Hillary for President

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Technosoul Are you defending Obama or McCain? She has the most experience in understanding the voters. Your stats may prove worthless because it looks like the Super-deligates would determin who will be the nominee.

#1
None.
I state facts, only.

#2
Are you suggesting that nobody understands voters better than Hillary ?
That may appear to be true.
All she wants : give me that damn presidential post, People :-)

#3
That is correct.
The main question remains open : criteria.
(These statistics are not mine. This is what polls deliver, instead.)

[Matt]

Come on Hillary....I sure hope she can at leats win one of the states.

CNN's poll of polls has her ahead 4% in Indiana and has her 8% behind in North Carolina.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Matt Come on Hillary....I sure hope she can at leats win one of the states. CNN's poll of polls has her ahead 4% in Indiana and has her 8% behind in North Carolina.

In the past few days she has closed the gap in North Carolina and the new poll shows she is only behind by 5%. And keeping her lead in Indiana. If Obama does not win by a strong margin in N. Carolina it would be an indicator he is loosing his momentum that he once enjoyed early on in the race (when he was still the new face in politics). If by some rare chance Obama lost North Carolina then that would pretty much set him back and he could loose in the longrun to that final Superdeligate choice. But I would expect him to win Carolina and to loose in Indiana. Indiana is traditionally a pro-republican state and it would be nice if someone can snatch it out of McCain's hands in the final election showdown. Hillary's plan to generate more jobs in that state is something the voters would get behind in support of.

The voters are saying " just give us our damn jobs back". Who is really listening to those "facts"? Well, they can make up their minds who she is because today is the big day. Tuesday the 6th. The voting booths are opening. So no more reason to debate that primary, let's wait and see what happens.

[Rainbow]

Today polls show that Hillary is 4 point ahead in Indiana and Obama is 10 points ahead in N. Carolina. I think you had better wait for the outcomes, instead.
Nevertheless, Hillary needs to win all the remaining states with ratio of appx. 70 vs 30, in order to get closer to and/or catch up with Obama.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Rainbow Today polls show that Hillary is 4 point ahead in Indiana and Obama is 10 points ahead in N. Carolina. I think you had better wait for the outcomes, instead. Nevertheless, Hillary needs to win all the remaining states with ratio of appx. 70 vs 30, in order to get closer to and/or catch up with Obama.

The elecitons are not won in those polls. As you now know the polls were wrong, Obama won N.C. by a large margin and Hillary edged ahead by a near tie advantage in Indiana. However the rules people had awarded N.C. a lot of extra deligates for moving up their primary.

The popular vote is nearly a tie. However it is only a tie in slight favor of Obama because the rules will not allow them to count two states. So Obama wins because millions of people in two states got cheated out of being counted as voters. Not fair to the people or to HIllary because with those votes she is ahead of Obama in popular votes. (and those states will take part in the final election). How can we honestly not allow those people to have a voice in who the nominee is? Obama does not agree to such fairness in any way, shape, or manner. And yet, wants to be the poster boy for unity and equality. McCain will play that agenst Obama.

The remaining Superdeligates would state their choice right now but they prefer to take a wait-and-see attitude. Why? Because the super deligates are not sure about Obama, he can make great speechs with a lot of fluff and can get all the black votes that Democrats always get anyway, But Clinton is getting conservative votes, and votes from the farmers and hard hat workers, and the now important spanish voting block. Obama is seen as too liberal for those fense sitters who go for the canidate that can best create jobs and not raise taxes, which is Clintons stated goal. Also they feel Obama will not be strong enough as Commander and Chief which gives McCain some "points" to point to his self, where as Clinton would be a strong Commander and Chief. Obama's experience as a social worker might not work on those guys in Iran, as he imagines it would. So the Super Deligates are holding back on pledging support with Obama in the hopes that something will break to justify giving the nod to Clinton, and that is what she is hoping for, the odds that 60 percent of the Super Deligates will find a reason to unite behind her and her platform ideas which have more substance, to reduce the risk of a loss aganest McCain also, who has already found a lot to attack Obama over, which he has not found concerning Clinton.

I love Obamas liberal sounding speech and would enjoy hearing such words for years to come, but I also want to make sure that McCain is not elected by his gaining that moderate voting block. And CNN is busy playing all those number games with the intent of forcing Clinton to resign. But she has talked to the Super Deligates and the Democratic big shots and has selected to continue until the race reaches a real ending, mostly at her own expense, which is unfair for CNN to do. But CNN are supported by advertising from energy companies, prescription drug companies, and insureance companies, and Chevron and chemical companies. So go figure!

