The Democratic Primary is Finally Over!

but it seems according to the math that she can't win now :( i'm sad that once again, women are kept out of the top spot of the whitehouse, but on the other hand, i do think its time for the focus to shift from the primaries to the true prize, the november election.

i hope that this doesnt derail our hopes of keeping the republicans OUT of the presidential seat this fall.
 
Spellbinder said:
but it seems according to the math that she can't win now :( i'm sad that once again, women are kept out of the top spot of the whitehouse, but on the other hand, i do think its time for the focus to shift from the primaries to the true prize, the november election.

i hope that this doesnt derail our hopes of keeping the republicans OUT of the presidential seat this fall.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be sad. Her gender had nothing to do with it and never should, just as race shouldn't. She lost because of her record to date and performance during this run and that's all it was. I'm sad that you can look at it that way.

Back in the 90s, my country had a woman go up for the highest office we've got. She lost. She whined that it was her gender. She ignored the simple facts that she was running with the party that had been in office through most of the 80s and had practically destroyed the country. It was no secret that the party was hated by all. She was, however extremely popular. She also couldn't speak a word of French in a country where close to half the federal vote are Francophones whom want some they can directly speak to and understand. She lost. But hey, according to her and a number of folk, it some how was only her gender, not her lack of qualifications nor her party and it's history to that point with the Canadian people. Lesson over.

My opinion, the Democrats are going in. Why? One is history. Like Canada, the USofA generally votes in a party for two terms only and then changes to the other. OK, for Canada we choose from three for the last fifty years, but we largely ignore those idiots called the NDP. So the good money is on the Republicans getting the boot. Next, McCain is too old. His politics are really a minor factor as his age will mean a President that'll be like Reagan and several other former leaders, I say that since we've been through the same as have others, and spend more time in the hospital then not. A potential "passed away" in office President is not wanted and only the most delusional are not thinking about that. Next, Neither Clinton or Obama are a "dog's lunch" of a candidate. Not really when compared to McCain. It's obvious that they aren't all that different across the board on the final tally. Next, Obama managed to deal with the Kennedy specter far better and is tapping that, for good or bad.
Obama isn't trying to play race in this which makes him appealing. Unlike Hillary, there's little to make any recall of past Presidents or their faults. She would've been a dynasty Pres, just like Dubbayah and everyone seems to hate that. Obama had nothing to connect him to the past, unlike Hillary or McCain who ran before and failed. So again, Obama looks good. I seriously think that anyone who thinks McCain is going to win, needs to lay off the booze or whatever. It's not what's promised. It's not any specific politic that'll get whomever in. It's the all in the end and a desire for change. I believe one person described it as the underwear syndrome. We all change regularly for health, not to mention smell.

Obama and the Democrats are going in. That's this Cat's call.
 
Spellbinder, I'm going to reach through the internetz and slap you for making me go political!
proxy.php
 
I agree that it is time to change focus. I am currently distressed though, that Hillary will not be satisfied until the Dems are too fractured to win in November. I would hope that Obama would have had more class if he were the loser fair-and-square.
 
Maybe it's not as over as I thought...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09fri1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

EDITORIAL
Sen. Clinton and the Campaign

Published: May 9, 2008

There is a lot of talk that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now fated to lose the Democratic nomination and should pull out of the race. We believe it is her right to stay in the fight and challenge Senator Barack Obama as long as she has the desire and the means to do so. That is the essence of the democratic process.

But we believe just as strongly that Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake — for herself, her party and for the nation — if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones. We believe it would also be a terrible mistake if she launches a fight over the disqualified delegations from Florida and Michigan.

The United States needs a clean break from eight catastrophic years of George W. Bush. And so far, Senator John McCain is shaping up as Bush the Sequel — neverending war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich while the middle class struggles, courts packed with right-wing activists intent on undoing decades of progress in civil rights, civil liberties and other vital areas.

The Democratic Party must field the most effective and vibrant candidate it possibly can. More attack ads and squabbling will not help achieve that goal. If Mr. Obama wins, he will be that much more battered and the party will be harder to unite. Win or lose, Mrs. Clinton’s reputation will suffer more harm than it already has.

She owes more to millions of Americans who have voted for her (and particularly to New Yorkers, who are entitled to expect that if she loses, she will return to the Senate with her influence and integrity intact).

In addition to abandoning the attack ads, Mrs. Clinton must drop her plans to fight to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan, which defied the Democratic Party and moved up the dates of their primaries. A lot of people voted in Florida anyway, but Mrs. Clinton should not pursue this nuclear option. It would make the Democrats look unable to control their own, just when they want to make a case that they can lead the entire nation.

