong candidates duking it out.

So lets face it - no matter who wins - they will kick McBushes ass in Nov.

Holy banana's - you bring Mondale into a discussion about Clinton and Obama and expect to be taken seriously!

Damn.

[stray cat]

86. What does that make Hillary if she is losing to a loser?

[yourguide]

89. Did you check the fundraising totals?

[jackson_dem]

91. And despite outspending her 3:1 on 3/4 and in PA he still can't put her away,..

[Condem]

94. Now , come on , Jackson

PA is tailor made for Clinton. You have been spouting that for six weeks now.

[yourguide]

104. And despite having all of the money AND press she still...

came in 3rd in Iowa. so stop.

[jackson_dem]

156. She was outspent by Obama, who outspent Edwards 6:1 in next door Iowa to win by 8 points

[yourguide]

180. rewriting history I see. just because she chose to blow

her money on suites at the bellagio and not advertise....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[madrchsod]

124. not that talking point again.....

[Austinitis]

95. Yea, and the spending rates.

He outspent her 3 to 1 in Texas.

He outspent her 3 to 1 in Ohio

He's outspending her 5 to 1 in Pennsylvania.

And yet he just. keeps. losing.



I don't care how many donations you guys make to his campaign. You can't buy enough paint to paint over the facts.

[yourguide]

109. Typical HRC supporter. Rendell said the number in PA was 2 to 1 today

Not 5 to 1. By the way, as of Super Tuesday they were exactly even in fundraising, off by a million, yet she still lost Iowa and a healthy chunk of super tuesday states. She had ALL of the money and ALL of the press leading into Iowa and she came in 3rd.

She is the one who just keeps losing my friend, it's why she's behind in delegates, popular votes, and number of states won.

[jackson_dem]

159. It is 2 to 1 this week. The overall difference is 3 to 1

The Clinton campaign for obvious reasons husbands resources so she can spend more at the end when most voters decide. Obama was on the air long before Clinton was and has outspent her massively.

You confuse quantity with quality. Clinton had the quantity of press coverage; Obama had the quality. Getting press is not helpful if it is negative press. Obama has been a MSM creature from the beginning.

As of Super Tuesday they were basically tied. Land doesn't vote, people do.

[yourguide]

181. Wow, you are delusional.

Did you look at the FEC reports? Clinton cant manage her money. She has 10 mil in debt and about 8 mil in the bank that can be used for the primary. She's in the red 2 mil. Perhaps instead of yelling "He outspent us" you should be looking at how your candidate wasted her funds.

And I dont confuse quality with quantity, as the presumptive nominee before Iowa she got ALL of the glowing press. She STILL called it over on super tuesday.

Dont you HRC supporters think for a moment that maybe the mess she's in is her OWN fault?

[graycem]

144. And guess what else...

Her most important advisor, her husband, you know Bill Clinton, said if she can't win Texas, she's lost the nomination and should probably end her campaign. And, then she lost Texas, and the argument was changed. Today I think he's suggesting she ABSOLUTELY has to win North Carolina. You can say anything you'd like but the truth is, she's just hanging around hoping Obama implodes. Does that make her a stronger candidate? Winning by default? Hmmmmmmm.

[jackson_dem]

160. She won Texas by 100,000. She has almost no shot in NC

The people claiming she has to win NC are those who want her out and are setting the bar to a point that she cannot reach. They will then say "She lost NC and should quit!". Obama has won every single state where the black vote in the Dem primary has been higher than 30%. North Carolina will not be any different. The only way she can win is if she gets over 70% of the white vote and that is extremely unlikely. She has only done that in three or four states. Obama gets 80-91% of the black vote in every state with no deviation (Obama got 90% of the black vote in the last primary). To expect that to change in North Carolina is unrealistic and those pundits who claim she can have an ulterior motive, as stated above. Asking Clinton to win North Carolina is like asking John McCain to beat Romney in Utah (Romney beat him 91-5% in Utah due to getting 95% of the Mormon vote).

[graycem]

163. Uhm.. noooo

"The people claiming she has to win NC are those who want her out and are setting the bar to a point that she cannot reach. They will then say "She lost NC and should quit!"