Bottom line - count all the votes and make sure the real will of those two states are represented in this primary, rules or no rules we must do what is fair to the voters.

Let the Super Deligates determine when it is time to unite the party behind one canidate, they are experts in making such determinations when so needed. It is not CNN or other sources to say when to unite and end the primary race.

FACT: If the Democrats had used the same primary rules as did the Republicans then Hillary would have already been their canidate, and no one would be 2nd guessing about Obama anymore. So Democrats... live with what you created, and let things run out as intended.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Technosoul The popular vote is nearly a tie. However it is only a tie in slight favor of Obama because the rules will not allow them to count two states. So Obama wins because millions of people in two states got cheated out of being counted as voters. Not fair to the people or to HIllary because with those votes she is ahead of Obama in popular votes. (and those states will take part in the final election). How can we honestly not allow those people to have a voice in who the nominee is? Obama does not agree to such fairness in any way, shape, or manner. And yet, wants to be the poster boy for unity and equality. McCain will play that agenst Obama.

Wrong. I'll lay this out as simply as I possibly can so that maybe you'll understand:

1) People in those two states elected representatives in their state government.
2) Their elected representatives in state government talked about moving the primaries despite warnings from both parties that their votes might not count as punishment for doing that.
3) Their elected representatives went ahead and did it anyway.

How is that being cheated? They shouldn't have elected those dopes, or they should have called and voiced their opinion when the issue was raised.

They broke the rules, they got punished.

Now, KNOWING they were going to be punished, Obama (and Edwards) didn't campaign in those two states. Clinton did. In effect, Obama wasn't even in the race in those two states. So, since you're the big purveyor of fairness, how is it fair to count the results of an election in which one of the candidates didn't run? We've seen (PA and IN) that Obama's campaigning sways massive amounts of votes. Who is to say that if he didn't campaign in FL for example, he wouldn't have won?

But Clinton is getting conservative votes, and votes from the farmers and hard hat workers, and the now important spanish voting block. Obama is seen as too liberal for those fense sitters who go for the canidate that can best create jobs and not raise taxes, which is Clintons stated goal. Also they feel Obama will not be strong enough as Commander and Chief which gives McCain some "points" to point to his self, where as Clinton would be a strong Commander and Chief. Obama's experience as a social worker might not work on those guys in Iran, as he imagines it would. So the Super Deligates are holding back on pledging support with Obama in the hopes that something will break to justify giving the nod to Clinton, and that is what she is hoping for, the odds that 60 percent of the Super Deligates will find a reason to unite behind her and her platform ideas which have more substance, to reduce the risk of a loss aganest McCain also, who has already found a lot to attack Obama over, which he has not found concerning Clinton.

Do you have any proof of any of these voting trends you suggest?

I think to suggest that one of the most divisive political figures of our time - Clinton - could draw the moderate votes needed to win the Presidency is absurd.

Meanwhile, Obama is motivating new and previously uninterested voters and in almost every poll beats both Clinton AND McCain. Basically, if the Democrats pick Obama they win, if they pick Clinton they lose.

Let the Super Deligates determine when it is time to unite the party behind one canidate, they are experts in making such determinations when so needed. It is not CNN or other sources to say when to unite and end the primary race.

Many of the superdelegates are saying just that to Clinton...
McGovern will endorse Obama - The Associated Press - Politico.com
Obama picks up superdelegates; undecideds moving his way - Yahoo! News

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Wrong. I'll lay this out as simply as I possibly can so that maybe you'll understand: 1) People in those two states elected representatives in their state government. 2) Their elected representatives in state government talked about moving the primaries despite warnings from both parties that their votes might not count as punishment for doing that. 3) Their elected representatives went ahead and did it anyway. How is that being cheated? They shouldn't have elected those dopes, or they should have called and voiced their opinion when the issue was raised. They broke the rules, they got punished. Now, KNOWING they were going to be punished, Obama (and Edwards) didn't campaign in those two states. Clinton did. In effect, Obama wasn't even in the race in those two states. So, since you're the big purveyor of fairness, how is it fair to count the results of an election in which one of the candidates didn't run? We've seen (PA and IN) that Obama's campaigning sways massive amounts of votes. Who is to say that if he didn't campaign in FL for example, he wouldn't have won? Do you have any proof of any of these voting trends you suggest? I think to suggest that one of the most divisive political figures of our time - Clinton - could draw the moderate votes needed to win the Presidency is absurd. Meanwhile, Obama is motivating new and previously uninterested voters and in almost every poll beats both Clinton AND McCain. Basically, if the Democrats pick Obama they win, if they pick Clinton they lose. Many of the superdelegates are saying just that to Clinton... McGovern will endorse Obama - The Associated Press - Politico.com Obama picks up superdelegates; undecideds moving his way - Yahoo! News