Both candidates have been vowing in the last two days to unite the party, and Mr. Obama could do more to rein in his anonymous campaign aides and other supporters who spend their days trashing Mrs. Clinton.

The undeclared superdelegates should stop their coy posing. With few exceptions, there is no reason left (other than the hope of making back-room deals) for those whose states have voted to keep their positions private. The rest should state their allegiance as soon as their primaries are held in the next few weeks.

There is a lot that Senators Clinton and Obama need to be talking about in coming weeks, starting with how they will extract the country from President Bush’s disastrous Iraq war. A robust debate about health care and the mortgage crisis would remind all American voters of what is at stake in this year’s election. It would also prepare whoever wins the nomination to be a better debater and campaigner in the fall.

We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But instead of discussing her strong ideas, Mrs. Clinton claimed in an interview with USA Today that she would be the better nominee because a recent poll showed that “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” She added: “There’s a pattern emerging here.”

Yes, there is a pattern — a familiar and unpleasant one. It is up to Mrs. Clinton to change it if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses.
Click to expand...

It's a powerful editorial from Hillary's hometown paper that endorsed her earlier in the primary. Looks like she didn't learn anything on Tuesday after all...
 
Flashforward said:
Maybe it's not as over as I thought...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09fri1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin



It's a powerful editorial from Hillary's hometown paper that endorsed her earlier in the primary. Looks like she didn't learn anything on Tuesday after all...
Click to expand...

Looks like they haven't either.

If she went in as the VP under Obama, the Democrats would be powerful in the elections against McCain. After all, shooting a squirrel with a shotgun still results in a dead squirrel, but there won't be any zombie to come after you. :heee:

By the way, DO NOT be mean to squirrels, they are my cute and entertaining little friends. But the analogy worked, so I used it.

I think Spellbinder don't like me no more.
 
Flashforward said:
What the hell are you talking about? Has the kitty been getting into the moonshine again?
Click to expand...

just wanted to note seeing that nearly make me spit out my Sprite. I don't even know why :)


Anyway I think together Hillary and Obama would be a powerful force. However if reports of her foiling Obama to set up for her campaign in 2012 then any chance of them teaming will be nil.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's going to be so much animosity within the Democratic party that they'll fall all to pieces in the general election. You've got to think the power brokers within the party have already realized that they've got two inexperienced, devisive, polarizing candidates on their hands. This should be fun to watch.
 
And yet, the Democratic party has registered more than a million voters nationwide, and has had twice the turnout of the Republican party in almost every single contest. Both Democrats are breaking all-time fundraising records, while McCain is raising a paltry $15 million per month. Add to that the fact that the current president is a Republican whose approval ratings are in the 20s, and you have a perfect storm of electoral change.

Even if 20% of the current Democratic electorate stays home or votes for McCain in November, Obama will still win the election. You're right, it will be fun to watch the Republicans get their asses kicked...again.
 
If the Republicans lose (and I'm far from convinced they will) it's their own fault for choosing a Democrat to run on their ticket. I lead more Libertarian than Republican and there doesn't seem to be too much difference between McCain and either of the Dems as far as policy goes. At least he's got experience and doesn't consort with known terrorists though.
 
Yes, instead McCain consorts with known biggots. John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and the late Jerry Falwell to name a couple. It also depends on your definition of "terrorist." A whole lot of people around the world consider Bush to be worse than Bin Laden. After all, what do you call a person who launches a pre-emptive act of aggression against a sovereign nation that poses no threat to the former?

If you think McCain is a "Democrat," you're insane. The reason the Republicans are going to lose this fall is that they've fucked up this country so badly in the last eight years that 80% of the population feels that we're going in the wrong direction. Your party got it's ass kicked in 2006, and people are even less happy with you now, especially with your president vetoing bills that would help stop the bleeding. If the election were held today, the Democrats would take over both houses of Congress and the presidency because of president chimpy mcflightsuit, who, by the way, has screwed up this country so bad that people would finally rather talk about real issues than flag pins and pastors this election season.
 
So much anger. Let it go man. Let it go.
By the way, the Republican party is not currently conservative enough for me, so I'll probably vote Libertarian in the general election. And no sane person thinks Bush is worse than Bin Laden. That's just stupid. Peope who think that have literally lost all contact with reality.
 
Evidently you don't travel much. Try living in Europe or Asia for a few years and let me know when you get back in touch with reality again.