Not some pundit. The phrase came from Bill Clinton's mouth. He was doing some small gathering, and after a member of the press asked him something in this regard. His answer was just what I said. I didn't imply it, I didn't say it, I didn't hear Keith Olberman or David Axelrod say it. Bill Clinton said it, I watched his lips move, and the words came out. Period. That is why I find it amusing. Obama won Texas. :)

[jackson_dem]

171. He was flattering the audience. No big deal. He knows the demographics

Obama lost Texas. Had he won Texas he would be the nominee right now. Instead he failed to close the deal on 3/4 and apparently will fail to end this again tomorrow. Buyer's remorse? It is odd to see an "inevitable" front runner who outspends his opponents 3:1 consistently over the past two months and has the MSM in the tank for him unable to close the deal...

[FatDave]

225. "Obama lost Texas."

I think what you meant to say was lost the primary, won the caucus, won the most delegates.

[graycem]

164. Ahem...

http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/567422.html

Bill Clinton said Friday in Charlotte that his wife’s presidential bid hinges in many ways on whether the New York senator wins North Carolina’s Democratic primary.

Speaking to about 4,000 at a rally at UNC Charlotte, the former president said Hillary Clinton would likely have to win the state’s May 6 primary to have any chance at winning the overall popular vote and ultimately overtaking Sen. Barack Obama as the party’s nominee.

[BlooInBloo]

97. I personally love all of the new faces DU has acquired over the last few weeks...

.... No matter how long they stay, they're a very valuable addition.

[Condem]

101. Now, Bloo

I have a low post count, but I've been- how do you say it- leaking for six years now!

[BlooInBloo]

What? I said I LOVE all of the new Clinton supporting members who showed up...

... just when Obama became the frontrunner! Welcome!

[Condem]

120. Thanks, Bloo

[BlooInBloo]

121. You're MORE than welcome! I hope you enjoy your stay, and come to LOVE...

... supporting Democrats.

[JMDEM]

100. Then why is Rush Limbaugh so terrified of Obama???

You got most of the right wing pulling for Hillary because they know she is so beatable.

FAIL!

[Austinitis]

112. That was before Wright and Bitter-gate

Now I think they'd rather have Obama. Go look at Obama's Rasmussen unfavorable ratings. They just keep going up.

At least with Hillary we 1) have a known commodity and 2) have someone who doesn't alienate the people likely to switch sides because of Wright and Bittergate.

[Heathen57]

174. I think you have it backwards

>>>At least with Hillary we 1) have a known commodity and 2) have someone who doesn't alienate the people likely to switch sides because of Wright and Bittergate.<<<

The known quantity we have in Hillary is that she will lie, smear, cheat and any other dirty trick to win. She is a shill for the DLC and is corporate owned. In addition, she now states that she is just looking for an excuse to level Iran. That makes me wonder if she would authorize Bush to invade Iran? - Wait she already did.

Hillary has alienated the progressives, all Move-On supporters, the youth vote, the upper income voters, voters in states that "don't count", AA voters, blue collar voters, and the list goes on and on. And Obama didn't have to bring those things up like Hillary did with Wright and the "bitter" comments.

Time to come out of your Hillary-induced fantasy land. She has lost the nomination and she only has herself to blame, if she is truthful.

[GoldieAZ49]

102. They don't care, it isn't about winning in the GE it is about feeling good

they love their bama, and nothing is going to make them look at the political landscape, let alone political history.

The best lessons are those learned the hard way, they are in for a good one, and have no one to blame but themselves.


Historical election indeed.

[FatDave]

226. No, it IS about winning in the GE

Obama is the best democratic candidate since Kennedy. Bitch all you want, the fact is he is a great speaker, charismatic, and a natural leader (which is not to say that he doesn't also have substance, he certainly does). And like it or not, that's what wins elections. So for once, we're close to actually sending our best candidate to the general election, and you're trying to fight it to the bitter end. Nice work!

[AtomicKitten]

103. Hey, if trashing Obama assuages the pain of Clinton losing, knock yourself out.

It changes nothing.

[depakid]

107. Hubert Humphrey lost late primaries to Bobby Kennedy

and nearly beat Nixon, despite the mess in Chicago.

[Condem]

108. Kennedy got shot

He would of won. Where would we be?

[depakid]

110. "where would we be?" I don't like to think about that question

I know I probably wouldn't be moving to Australia....

