Is Hillary Done?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Not sure I agree there.

You are certainly free to disagree. I'm just saying I haven't seen any of them display integrity. That would be campaign suicide in our primary system of candidate selection.

What Obama has going for him is charisma, not character.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

and I genuinely believe in the message he stands for,

that's special - try this

"and I genuinely believe in the message he stumps with"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,990]

> I'm just saying I haven't seen any of them display integrity.

What would be an example of a candidate displaying integrity? As far as I can tell, to someone's detractors, everything is an example of hypocrisy and pandering.

Condemns a man who was his spiritual leader - he has no integrity because he does not stand by his longtime friends

Supports a man who was his spiritual leader - he has no integrity because he didn't condemn a man who said bad things

Supports the war - he has no integrity because he's a chickenhawk

Condemns the war - he has no integrity because he doesn't support the troops

etc etc.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Not sure I agree there.

You are certainly free to disagree. I'm just saying I haven't seen any of them display integrity. That would be campaign suicide in our primary system of candidate selection.

What Obama has going for him is charisma, not character.

Like Reagan?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I'm sure Bill and friends are doing whatever it takes to get the superdelegates in her corner.

Wonder if Bill/Hill still have those FBI files handy....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I've heard that as well but my hunch is that it's only emotion talking. I seriously doubt that when it's down to McCain and Dem X that those voters will vote for four years with "Bush Light".

This primary process has revealed a subterranean fissure within the Democratic Party that have opened up into a visible chasm - a chasm of class, sex and race.

Obama supporters - blacks, youths and educated.
Clinton - working class whites, older women and Latinos.

Each of these groups is deeply passionate about their respective candidate. NEITHER group is deeply passionate about the other candidate.

How many people sit out an election because they are unhappy with the choices? The Dems - if they want to win - must bring these passionate voters to the polls in droves in November.

When you've got half of the base of Democratic voters that will be dispassionate - or even hateful - of the other candidate. This, in itself, leads to voter apathy of the Democratic base that is needed to defeat McCain.

That's the point. The blue collar white male vote is crucial. These are the 25% of voters for whome race DOES matter. These are the ones who will vote for McCain over Obama or no-show. The same will CERTAINLY apply if Clinton gets the nod, for Obama's passionate supporters will NOT vote for the woman whom they viewed stole the nomination.

The Dems have seriously screwed themselcves, and I am unconvinced that they have the group competence to pull themselves out of this quagmire.

The party is fracturing right before our eyes, and I would not at all be surprised to find a realignment of the parties by 2012.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What Obama has going for him is charisma, not character.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Like Reagan?

And like Clinton. I believe that Clinton had MORE charisma than Reagan did.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Like Reagan?

Good example. Reagan was able to act presidential, despite being a poor President.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure Bill and friends are doing whatever it takes to get the superdelegates in her corner.

Wonder if Bill/Hill still have those FBI files handy....

Joe Andrew, former DNC leader under Clinton and a superdelegate, last week switched his allegiance to Obama.

From his letter explaining his change of heart:

Quote

My endorsement of Senator Obama will not be welcome news to my friends and family at the Clinton campaign. If the campaign's surrogates called Governor Bill Richardson, a respected former member of President Clinton's cabinet, a "Judas" for endorsing Senator Obama, we can all imagine how they will treat somebody like me. They are the best practitioners of the old politics, so they will no doubt call me a traitor, an opportunist and a hypocrite. I will be branded as disloyal, power-hungry, but most importantly, they will use the exact words that Republicans used to attack me when I was defending President Clinton.

When they use the same attacks made on me when I was defending them, they prove the callow hypocrisy of the old politics first perfected by Republicans. I am an expert on this because these were the exact tools that I mastered as a campaign volunteer, a campaign manager, a State Party Chair and the National Chair of our Party. I learned the lessons of the tough, right-wing Republicans all too well. I can speak with authority on how to spar with everyone from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove. I understand that, while wrong and pernicious, shallow victory can be achieved through division by semantics and obfuscation. Like many, I succumbed to the addiction of old politics because they are so easy.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

What would be an example of a candidate displaying integrity?

Mike Gravel, talking to a liberal crowd, when asked whether he supported gun control by someone who was pro-gun control, he acknowledged to being a handgun owner and to not keeping the handgun locked up. Then he said, in no uncertain terms, that he didn't have an answer on that issue, and that it wasn't as simple as either the pro-gun or the pro-gun control crowds would have people believe.

