Is anybody already starting to mourn over having one of our two great candidates "lose" on Tuesday?

[HughMoran]

I know I am. It may be shocking to some who are hardcore supporters of one or the other candidate, but I would be happy with either Hillary and Obama. Each has qualities that I admire - Hillary has great poise and can readily articulate her knowledge of the issues, Obama has a passion and oratory style that will stop you in your tracks & force you to listen. I find their differences on the issues to be small - especially compared to the Republicans who seem to be "more of the same failed bullshit" candidates. Since both Hillary and Obama are from the "pragmatic" school of thinking, it's hard to consider their differences on issues as being that significant, since being pragmatic means that they will adjust their thinking/plans in order to garner needed support to "accomplish" their goals when the time comes. I know a combined ticket seems like the "perfect storm" for the Dems, but I also feel like this is probably a pipe-dream as neither would likely want to pick a person who could easily upstage them in the general election. Perhaps I am still caught up in the afterglow of the debate last night - I was so impressed with both of them last night that I am not looking forward to losing one of these great voices when we go up against the Republicans this fall. Am I the only person who feels this way?

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. I don't really care. Two sides of the same coin.

[HughMoran]

10. I guess that's the inverse thinking

Since they are similar in many ways, if you don't like one based on fundamental philosophy (I know a LOT of the farther left people here HATE pragmatists), you will likely not be much fonder of the other candidate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. It's not that the left hates pragmatists -

it's that the pragmatists always sell out the left, first. Before they sell everybody else out.

[HughMoran]

15. I guess that's a matter of perspective

If what the so called "left" wanted to accomplish could be run on in a GE and would lead to a successful election outcome, then I think those candidates pushing that type of agenda (Kucinich, for instance) would do a lot better in the elections. I think we live in a time where the pendulum has swung to the right and is now swinging back to the left. Nothing changes rapidly in this country without some sirt of catastrophic event. 9/11, for instance, actually helped the Republicans hold on to power a little longer than they should have been able to IMO. Lacking some sort of driving urgency, we will slowly swing back to the left. Unfortunately for many, the pendulum will unlikely not swing far enough to satisfy them. We are just too diverse of a country for that to happen (sans massive upheaval) IMHO.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Odd perspective - seeing as how 9/11 happened barely months

after a 'pragmatist' Democrat had spent 8 years in the WH. So that ballyhooed 8 years of peace and prosperity were actually part of the RW domination that we were slowly moving away from? By electing Bush?

There SHOULD have been a leftward swing, after 12 years of a republican presidency, but the pragmatists stopped it cold by compromising and embracing RW policies - NAFTA, welfare reform, deregulation, etc. The left, which put Clinton in office, was betrayed by him and the DLC, and made Bush possible.

I will agree on one point - you say the 'so-called left'. There IS no left in this country. It's like getting a soda at the movie theater - there is no small - just Med., Large, XLarge. We have a center, right, and far right because that is all the power structure allows the public to hear. The left is disparaged and dismissed, despite the fact that the left gave America Social Security, Medicare, the 40 hr work week, unions...

The left could yet again give us single-payer universal healthcare, paid maternity leave, government subsidized child care for working mothers -- you won't here the pragmatists advocating any of that. Instead you get mandated insurance and screw the working class.

OK. You're right. The left DOES hate pragmatists.

[HughMoran]

21. There is not enough support for the more idealistic view at this time

I have been suffering with the "lack of left" politics since Carter failed in 1980. Perhaps I am so jaded that I won't allow myself to get too down any more. I realize that we can't get back to ground zero in one fell swoop. I feel that this country is just too averse to sudden changes. I don't know how we can change that except by building up a movement one brick at a time. I think of this country's politics as a giant river that can't be diverted rapidly without causing massive flooding. I do not want to feel helpless, so I try to acknowledge the situation as it is and support those who would at least start a new path for the country. It's either that or give the other side a bunch or mortar in which to reinforce the wall on the other side of the river - that would be a disaster IMHO.

[tekisui]

2. They are fine candidates, but I don't think we'll have room to mourn

anyone just yet. They will still be very close in delegates on Come-Down Wed.

[HughMoran]

14. I guess it will depend on how close they are

I'm just anticipating an end to this Democratic debate and switching over to the vileness of what the imbeciles in the Republican party have to say - minus one powerful voice :(

[KittyWampus]

3. As long as Obama comes close, the race will continue. And then he'll have more time to campaign

in person.

At this point after last night's debate where he held his own, I think he may very well win.

But IMO, the race is going on well after Tuesday.

[MrCoffee]

4. Mourn? Not even close.

I may actually be able to muster a yawn for the loser. Depends on how well-rested I am.