[Condem]

118. Shit, Depa

Please do think about it. No Nixon for starters and thats just the tip.

[depakid]

134. 4 members of the Supreme Court -and countless decisions that would have gone the other way

That alone is enough to make my stomach cringe.

[madrchsod]

128. yup i do`t want to think of that

it was a very bad year in america

[Gore1FL]

111. well lets see...

Stevenson went to the convention as a non candidate and ended up the nominee in 1952
Humphrey didn't win a single primary
McGovern went to the convention with his win in CA questioned.
Ford went to the GOP convention in 1976 iwth the nomination in the balance
Carter won it in June
Mondale pretty won it in June
Bill Clinton went over the top in June.

So your point is???

[last_texas_dem]

175. Thanks for this post

Amongst all the back-and-forth mess on this thread, you actually provided the facts. Whether these facts will mean anything to the OP or not is another question altogether, but I think the history here really puts into perspective the goofiness of anyone who would argue that the fact that Obama hasn't already "closed the deal" makes him a weak candidate. There are plenty of potential weaknesses in an Obama candidacy, but his ability to come from behind and overtake Clinton, who was supposed to have a slam-dunk shot at the nomination, shows the strength of his appeal to Democratic primary voters and it's downright ridiculous to try to paint this as some sort of weakness.

[EFerrari]

116. Then Hil must be on life support.

[Danger Mouse]

119. He's a freshman senator running against HILLARY CLINTON...

it's not like he's taking on a lightweight. He's done an incredibly job and overcome all expectations so far.

[madrchsod]

126. he has more legislative experience than hillary

[madrchsod]

122. should we have a do over?

other than that i guess we are just fucked cause it will take a the supers to overturn the popular vote and the delegate count. if that happens there will be a new generation of democratic voters walking away from the party.

[zabet]

125. k and r

Welcome to DU, what used to be a place where opposing points of view could be discussed without all of the bitterness and the personal attacks. If you make it through the primaries without being a victim of pm'ed and alerted TSing, you will have done better than many new posters that do not follow the herd.

[Hoof Hearted]

127. I hope the voters and the supers have the audacity to send him home. He's damaged himself too badly

to win.

[madrchsod]

130. yup they will....i have no doubt the dlc supers will vote her in

[Drunken Irishman]

133. And yet he keeps doing it, when your gal can't even manage that.

How sad of a candidate is Hillary Clinton? She starts out with a 30-40 point lead in nearly every state poll nationally, Obama is known maybe by a fraction of Democrats and she LOSES. Yet these people believe she's competent enough to win in the general? If she can blow a sure thing to what she calls a political novice, how the hell can we expect her to survive the Republican machine? Because her husband did it in the 1990s, long before this thing called the internet made it big? Ha!

Obama went from standing no chance to win the primary, let alone the general, to leading in the primary and in most polls doing better than Clinton. Face it, the Clinton machine is made out of cardboard and your candidate is inept at running in the 21st Century.

[Guava Jelly]

129. Than why is he winning?

And why are you whining?

[madrchsod]

132. he fixed the primary elections ....

yes i read it here at du ..

[Guava Jelly]

167. Well how else could he have won?

:yoiks: People see only what they wish to see.
He is going to be the next POTUS period.
Even if some would rather vote against him in the GE.

[mythyc]

135. for a philosophy student you sure love to wave those fallacies and generalities wildly around

if indeed that's what you really are :eyes:

speaking of which, when Obama kicks McLame's ass and proves the asininity and futility of this post's illogic, I'll be PMing back to you to request some crow souffle....

[hulka38]

136. Face it, he's going to win the primary if he hasn't already, he's beaten the Clintons

for Pete's sake and then he's going to clobber McCain with the Iraq War and the economy to become President - and he's going to be a damn good one.

[WA98070]

139. Then why is he ahead of all the other Dems, especially Hilary?

If she'd drop out he'd be way ahead.

[zulchzulu]

140. Actually the WORST frontrunner who blew it badly is Hillary Clinton

It seemed inevitable that Hillary Clinton was the nominee leading up to the primary season. If you were here on DU, you were blasted with polls six months out that basically were supposed to make you believe it was pointless for any other candidate to run.