He lost a lot of potential support from that crowd with that answer, but he had the integrity to say what he believed anyway.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,990]

>he acknowledged to being a handgun owner and to not
>keeping the handgun locked up.

To his detractors - pandering to his audience (claiming he had a gun) and then fabricating a story to placate his pro-gun-control supporters.

>Then he said, in no uncertain terms, that he didn't have an answer on that issue . . .

Again, to his detractors - a "know nothing" candidate without enough integrity to even take a position on an important issue, for fear of having people dislike him.

I'm not saying any of that is true. (Heck, Obama's book is full of such discussions.) But a Gravel detractor won't let that stop him for a second. Such is the current political climate.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I was watching the coverage on MSNBC a couple of nights ago and there were some intriguing polls. It mentioned that something like a quarter of Clinton voters would not vote for Obama in a general election and that a similar number fo Obama voters said they would not vote for Clinton in the general election.

This race has really seemed to polarize the Democratic party, as well.

Any close race does that. Much of the GOP hates McCain for screwing with their preordained nomination in 2000. Had the GOP used the Democratic rules of proportional delegate allocations, that race would have lasted until late spring at least.

The Clinton voters will go to Obama. It's not like they have a choice anyway. However, if her campaign manages to steal the nomination, I would anticipate a signficant portion of the black vote not showing up in November. I also wouldn't be surprised if the young vote that has been widely for Obama, but historically too lazy to actually vote, will also be underpresented as typical in the past.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

I've heard that as well but my hunch is that it's only emotion talking. I seriously doubt that when it's down to McCain and Dem X that those voters will vote for four years with "Bush Light".

This primary process has revealed a subterranean fissure within the Democratic Party that have opened up into a visible chasm - a chasm of class, sex and race.

Obama supporters - blacks, youths and educated.
Clinton - working class whites, older women and Latinos.

Each of these groups is deeply passionate about their respective candidate. NEITHER group is deeply passionate about the other candidate.

How many people sit out an election because they are unhappy with the choices? The Dems - if they want to win - must bring these passionate voters to the polls in droves in November.

When you've got half of the base of Democratic voters that will be dispassionate - or even hateful - of the other candidate. This, in itself, leads to voter apathy of the Democratic base that is needed to defeat McCain.

That's the point. The blue collar white male vote is crucial. These are the 25% of voters for whome race DOES matter. These are the ones who will vote for McCain over Obama or no-show. The same will CERTAINLY apply if Clinton gets the nod, for Obama's passionate supporters will NOT vote for the woman whom they viewed stole the nomination.

The Dems have seriously screwed themselcves, and I am unconvinced that they have the group competence to pull themselves out of this quagmire.

The party is fracturing right before our eyes, and I would not at all be surprised to find a realignment of the parties by 2012.

Part of your observation could be attributed to the division that occurs with the presence of additional candidates. If you had a very popular Latino candidate that was running as closely you'd have yet another sub-set to isolate. A neck-and-neck race gets people up off their seat and they become more passionate. That is the most likely reason for the increased voter registration.

Indeed, a fracture is possible but its up to the candidates to look at the primary in its entirety. If the Dems can keep all of these voters interested enough in the November election then they stand to win big. If they allow a fracture to occur due to a poorly handled exit by the runner up then it's a big problem.

As for party fractures, the R's are just as much f'd as the dems, maybe more so. The loudest part of the party is very unhappy with their candidate. You now have those claiming to be "republicans" and those trying feverishly to discern themselves as "conservatives".

Your third party prediction may be well on track. As noted earlier, a McCain/Clinton ticket ain't as crazy as it sounds. I don't want to see it but it's viable.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

A Time articleTime Magazine article suggested 5 reasons why her campaign failed. They were:
1) She campaigned as an insider, which strengthened Obama because the voters want change;
2) Her campaign staff, all cronies, focused on big states under the same Republican method of delegates, forgetting about proportional pledged delegates;
3) She ignored the caucus states (I remember she actually put down the caucuses after losing them);
4) Her fundraising dried up too soon because she used an archaic method; and
5) She thought she'd wrap up the nomination early on.