Because after getting elected their officals did something so their votes are not counted. Which was unfair to the people they were supposed to represent. Why punish voters if they got double-crossed by some officals who broke that trust?

Although Hillary said she would toally fund a new election so that he could give his speeches there, he refused to agree to allowing those states to hold a new election so that Hillary would loose. He want to maintain his phoney lead and to hell with the rights of voters to have votes counted.

Your opinon about Clinton is bais due to your belief in conservative Bushism and the lies they like to project.

So more black people will vote in order to take pride in his win. But that is not a good reason when the plantform ideas and experience is more important of a reason, and the super deligates know that, which is why most of the experienced party leaders favor her. She is still ahead if in the super deligates arena. And their numbers could determine the final nod for nominee.

McCovern lost because the super deligates thought he was a bad choice, he had lots of popular votes because he would legalize pot during the hippy era. And for his anti-war stand at the time. But they did not feel he was a strong canidate and Nixon was. McGovern is a no-body that did not have anything much to add to the Democratic party other then a lot of potheads who wanted radical change so they could get high and crazy like. His opinon about current events is not worth beans to anyone. The Clintons saved his eclection and brought him up from being the underdog in his time of need, and then he turns around and backstabs them just like he did the Nam Vets. He is a looser.

The Clintons know how to win and would win if all votes were counted. Bill won two major elections and she won twice in New York. Stop allowing people to fowl up the damn election procedures at voting booths. Do it right or don't do it at all. Save Democracy NOW during this election and don't put it off for another time.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Technosoul Because after getting elected their officals did something so their votes are not counted. Which was unfair to the people they were supposed to represent. Why punish voters if they got double-crossed by some officals who broke that trust?

Because the people have redress against those officials.

Changing the rules now is unfair to all of the candidates.

Did I mention Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan?

Your opinon about Clinton is bais due to your belief in conservative Bushism and the lies they like to project.

Wrong. Nice asinine assumption about my political views, though.

So more black people will vote in order to take pride in his win. But that is not a good reason when the plantform ideas and experience is more important of a reason, and the super deligates know that, which is why most of the experienced party leaders favor her. She is still ahead if in the super deligates arena. And their numbers could determine the final nod for nominee.

I see, so your hypocritical position is that on the one hand, when if benefits Clinton, we should go with The Will of The People, rules about elections be damned. On the other hand, when it benefits Clinton, we should go with what a bunch of lifetime career politicians and smoke-filled-room backscratchers say, to hell with The Will of The People...

Remind me who is letting their bias influence their thoughts?

The Clintons know how to win and would win if all votes were counted. Bill won two major elections and she won twice in New York. Stop allowing people to fowl up the damn election procedures at voting booths.

You mean superdelegates? Oh, wait, they're in favor of Clinton. See, you like allowing people to fowl up the election procedures when it benefits your bias.

Laughable.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Because the people have redress against those officials. Changing the rules now is unfair to all of the candidates. Did I mention Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan? Wrong. Nice asinine assumption about my political views, though. I see, so your hypocritical position is that on the one hand, when if benefits Clinton, we should go with The Will of The People, rules about elections be damned. On the other hand, when it benefits Clinton, we should go with what a bunch of lifetime career politicians and smoke-filled-room backscratchers say, to hell with The Will of The People... Remind me who is letting their bias influence their thoughts? You mean superdelegates? Oh, wait, they're in favor of Clinton. See, you like allowing people to fowl up the election procedures when it benefits your bias. Laughable.

Wrong, Clinton offered Obama the option in plenty of time to conduct another primary election in those states but he refused simply because he would loose if those new votes were counted.

I personally do not agree with this whole deligate situation and think elections should be determined by popular vote only.