Every race where Hillary Clinton was ahead by double digits in the polls was decimated in a matter of weeks to nearly being overtaken or in fact overtaken by Obama.

Unless you just crawled out from under a rock, Obama is ahead by such an advantage that Hillary Clinton has about a 3% chance of being the nominee. She wants to stay in the race and try to trash Obama with whatever petty non-issue she can spew. It's NOT WORKING.

Obama is the frontrunner now despite nearly impossible odds and has empowered the Democratic Party with millions of new voters and has raised money from small donations that have SHATTERED any records before.

You're welcome to your opinion, but it is bereft of fact.

[Cheap_Trick]

141. wow, have the doctors been unable to dislodge your head from your ass yet?

[Yes We Did]

145. He's winning without her Name recognition... which she's had for years.

Tell me why she shouldn't be ahead after so many years in the spot light? Your argument is a lopsided one. She's had all of the advantages and she's... losing. She has to steal the election via SDs. Tell me something, how can you make your assessment with a straight face?

[D23MIURG23]

146. This has to be satire right?

[krkaufman]

149. Show me one candidate, ever, who has run a primary campaign ...

... against a two-term First Lady, and a leader of a party's most formidable political machine.

You can't, of course. Yet Obama has done just that and has won the voters; now it's just a matter of whether the party ELITE will choose to dismiss and disenfranchise the voters or stand by them.

[tritsofme]

150. Should Mrs. Clinton win the popular vote

I hope your zeal to see the will of the voters ratified will be unmoved.

[krkaufman]

228. What does the "popular vote" have to do with anything?

It's certainly not an accurate measure of the will of the voters, given that the popular vote effectively negates the states that conducted caucuses.

The only measure of the will of the voters is the elected pledged delegate count. If this is unacceptable to some, then it needs to be corrected in the rules for the 2012 nomination process by banning either primaries or caucuses, to ensure a similar process is followed across all states.

[Piperay]

151. That doesn't say much for Hillary then...

since she can't beat him. :rofl:

[demwing]

152. So Hillary is losing to the weakest Dem ever?

Where the hell does that leave her?

[Two Americas]

155. yes

And that makes her also a very weak candidate. The statement was weakest front runner, not weakest candidate.

[demwing]

161. Regardless of the statement, the message was to get behind Hillary

And switching from the poor frontrunner to the candidate getting defeated by the poor frontrunner is inane.

Here's another scenario. Maybe it's NOT that either Hillary and Obama are weak, but that they are both VERY strong, and hence the virtual toss up. Obama is running stronger, for a number of reasons enumerated upon in many previous threads, so I'll not go into that here, and has the lead. But I doubt that even the most ardent Obama supporter would deny that this primary campaign was hotly contested by worthy opponents.

I admit I have my personal problems with Hillary, but either Democratic candidate, once they secure the nomination and focus on McCain, can win the General Election. McCain is a poor fundraiser, and his opposition, though currently divided, is better organized, better funded, and more heavily invested in this mission--emotionally, philosophically, and ethically. McCain represents the corrupt establishment, and the Democratic Party represents freedom from the soft oppression of his political staticism.

But back to my main point. I take issue with anyone who claims that Obama is weaker than Hillary, when Obama is running circles around her, or who claims that both candidates are poor, and will get stomped by the GOP in November. Neither are very well thought out positions, and both should be dismissed.

[MrSlayer]

157. If Obama can't win then we are just fucked.

Because Hillary cannot win the general either, no way.

[Political Heretic]

158. Even if true - which is isn't - that doesn't say much about Hillary Clinton now does it?

[Enrique]

162. but look who he's running against

Hillary is formidable opposition. Yes he has a small lead, but some could say it's amazing he's even competing, let alone winning.

[mdmc]

166. I must admit I never thought it would be Obama

My world was Barracked when he started beating the Clintons.
IMHO, the fact that he side lined the Clintons makes him the most viable candidate that there is.
He did what no one else could do - beat the Clintons.

[JVS]

170. I remember a front runner who kept slipping in the delegate race from the moment voting started.

[indimuse]

172. Barack Obama is a flawed candidate!

Great press, tons of money, and out-of-their-mind supporters...and he has still not put this thing away. still can't win!
There is something inherently wrong with that -(b] and it's not HRC that is to blame.