It left out the obvious - her negative rating is too high to ever be a viable candidate. I'll say I'm surprised at how strong her positive support has been - I didn't see her getting this far - but it's clear that too many people won't vote for her. And if she can't win at the party level, how well will she do in a national election? What Republican, unhappy with the Bush performance, is going to cast a vote for her?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

To his detractors …

We can use twisted logic to draw any conclusion we want.

In the example I cited, he risked alienation both sides of the issue in order to say what he actually believed. He didn't pander to anyone. That's not behavior that I see with any of the remaining three candidates.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,990]

>In the example I cited, he risked alienation both sides of the issue
>in order to say what he actually believed.

Right. And Obama risked the same by not condemning his pastor in his speech on racism. But to Obama detractors, that's yet another sign of his lack of integrity.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

>In the example I cited, he risked alienation both sides of the issue
>in order to say what he actually believed.

Right. And Obama risked the same by not condemning his pastor in his speech on racism. But to Obama detractors, that's yet another sign of his lack of integrity.

His detractors are going to use anything they disagree with to claim he lacks integrity, just as Clinton's do. That's different from knowingly risking alienating liberals and conservatives.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,990]

>His detractors are going to use anything they disagree with to claim
>he lacks integrity, just as Clinton's do. That's different from knowingly
>risking alienating liberals and conservatives.

Yes, but that's not a very profound statement (i.e. what his detractors do is different from what he does.) Just highlighting how saying things that may alienate many is seen as courageous in a candidate one supports, and an indication of a lack of integrity in a candidate one does not support.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Yes, but that's not a very profound statement

I wasn't trying to be profound.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

A Time articleTime Magazine article suggested 5 reasons why her campaign failed.

I'd add one more.
Obama does not campaign as "the first black President", even though he could. He campaigns as a politician who happen to be black, and doesn't play race card, which is smart from him. Hillary, however, does campaign as "the first woman President", playing the sexism card every time she could.

A racism/sexism card might have worked if voting wasn't anonymous. But it is, so it will not. Looks like H. just understood that.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

To date, she has lent herself more than 10 million dollars.

That would have paid for a WHOLE lot of school lunches. Or scholarships. Or medical premiums.

For someone that's campaigning on how many things are wrong that needs US to pay for, I'd sure like to see her do some leading by example.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[riddler 0]

Quote

My personal fav is Obama, and I genuinely believe in the message he stands for, but I'm also not naive enough to think that he can single handedly turn the current washington mindset around.

IMO, this is what Obama can do:

1. Get us out of Iraq (he would be the Commander-In-Chief, after all).
2. Reduce the deficit, and put a hold on printing new money to improve the economy (again, President). There's no way you can recover 9 trillion in four years, but if you reduce the deficit by half, that's a tremendous boost for the economy.
3. Make environmental initiatives that drive eco-industry.

In my mind, this is what he can not do:

1. Improve health care significantly - this takes an act of congress, and all the legislators are deep in the pockets of the pharmaceutical and health care industries.
2. Improve race relations - having a president that isn't white isn't going to make people rethink their own prejudices any more than Oprah being "arguably the world's most powerful woman" (CNN, Time) or Charles Wang owning the New York Islanders.
3. Pretty much anything that involves an act of Congress. Again, these are some of the most corrupt people in the country. With big companies writing checks all over Washington, you can't hope to do anything that benefits the people.

That being said, if Obama does even the top half, or even the top fourth, it will be a significant improvement (again, IMO).

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

To date, she has lent herself more than 10 million dollars.

That would have paid for a WHOLE lot of school lunches. Or scholarships. Or medical premiums.

For someone that's campaigning on how many things are wrong that needs US to pay for, I'd sure like to see her do some leading by example.

Why do Billvon's last couple of posts come to mind here?
How much did Mitt donate to his campaign? About $35 Million?
But for the record, about 9% of the Clinton's money since 2000 went to charity and supposedly $33 million went to taxes.
Of course I have no idea why they'd pay that much unless they knew they were going to have their taxes scrutinized. Either that or $109 million over seven years doesn't get you into the big boys loophole club. I think Buffett only pays about 17%.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

[Either that or $109 million over seven years doesn't get you into the big boys loophole club. I think Buffett only pays about 17%.

Dividends are taxed at 15%, and I expect those dominate his taxable earnings.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Either that or $109 million over seven years doesn't get you into the big boys loophole club. I think Buffett only pays about 17%.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dividends are taxed at 15%, and I expect those dominate his taxable earnings.

business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.