However a poltical party is not a governmental insitution. Each poltical party has it's leaders already and those people are called super deligates. They are in charge of picking what canidate they want people to vote for and to run agenst canidates from other parties. A primary is held to measure the in-put from voters. Normally they go for the canidate that can stir up the most support form regestered democrats. However in a primary of some states, such as Indiana, an independant can vote ether party, which opens up votes for non-democrats to add to the popular count. None the less a political party is more or less a private insitution and must have enough regestered people to qualify for governmental grant money to run an election and get listed on ballets. The concept of democracy has nothing to do with who a party wants to use as their chief canidate in the final election, that choice is up to the party leaders. After the party leaders pick their canidate then the real elections are conducted and democracy comes into play via the will of the people (in theory).

We have lots of poltical parties in the USA, some of them you never hear about. If they can regester enough people they get on the ballets also even without a big primary aired on prime time TV.

The current race in the Democratic primary is very close relative to popular votes, Almost a 50-50 split. So now the party chiefs must determine which one is best for the long run good of the party. They know that the voters will unite behind the one selected if they want to defeat the Republicans, and they know they must have an experienced person who can network in Washington DC and get things done, as well as deal with the heads of other worldly governments. Now in some states Republcans voted for a democratic canidate and they know that independants also voted for people in their party. So that automatically messed up their placing a lot of weight on the primary outcomes, due to the near tie the canidates have. They know they must concider the people in the states not being represented due to party rules when it comes to the offical race for the White House, as those are very important states and especially in Fla where polls show that Hillary is favored. If a democratic canidate could snatch the state of Fla out of the hands of the Republicans that would a very important point to concider. ( you will recall what took place when Al Gore was cheated out of having votes counted in that state, even when scientific exit polls showed that he had won that state).

You will have a chance to use democarcy when we elect which political party will win the White House. No matter who is selected by the democratic party to represent that challenge is not dependant on democracy because they are both democrats and both have basically the same platform and agendas that are in conformity with their parties main objectives. Namely, solving domestic economical problems, exiting Iraq, health care reform, dealing with envirnomental problems, and so forth. But first of all, getting into the White House.

The party chiefs are holding back because national polls still show that Hilliary would have the best chance of defeating McCain. A very important point to be concidered, and the primary voters do not concider such things like that, but the more seasoned big wigs of the party do.
They know Hillary won most of the big states are the most important in a win over McCain. Another important point the chiefs will concider when this choice comes up on the convention floor.

Of course the super deligates will also concider the voices of the deligates that now support Obama. But those deligates must show that Obama can defeat McCain and that Obama can gain more support form the middle class workers in America who might otherwise shift back to Republican perspectives.

In the last interview on CNN Wolf asked Obama if he would raise taxes for the middle class to fund governental programs, Obama dodged that question and just said that the Republicans got us more in debt then did Democrats under Bill Clintons managment. Voters are not going to like hearing that kind of answer in the final showdown when McCain starts to say that Democrats will raise taxes for the working class. We need a canidate that will answer such questions directly by saying "no new taxes for the middle class" or say "yes, the programs will raise taxes for the middle class". Obama did not answer one way or the other, and pointed out that he is not sure where you draw the line between the middle class and the wealthy upper class.

Rodger dodger, over and out.

Now I love Obama's sermons about unity and equality and about working together with grass roots momentums, he sounded as good as Martin King Jr. But he must also answer the questions about the nitty gritty things also, and not dodge the detials about how to fund his programs, or about how he can unite people without selling out the parties main goals. In that recent cyclone that killed as many as 100.000 people that country refused aid from the USA but accepted help form many other countries. They do not even trust us to do charity work because of Republican domination.

As Johnny Cash sang in his song "Hurt" we are asking "look what I have become, I will only cause you pain". Americans want to change that kind of image. Perhaps Obama can do that, but perhaps not. Because it will take more then inspirational speeches when you acturally get into those closed rooms to talk one-one-one with those who hate us.

We know that it is no longer possible for Obama or Clinton to unite the Democratic party so that both the 49-51 voters are totally happy. It will be up to the Super Deligates to unite them by just picking which canidate is best qualified by actural facts to stand in the forefront.

Like it or not, that is reality, I personaly would hope they pick Hillary Clinton, my bias however is based on what I think are important facts conerning ther abilities, not because of race or gender, or because of fancy talk done in poltical speech making.
If Obama can still prove he is more qualified then Clinton and McCain then I will shift my support and bias.