Barack Obama is a flawed candidate and will be an even more flawed nominee - and it will be painfully obvious in November should he (God Forbid!) become the Dem. Candidate.



He will not be elected.

[indimuse]

173. Barack Obama is a flawed candidate!

Great press, tons of money, and out-of-their-mind supporters...and he has still not put this thing away. still can't win!
There is something inherently wrong with that - and it's not HRC that is to blame.

Barack Obama is a flawed candidate and will be an even more flawed nominee - and it will be painfully obvious in November should he (God Forbid!) become the Dem. Candidate.



He will not be elected.

[Austinitis]

191. Agreed.

[Vinca]

176. If it hadn't been Hillary in the race, Obama would have won the nomination

right after the 11 straight wins. However, because her name is Clinton and not Smith, she got a second chance. That leaves us in a hamster-on-wheel scenario where we go round and round and round and round and Obama stays ahead but isn't the winner. If Hillary was the better candidate she would have taken him out back in February. She's definitely not the stronger candidate.

[CK dexter]

178. Hillary supporters are the biggest exaggerators in the history of the entire world

ever!

[JackORoses]

179. our guy just so happens to be beating Mrs. Inevitable like a Red-headed step-child

Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

[TragedyandHope]

182. Face it, you're dead wrong.

The country has chosen Obama. Clinton has used her cache as a former first lady to stay in the race long past the time when any other candidate who holds the interests of the country and the Democratic party above their own personal glory would have graciously conceded and endorsed Obama.

The past few months, the only arguments the Clinton campaign and her supporters have been making are negative smears on Obama saying "he can't win because..." or "well, the Republicans would..."

That argument gives no one any positive reason to support her. She's acting as a spoiler and disrupter of the Democratic party and our General Election campaign. This does not do anything to convince me that she is the right person to lead our country. In fact, it does quite the opposite.

Running on the issues, experience and her character, as she did before Super Tuesday, did not work, so she switched tactics in an attempt to systematically tear down her opponent. That's not a way to run a campaign and that's certainly not the approach of someone I would want to lead our country. That doesn't give me the slightest confidence that she can make progress towards rebuilding our economy or handling an international crisis.

Obama on the other hand, has shown an expert management of his campaign with a positive tone. He has repeatedly proven his ability to quickly and decisively deal with conflict and crisis. This is exactly the type of leader we need to bring the country forward and restore respect for our country within the world community.

[CTLawGuy]

183. he's running against the millionaire wife of a former president

who is basically the queen of the Democratic party.
Not only that, he's running against their army of lackeys willing to blow themselves up for her. (e.g. James Carville)
Also, he is running against the feminist movement and its dream of the first woman president.

So I think he's doing very well under the circumstances

[Orsino]

184. Two strong candidates competing for the same delegates. n/t

[npincus]

186. you've GOT TO BE KIDDING

Name one candidate, Dem or Repub, that has ever CONSISTENTLY raised tens of millions of dollars per month from millions of SMALL DONORS. Name one presidential candidate that has ever stirred the registration and participation of a whole generation of new voters in the magnitude that Obama has.

The chances of a mixed-race candidate w/ one Muslim parent and a "funny name" rising to surpass a political celebrity whose husband, a popular ex-president, has been considered the leader and superstar of the Democratic Party seem laughable. But because of Obama's excellence as a candidate (look at the campaign he has run- far superior to the Clinton operation) he has managed all this. For him to be dong as well as he has done is a marvel. Once he can go toe-to-toe with McCain (if you-know-who ever puts her own interest aside for the good of the party) I believe he can bring it.

Your OP shows a bias so strong that you have not been able to objectively analyze what Obama has actually done and how that speaks to his strength as a candidate.

[Austinitis]

189. Remember all that talk about "moving goalposts"?

Just because you can make up some weird metric on which your candidate isn't the worst front-runner ever doesn't mean that he's not a really weak candidate. We're talking here about the metrics that matter to an election - the sort of lead in the race Obama is able to gather and the return on investment he gets out of the money he spends. On those metrics - you know, the ones that tell us whether he's going to crash and burn in November - he's really the worst front-runner ever.

I mean, just look at his favorability ratings after bitter-gate and after getting reamed at the debate. He can't take a hit. And for all that people trash Hillary's favorable ratings, his don't look much better.