Again, nice way to dismiss the point altogether. The United States was ranked in the top three most dangerous nations in a poll conducted a few years ago, lumped together with North Korea and Iran. If you go abroad even for a vacation or two, you can't even declare yourself to be an American, otherwise you get dirty looks, and at times people discriminate against you altogether. Whereas being an American used to be a badge of honor, it's now a burden. The simple fact is that other countries around the world don't like a nation that feels that it can do whatever it wants whenever it wants, which is what the US has become. Notice that even your Republican brethren are talking about the need to "fix" and "restore" America. Who exactly broke it? Which party has been in charge for the last eight years?

If you're a real Libertarian, you should be pissed at Bush. He's done more to roll back civil liberties and the rights and protections granted by the constitution than almost any other president in history. He's expanded the role of government far beyond what it was in the 90s and has greatly increased the power of the executive branch of government. Like I said, you'd be pissed if you were a real Libertarian, or a real conservative for that matter. If Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan were alive today, they'd be shocked at how fucked up this country has become under those who claim to be following in their footsteps.
 
You evidently know me very well. I mean, I've only traveled to France, Mexico, and Niger in the last year so I suppose I don't get out very much. Everywhere I've traveled, I've been treated quite well. Maybe the problem isn't that you're an American, maybe it's that people can't stand your bitterness and hatred toward your own country.
You act as if I think Bush is some sort of messiah. I don't. I don't agree with everything he's done, but he has protected us. I don't think our country is "broken." That's a liberal concept. I'm also not a "real" Libertarian. I'm just conservative. So do us all favor and quit acting as if you know me. And if you truly believe America is on par with N. Korea or Iran, you should really ask yourself why so many people want to imigrate here. I wonder...could it possibly be that maybe, just maybe America isn't as bad as you perceive (or want) it to be? Nah, that couldn't possibly be it.
 
What exactly has Bush "protected" us from? Other terrorist attacks? What proof do you have of that assertion? The absence of evidence is not evidence.

Wow, just because you've been treated well wherever you go, everything must be kosher, right? Because naturally, your experiences are the standard by which we should all measure the effects of the United States' actions around the world. Don't you think it's at all possible that your experiences are the exception rather than the norm? Perhaps you should stop generalizing and implying that everyone that disagrees with you is wrong.

How exactly are you a real Libertarian, or a conservative for that matter? You still haven't answered the question. Are you for limited government? Because in the last eight years, we've seen the largest government expansion since the 1940s. Are you for protecting your civil liberties and individual rights? You do realize that the government has a right to detain you without trial, right? You do realize that the right defending against illegal search and seizure has been invalidated should the government decide to label you a terrorist sympathizer, right? Are you for limited spending? Because if you are, you should hate Bush just as much as I do. He's amassed more debt than Reagan managed to in the 1980s, and at least in the case of the latter, he took out the Soviet Union. Bush couldn't even catch Osama bin Laden, because he outsourced operations in the Afghan region of Tora Bora to tribal warlords who did a shit job and turned their enemies over to us rather than actual terrorists. Limited government, protection of civil liberties, and limited spending are key conservative principles, and if you're willing to cave on those with regard to Bush, then maybe you're not as conservative as you think you are.

Furthermore, people want to emigrate to America for wealth and the promise of it. People come to America because they think that they can have a better life based on their enhanced ability to earn capital. They are enchanted by the myth of America, and by what the country used to stand for. America has done good, and a lot of bad in the world. For you to ignore any negative actions your country has taken in "defense" of "liberty" and "freedom," simply proves that you're just another brainwashed conservative that fails to acknowledge historical facts when they don't suit your agenda.

Liberals don't hate America. They hate the bad things America does abroad, and they hate the idiots who think their country can do no wrong. Blind patriotism does a disservice to our country. Even the founding fathers spoke out against such absolute faith in country in the Federalist Papers.

At least Ron Paul, a Libertarian if ever there was one, acknowledges the root causes of terrorism, i.e. US military actions overseas, of which include economic imperialism and indefinite occupations. Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism supported abortion rights. Even Reagan understood that the government had an obligation to it's people and to tell the truth, something that he stood up for when he took personal responsibility for the Iran-Contra affair.

Seems to me that you don't know a lot about the history of conservatism, and that you only subscribe to the current incarnation of the philosophy, which is very different from what it was 10, 20, and even 30 years ago. Conservatives today are not conservative. They're corrupt liberals, hence the terms neo-conservative and neo-liberal to describe their social, political, and economic policies, who have done more to hurt the conservative agenda in this country by hiding behind religion and patriotism for their own political ends, all the while ignoring the basic values on which their movement was built.

When you consider that fact, it's no wonder that your party is going to get it's ass kicked come November.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top