[Rainbow]

Unless something unexpected happens, Hillary is gone.

Now, Hillary is trying to save her face, using variety of (alleged) arguments to favour her reasons in order to stay in race.
That decision belongs to her. Nevertheless, that extended race hurts the Democratic Party.
What is more important to her :
- party
- position
???
(It indicates that Hillary is extremely selfish individual.)

McCain thinks he can beat Barack with ease. Therefore, his campaign supports Barack quietly.
It would not surprize me, Barack would be(come) a winner, instead and indeed.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Rainbow Unless something unexpected happens, Hillary is gone. Now, Hillary is trying to save her face, using variety of (alleged) arguments to favour her reasons in order to stay in race.

She'll probably argue that her loss is bad for the Democratic Party.

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Rainbow Unless something unexpected happens, Hillary is gone. Now, Hillary is trying to save her face, using variety of (alleged) arguments to favour her reasons in order to stay in race. That decision belongs to her. Nevertheless, that extended race hurts the Democratic Party. What is more important to her : - party - position ??? (It indicates that Hillary is extremely selfish individual.) McCain thinks he can beat Barack with ease. Therefore, his campaign supports Barack quietly. It would not surprize me, Barack would be(come) a winner, instead and indeed.

I do not see this as selfish. Of course both canidates want to win and so that would make both of them selfish in that perspective.

Nearly 50 percent of the Democrats want her and so she owes it to them to fight on. Obama is not a landslide winner no matter how you count things up.

Obama refused to allow for a re-do for primary elections in two states and that was for selfish reasons. He refused to debate Hillary for selfish reasons to insure victory in N.C. He refused to be Vice President for the sake of party unity, for selfish reasons. He refused to admit he really did like Rev Wright for selfish reasons. To think that Obama is a Saint in that department of morality is a big illusion.

Obama refuses to admit that experience is important relative to job applications, which got support from younger voters in collages that also lack experience and who will soon join the work force, for selfish reasons that he is lacking in that qualification. Like saying the job of being a President has a sign posted "no experience required" (which it does in fact, but that is no reason to promote it as a good thing).

A lot of older people are unhappy about being replaced by young people because their ideas might be outdated, and so he could loose that voting block. Hey, why don't they hire me as a CEO, I got good judgement and no experience. Reality check - it will never happen.

I do not think that "selfishness" can be employed as a good standard to pick a canidate. Let's go with the person with the best ideas and can back them up with actural details instead of just fancy talke as window dressing.

Calling Hillary selfish is just old time mud slinging and not productive of honest debating about the issues. But that is okay, I am in for a good old mud fight, the Woodstock generation has experience in doing that.

[Matt W]

And Hilary is completely unselfish?

Techno, that is a naive position, and you know it.

You're happy to call Obama selfish, but not Hilary. Sad.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Matt W And Hilary is completely unselfish? Techno, that is a naive position, and you know it. You're happy to call Obama selfish, but not Hilary. Sad.

I intended to suggest that both of them have selfish motives to based on what the other poster suggested. But I shuld make a modification of that, I think they both have unselfish motives at the core of their intent and motive to be President. Both want to do something for America otherwise they could get better paying jobs in some other pursuit.

I thought that calling Hillary selfish was just mud slinging and so got into a mud fight. sorry about that.

[tivodan1116]

Actually, I think your MOST naive position is this thing where you keep insisting Hillary is more "experienced"... More experienced at campaigning, maybe. What else has she done?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Actually, I think your MOST naive position is this thing where you keep insisting Hillary is more "experienced"... More experienced at campaigning, maybe. What else has she done?

In listening to the speechs made by each canidate over the last weeked I think HIllary has the most experience so far this year in thinking about solutions, after listening to what people have to say.

She was speaking about a number of ways to solve progrems, where as Obama was giving a long speech about what is wrong and that we need to change, with no ideas of his own about to to make that change.

She has what is called the best "roller desk file" of important names of people and who to call to get things done in Washington and around the world.

Needless to say none of the canidates have experience directing military activities or acting as a President, but a least Hillary has some insight into what that is all about, being she was a first lady and could sit in on a number of coversations her husband had with local and world leaders, and so she is comfortable in doing that and knows what to expect.