And that's why we need someone who can actually stand up to McCain in November (i.e. Hillary).

[npincus]

194. Right. Pit a real war hero against a confabulator who drank tea in 80 countries and outright LIED

about being under sniper fire! How do you think THAT will hold up in the GE? Just because our dopey MSM is focusing on Obama today, rather than the fact that Hillary said (in the debate) that the words she had spoken "she knew not to be true". Ummmm.... she admitted to LYING. Now why didn't the MSM make hay of THAT one? YOu can bet you're going to see THAT in a McCain commercial! Obama has been a gentleman thus far-- in my view he should go after her. If she kicks his butt in Pa., I have no doubt he will.

Very easy for you to dismiss inconvenient facts- like I have "made up" some "weird metric". I can only say that some of Hillary's supporters confabulate as well as she does.

[Austinitis]

195. Obama has a number of lies too

Like his gun-questionnaire answer in the debate. And there's no way that's not going to come up in the GE. It's like a ripe plum for the Republicans.

[npincus]

197. Hillary's BIGGER lie is the most telegenic of all. And she CONFESSED and apologized

for it. It was really quite embarrassing and pathetic. She has a lot she has accomplished. But the fact that she told such a whopper, especially after being WARNED that she was "misspeaking" (being kind here) goes right to her judgment and her opinion of the intelligence of the voting public. The same wellspring of bad judgment led her to NOT read the NIE prior to the IWR vote, and to hand Chimpy the power of unilateral pre-emptive war. Do you think many of us will EVER get past that? The internets can provide you with graphic depictions of the death and misery her bad judgment, and the judgment of others has produced. This "bitter" battle, and even "sniper-gate" pale in comparison to the outcome of such devastatingly bad judgment. HRC was not truly anti-war until her campaign. My opinion is her support of the IWR was political calculation about looking tough enough and getting national security cred. That worked out well, didn't it?

bring up your "lies" until your fingers fall off, but HRC lost it for many of us a long time ago. Obama's the guy to get this country out of that hellhole. THAT'S what this election is about.

[Autumn]

190. Hi Austinitis

Welcome to DU.:hi:

[Carrieyazel]

198. This is true. Obama leads HRC only by 1650-1510 in the delegate count.

The closest delegate count this late in the primaries in modern history. Barack is only up by +140 with the pledged and announced supers so far.

OUT OF 3200 DELEGATES ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME, OBAMA HOLDS ONLY A SLIM LEAD. HE ISN'T EVEN CLOSE TO CLINCHING THE 2025 NEEDED, AND WE'RE ALMOST DONE WITH THE PRIMARIES.

[onenote]

221. which means of course, that HRC is even farther from clinching

so, exactly how does that make her the stronger candidate?

[SeaLyons]

199. K&R

:kick:

[NYDem Observer]

200. Seroiously, this post lacks critical thinking

The frontrunner is weak so we should nominate the person he is beating. Clinton supporters seem to be getting more delusional with each passing day.

[Melissa G]

201. ROFL... Weakest Hillary support post I have seen in a LONG time

If you are actually saying Obama is that weak (which is an incredibly bogus argument given how he has energized new voters and the overwhelming response to his candidacy). It only makes Hillary look weaker as She is TRAILING Obama.
:rofl:

[redqueen]

202. Is this one worse than the one that says Obama's supporters have lots of money

to throw around?

It's gettin awful deep in here.

[dionysus]

203. face it, hillary has lost...

but banky will make it all better;

[Austinitis]

204. The why can't Obama finish the job?

Let's get real. Our current course heads straight towards a loss in November.

We need to change course and get behind Hillary.

[dionysus]

210. here's how stupid your logic is here;

"obama isn't beating hillary by enough, so let's go with the candidate that is losing"

do you really not get it?

[progressoid]

215. Awww, wif a widdle heart on his paw...

That should help ease the pain.

Probably going to need quite a few more of those in a couple days! :)

[dionysus]

216. i've been passingthem out by the case lately

:)

[L0oniX]

205. You can face my ignore list.

[Austinitis]

206. Why do you Obama people make such a big performance

out of setting someone to ignore?

Really, if it's not worth your time then why are you taking time to tell me that. Just click ignore and leave it.

I mean you can't seriously think I care if you ignore me, can you? There are tens of thousands of Obama supporters to fill your place.