[MoonRiver]

5. Frankly, no.

I do want this over with, however. I hope it is on Tuesday.

[TexasObserver]

6. Yeah, but it's part of it.

Losing a candidate after all this time is tough, and everyone has to grieve their candidate's passing at their own pace. That's why if saracat wants to campaign for John all the way to the convention, that's her right.

When a person dies, we all deal with it in our own way. Some want to clean out the room and clothes of the deceased the next week, and some won't be ready to do that in a year.

I really thought he was going to take it to the convention, but he decided not to. You have to respect a candidate when they decide they've had enough. It's the most grueling job in the world, running for president in these United States. I don't know how any of them do it.

[Onlooker]

7. I've always felt that way

I think it's incredible that we have a black man and woman running for president. I think a lot of people don't fully appreciate the importance of this. The presidency is still the most powerful symbol of white male rule, and if you look at the corporate boards of America, the MSM, even Hollywood, the white male still rules. Changing this paradigm is going to have far reaching effects on the country. It's one of the reasons I've supported Obama (with Clinton as a strong second choice) over the more liberal Edwards.

[HughMoran]

8. It is an amazing time isn't it?

How many of us grew up in the civil rights and womans rights era dreaming of a day when either a black person or a woman would have a legitimate chance at being President of the US?

I think we will look back on this time and wonder what all the bickering was about - this is a historic election, but most of us can't see the forest for the trees...

[adabfree]

9. We are living through some serious history people

very very serious history

[HughMoran]

11. But we can't see the forest for the trees!!

Amazing, isn't it?

[PatSeg]

28. What amazes me is

how rarely I even notice race and gender when I consider the candidates. It is usually the MSM that reminds me. Then I go back to seeing them based on their character and credentials.

[Egnever]

12. I dont think you have to worry about it

I dont think we will be any closer to this thing being over tues than we are today.

[quinnox]

16. No, because if Obama loses he can run again

He is young enough to run in 8 years after the Hillary presidency, this is Hillarys last shot. So I would feel a lot worse for Hillary then Obama. Obama can wait, he doesn't need to be president straight out of high school, let him pay some dues first.

[HughMoran]

17. Thanks for reminding me of how young Obama is

Perhaps it's amazing in itself that he is this close to taking the nomination at such a young age. He will be a powerful voice in Democratic politics for years to come - win or lose - thanks for reminding me! I'm certainly not counting him out though. I do agree that Hillary is now or never though - she has one shot at this and now is the time. We shall see...

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. In January 09, Obama will be a year older that Bill was when he took

office.

Just saying.

[HughMoran]

27. I thought of that after I posted

...though Bill was the 3rd youngest President when elected. Obama may be 4th youngest if he is elected this fall!

1. Theodore Roosevelt 42 322
2. John F. Kennedy 43 236
3. Bill Clinton 46 154
4. Ulysses S. Grant 46 236
5. Grover Cleveland 47 351
6. Franklin Pierce 48 101
7. James Garfield 49 105
8. James K. Polk 49 122
9. Millard Fillmore 50 184
10. Chester A. Arthur 50 350

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. True enough. nt

[HughMoran]

32. Actually, I was wrong

He'll be older than Grant when sworn in making him the 5th youngest President - lol!

[northzax]

24. he could

but I don't think he will. (I can't figure who's winning on tuesday, it's chaos out there) Unless he does something really remarkable over the next four (or eight) years, and I mean really remarkable, like saving grandmothers, kittens, baseball and apple pie from evil invaders, this is his bite at the apple. The days of people running twice at this level are pretty much over (look at the second chancers lately, you really only have McCain being successful, and no one's quite sure why he still wants to be President, and no one is all that enthusiastic about him) Obama will never generate this much excitement, this much political and electoral heat, as he does at this moment.

[loveangelc]

18. neither will lose super tuesday, it's going to go for a while....

[yodermon]

20. well i don't think that will happen on tuesday.

i think the delegates will be split, with neither one over 50%.
so the campaign goes on.

[HughMoran]

22. True, it will go on - but it is the beginning of the end

Of that, there is no doubt in my opinion. I am just anticipating the letdown that inevitably occurs when you are down to one candidate and buyers remorse starts to creep into one's psyche.

[suston96]

23. I don't think there will be a loser on Tuesday...one will get more delegates, maybe.....nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. I've lost three already this season.

What's one more?

[LisaM]

29. Cheer up! Maybe they'll tie.

There is no reason we have to have a clear winner emerge on Tuesday. It's not a game show.

[HughMoran]

30. I think we are approaching the beginning of the end, however

There is no doubt that Tuesday has the possibility of pushing one of these candidates ahead of the other - perhaps toward inevitability. My other point was that I simply hate to see one of them have to step aside in favor of the other - it will happen soon enough...