The average voter often votes for a President who can best voice what they wish to gripe about and what they might hope for. Obama is good at doing that. But Hillary, has solutions that she has been working on for ages, she started working on ideas for better health care even before Bill Clinton became President, and she is interested in working hard and getting things done, more so then working on how to write flowering speeches. Plus, she does have the back-up experience of Bill Clinton who was in fact a two term President, we cannot totally count out that factor.

Although Obama is sometimes supported because he would be the first black person ever elected for that position, which would be a change, he is still a man and thinks like any other male, not much different then how white men think. Women have a certain kind of quite wisdom that is unique to their gender, which we have never experienced in American politics until recently. I sort of like how the intelligent women frame things in the way the think, and what they advocate on the whole, along with their determination. That kind of experience no man can have. But I do not like the way all women think because they can get pretty cold and judgemental with their gossip and no one wants to get on the nagging side of a woman's wrath. But I think Hillary has that under control. She seems to be happy and upbeat most of the time.

So when Hillary talks about being ready on day one I think she is talking about her experience that was gathered together by planning ahead, and by being familar with the workings of the White House, and poltics in Washington.

Obama has been it the Senate for one term and beyond that has little to offer in the way of experience, other then as a social worker for a church. Which outreach program did not really change Chicago that much.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Technosoul In listening to the speechs made by each canidate over the last weeked I think HIllary has the most experience so far this year in thinking about solutions, after listening to what people have to say.

Most experience "in thinking about solutions"? That's the biggest bunch of crap I've heard in a long time.

She has what is called the best "roller desk file" of important names of people and who to call to get things done in Washington and around the world.

The President of the United States of America has an infinite list of names to call to get things done. They are the President.

Furthermore, Clinton has a gigantic list of political enemies, whereas Obama does not.

Needless to say none of the canidates have experience directing military activities or acting as a President, but a least Hillary has some insight into what that is all about, being she was a first lady and could sit in on a number of coversations her husband had with local and world leaders, and so she is comfortable in doing that and knows what to expect.

Laughable. A First Lady does nothing with regard to governance. Her experience with diplomacy consists of arranging flowers and hiring caterers (and lying about it later, i.e. Bosnia). Your argument is as stupid as saying Melinda Gates could write the next edition of Windows.

But Hillary, has solutions that she has been working on for ages, she started working on ideas for better health care even before Bill Clinton became President, and she is interested in working hard and getting things done, more so then working on how to write flowering speeches.

Like the health care plan she "worked on" 15 years ago that went nowhere? That's great experience...

Plus, she does have the back-up experience of Bill Clinton who was in fact a two term President, we cannot totally count out that factor.

Yes, we can. Why don't you ask someone from New York (ahem...) how that "back-up" has served her in doing ANY of the things she promised for her constituents? Near as I can tell, she doesn't even show up in NY unless someone is giving her an award of some kind. It has gotten so bad New Yorkers have nicknamed her the "silent Senator"...

Although Obama is sometimes supported because he would be the first black person ever elected for that position, which would be a change, he is still a man and thinks like any other male, not much different then how white men think. Women have a certain kind of quite wisdom that is unique to their gender, which we have never experienced in American politics until recently. I sort of like how the intelligent women frame things in the way the think, and what they advocate on the whole, along with their determination. That kind of experience no man can have. But I do not like the way all women think because they can get pretty cold and judgemental with their gossip and no one wants to get on the nagging side of a woman's wrath. But I think Hillary has that under control. She seems to be happy and upbeat most of the time.

Voting for someone because of their gender = idiotic.

So when Hillary talks about being ready on day one I think she is talking about her experience that was gathered together by planning ahead, and by being familar with the workings of the White House, and poltics in Washington.

She wasn't that familiar with the workings of the White House, otherwise she would have known her husband was getting head from an intern.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Technosoul I do not see this as selfish. Of course both canidates want to win and so that would make both of them selfish in that perspective. Nearly 50 percent of the Democrats want her and so she owes it to them to fight on. Obama is not a landslide winner no matter how you count things up. Obama refused to allow for a re-do for primary elections in two states and that was for selfish reasons. He refused to debate Hillary for selfish reasons to insure victory in N.C. He refused to be Vice President for the sake of party unity, for selfish reasons. He refused to admit he really did like Rev Wright for selfish reasons. To think that Obama is a Saint in that department of morality is a big illusion. Obama refuses to admit that experience is important relative to job applications, which got support from younger voters in collages that also lack experience and who will soon join the work force, for selfish reasons that he is lacking in that qualification. Like saying the job of being a President has a sign posted "no experience required" (which it does in fact, but that is no reason to promote it as a good thing). A lot of older people are unhappy about being replaced by young people because their ideas might be outdated, and so he could loose that voting block. Hey, why don't they hire me as a CEO, I got good judgement and no experience. Reality check - it will never happen. I do not think that "selfishness" can be employed as a good standard to pick a canidate. Let's go with the person with the best ideas and can back them up with actural details instead of just fancy talke as window dressing. Calling Hillary selfish is just old time mud slinging and not productive of honest debating about the issues. But that is okay, I am in for a good old mud fight, the Woodstock generation has experience in doing that.