NEXT!

[jgraz]

227. It's a way to tell intellectually dishonest time wasters that we're on to them

*plonk*

[ForeignSpectator]

207. Unlike hillary, right?! Just...

:rofl:

"inevitable" + using republican smearing tactics + campaign debt + LOSING = strong ?? :silly:

For a good laugh, remember this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V47-HRJUxmM

[On the Road]

208. Connecting Performance in the Primaries

with success in the general election seems to me to be a specious argument.

But for whatever it's worth, if it reflects badly on an unknown challenger to have a narrow delegate lead late in the primaries, think of how badly second place reflects on a frontrunner who went into the primaries with a sizeable advantage in money, name recognition, and national polls.

[ORDem]

209. This is the weakest primary thread. EVER. nt

[swishyfeet]

211. Clinton is the most destructive loser EVER

This post is so ridiculous on it's face...

Obama > Clinton.

The math really isn't that hard people. I can't believe this could get so many recs.

:(

[elixir]

213. Sounds like we have a winner...

[dchill]

214. Weakest frontrunner title actually belongs to the one...

who WAS the frontrunner and lost that title - Hillary Clinton.

She had a huge lead and financial advantage, and lost it. Inevitable to fail in weeks.
:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

217. And what does it say about Clinton's chances that she is losing to him?

[Th1onein]

218. ALWAYS UNDER 1000 POSTS!

Do I need to say it? WHO are these people coming over to DU and posting, always, AGAINST one candidate or another, but NEVER FOR one of our candidates.

Duh. Who do you THINK they are?

[progressoid]

220. My guess is most will be gone in the next couple weeks

Unfortunately, many will continue to pester us until November. Then it's back under whatever rock they crawled out of.

[Austinitis]

239. I take it you'll be leaving soon now that your guy is hemoraging confidence n/t

[HannibalBarca]

219. Your reasoning is completely flawed and ignores

several important facts. Primary among those is that his competitor is Hillary Clinton, wife of a (formely?) greatly admired democratic president who held on to the white house for 8 years during which time she had plenty of public exposure. She was the presumptive nominee with a huge financial machine behind her and, as I mentioned, unbeatable name recognition (for better or worse depending on who you speak to).
What Obama has done is simply incredible considering all he really did have was a memorable speech at the '04 Dem convention after which I believe Bill Clinton remarked "watch out for him" or something along those lines, little did he realise how prophetic he would be. Obama got where he is by his oratory skill and management ability which to my mind goes along way to qualifying him for the office. We'll see how it plays out but either would be a stratospheric improvement over G W Mc Cain.

[MattBaggins]

222. Can't argue with that logic

He is a weak frontrunner so let's toss him and go with the even weaker candidate. Yeah that should work out great.

[treestar]

224. Then why would the one coming in second be better?

Conversely, we could just say we have two good candidates.

We don't have the old-fashioned party discipline in place. Which probably means the voters have more say. True this could have been decided in the proverbial smoke filled room. If it's not, then I see that as a good thing.

[Austinitis]

231. If he's spending five times as much and not winning

he's not a good candidate. There's something wrong with him.

[dbmk]

233. Its completely arbitrary to look at it as a win or not

He closed the gap in her key state. She didn't move at all.

Whether he broke 50% by a little or missed it by a little is seriously flawed argument to support such an argument.

[AZBlue]

232. He's so weak but your candidate's losing to him?

That's just so f'd up - you really should think before you post next time.

[Austinitis]

234. See my post on popular vote

She's going to take that and she's going to win.

[AZBlue]

236. I'm so sick of that meme. Popular vote hasn't been tabulated - we've got caucuses in some states.

Duh.

If you want popular vote to count in the next election cycle, go for it! But, the way we're set up now, popular vote is just desperate, overworked and proven FALSE rhetoric that the Clinton campaign clings to.

[RBInMaine]

235. Using your logic, Thomas Jefferson was among the weakest frontrunners ever as well.

There actually is such a thing as close primary races. Kindly go and sign up for poli-sci 101, basic introduction to demographic differentials, machine politics differentials, and toss in a seminar on corporate media bias and spin.

[lmbradford]

238. omg

And Hillary is LOSING to that guy? Wow, she is truly pathetic.