Display:


Re: Question To Clinton Supporters (none / 0)

once Florida and Michigan are counted (and they will be), then the numbers change dramatically.

Counted, as in counting the January results as is? Not happening. But I believe the delegates will be seated, just not on the basis of the primaries. I think it'll end up a 50-50 split. I doubt anyone really wants to literally leave the FL and MI delegates outside in the Denver cold.

she's the most progressive Democrat running with the best platform, and I want her out there fighting the good fight as long as possible.

Well, that kind of support is admirable, but I blanch at seeing her hailed as the most progressive. On economic issues, she fell well short of it. I don't consider her or Obama to be true progressives, though they've come around to it. The most pure, classic progressive was Edwards.

Obama's insistence that he is entitled to the nomination at this point and that she's, somehow,  obligated to drop out.

It's not "entitlement," it's being solidly ahead and almost assuredly winning. Has any candidate ever dropped out because they wanted to? When their chances become minimal, they do it for the good of the party, abandoning their own dreams in the process.

If your position is, "She has little chance of winning, but I don't care because I want her to stick around and fight," that makes it more a vanity campaign than an viable one. There's no law against it, but don't expect her campaign to be taken seriously the longer it goes.

I like Hillary, but the numbers just aren't there. What else is there to say?


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:37:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question To Clinton Supporters (none / 0)

If he is so confident of winning, then he doesn't need her to drop out. Clinton wasn't insisting that people drop out when she was running way ahead. So yes, it's entitlement. Hillary is messing with his plan to win.

BTW, when Michigan and Florida are seated, and the popular votes counted, there's only a few hundred thousand difference between the two - easily made up between now and then.

So sad to see the less progressive front of the Democratic party turning their backs on counting all the votes just so the candidatd they prefer can win easily - rather than actually earn the win.

You do realize that not counting Florida and Michigan's votes will almost certainly doom Obama's campaign to failure, don't you? What kind of Democrat would support a candidate who won like that? Not anyone who objected to Bush's win in 2000, that's for sure.


by Little Otter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:58:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question To Clinton Supporters (none / 0)

If he is so confident of winning, then he doesn't need her to drop out. Clinton wasn't insisting that people drop out when she was running way ahead.

This isn't about a spitting contest between Barack and Hillary, it's about our party. And WE need her to drop out if she can't win. Just like we would've needed him to drop out if she had closed him out on Super Tuesday.

Before several weeks ago, I thought it would be good to keep the primary going...it would allow us to build party organizations in more states, it would give greater exposure to our candidates and our party message, and it would drown out McCain. But this is no longer a civil battle of differing ideas...now it's really personal and ugly.

We don't need months more of these ridiculous personal attacks (not patriotic! McCarthyite! Only here because he's black! Monster!). We've reached of decreasing marginal utility--nothing positive can come of this race anymore, it's just damaging BOTH candidates.

Meanwhile, the candidates and their supporters are wasting money advertising against each other when we could be building up an enormous warchest against McCain. McCain farts around the country confusing Shiites and Sunnis, and no one cares because it's barely covered. Instead, all we get is the latest about Tuzla or Rev. Wright.

As for Clinton "running way ahead," I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Being ahead in polls a year before any votes take place isn't quite the same as being behind in popular votes, delegages and states won.

BTW, when Michigan and Florida are seated, and the popular votes counted, there's only a few hundred thousand difference between the two - easily made up between now and then.

I'll say this again, and I'm really not trying to be rude: This is not happening. Period.

There may be an arrangement to seat the delegates, but there is no way in hell they will seat them according to her win over "uncommitted." I keep reading Hillary supporters attacking us for being so "anti-Democratic," yet you actually expect us to respect a primary where it was "Hillary vs. No One"??

If you're premising your entire argument on something that won't happen--counting the MI and FL primary votes as is--there's really not much left to support her staying in.

And this isn't some hypocritical thing, despite what you think. Had Clinton cleaned up on Super Tuesday, we probably would've thrown Obama overboard and coalesced behind her. I care less about who our nominee is than that we actually HAVE a nominee. It happened in 2004, when most of us netroots folks ditched our beloved Howard Dean as soon as it became apparent Kerry had the best chance of winning in November.

Hell, Obama wasn't even my candidate to start this thing, so I'm hardly one to be accused of some blind devotion to the guy. The facts are what they are. It's time to get a nominee and defeat the real enemy, McCain.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:48:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]