Try to be a little more reasonable, please.

What would be more important to you :
- a political party win (you are a member of)
or
- your gains
???
The answer brings the ultimate question :
- does a particular political party matter (to Hillary, really) ???
It looks it does not, since her private gains seem to be more important, in contrary.

Additionally, Hillary claims victory in Michigan and Florida.
The Democratic Party's officials broke rules in both states. Therefore, the outcomes can Not be counted and/or validated. Yet, Hillary pressures Barack to recognize those results and/or start talks on a sort of compromise.
When Hillary was leading, she did not even raise the issue with Michigan and Florida. Now, when Hillary is loosing, she tries to reverse the whole case. This is weird (approach), is not it ?

The latest polls indicate that Hillary is going to win West Virginia by appx. 40 points. (This is exactly what Hillary should have been doing for the past month, in Every single state. She failed to comply with that requirement.) Even though, there are 28 delegates available in West Virginia. Assuming that Hillary wins with ratio of 70 vs 30, then :
- Hillary gets appx. 20 delegates
- Barack gets appx. 8 delegates

As of today, results (according to the latest CNN data) :
- Barack : 1865 delegates
- Hillary : 1697 delegates
Link : Clinton camp: We're within 'striking distance' of popular vote - CNN.com

As you see - even with that big win in West Virginia - that is not enough for Hillary to catch up.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Rainbow Try to be a little more reasonable, please. What would be more important to you : - a political party win (you are a member of) or - your gains ??? The answer brings the ultimate question : - does a particular political party matter (to Hillary, really) ??? It looks it does not, since her private gains seem to be more important, in contrary. Additionally, Hillary claims victory in Michigan and Florida. The Democratic Party's officials broke rules in both states. Therefore, the outcomes can Not be counted and/or validated. Yet, Hillary pressures Barack to recognize those results and/or start talks on a sort of compromise. When Hillary was leading, she did not even raise the issue with Michigan and Florida. Now, when Hillary is loosing, she tries to reverse the whole case. This is weird (approach), is not it ? The latest polls indicate that Hillary is going to win West Virginia by appx. 40 points. (This is exactly what Hillary should have been doing for the past month, in Every single state. She failed to comply with that requirement.) Even though, there are 28 delegates available in West Virginia. Assuming that Hillary wins with ratio of 70 vs 30, then : - Hillary gets appx. 20 delegates - Barack gets appx. 8 delegates As of today, results (according to the latest CNN data) : - Barack : 1865 delegates - Hillary : 1697 delegates Link : Clinton camp: We're within 'striking distance' of popular vote - CNN.com As you see - even with that big win in West Virginia - that is not enough for Hillary to catch up.

Private gains? She wrote a couple of books that sold well. That's about all she can brag about as a personal gain relative to money.

She promoted that those states be allowed a new primary vote that is within the rules of the party. People behind her offered to fund that when people said it would be too expensive. We have no way to tell what the outcome of the new primary would be in those two states, as Obama's name would be on the ballets and each would have some time to give speeches and advertise. The importat thing is not to leave the will of those voters uncounted. There was no reason for the Obama camp not to agree to those terms if they wanted all votes counted.
Hillary had always supported the idea that the voices of everyone should be allowed. Because of those rule goof-ups on the part of state officals (not no the part of voters) the whole election process was damaged and now the will of all the people is not being represented.

Who said she must win by 40 percent in every state? Now had the Rev Wright incident come out early on then Obama might not of won some small states where he did better early on in the race. We cannot tell if he still could hold those pre-Wright states agenst McCain now that the cat is out of the bag. Raising more doubts for the Super Deligates to measure. Plus Obama wa