An explanation for Clinton Supporters.

[gcomeau]

I've seen a lot of Clinton supporters on the forums recently posting questions about why the Obama people are getting so pissed off at them and Hillary. Before I begin trying to explain that I'd just like to point out a few things for context.

1. I am myself an Obama supporter. If you want to factor in an assumed bias there when considering my explanation to come go ahead.
2. I have gone to great lengths to try to avoid engaging in the name calling and vitriol that I've seen in this forum since I began visiting it again, and I think I've done a fairly good job of it.
3. *Both* sides have their attack dogs in here that have been acting like 4 year olds, if four year olds had the opportunity to develop really foul mouthed vocabularies.

Alright, now down to business. There is one primary thing you need to understand about the view from over here to understand the reactions that the continuing Clinton campaign is generating.

Obama has won

Don't berate me with exclamations about how he hasn't reached 2024 delegates yet. You're wasting your time. I am perfectly well aware of that. What I am also perfectly well aware of is that the odds of him not reaching that point at this stage in the game are slim to non-existent. I could go into the long detailed explanation of why but we've all heard it and we all know it. If anyone wants to review the quick and dirty summary, go read this... the first three paragraphs pretty much cover it:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

Earlier this week I posted a simple question to Clinton supporters requesting they provide any kind of detailed explanation for how she could still be reasonably expected to win the nomination. It got about 150 views. I bumped it for responses twice. It got a sum total of ZERO answers. There wasn't even an attempt.

The point is, over here in Obama land we've accepted that the race is effectively over as far as the nomination is concerned. And spare me the sarcastic "Oh really, Obama people think he has it won? You're kidding!?!?!" comments. You may be superficially aware of it but the implications of that aren't sinking in if you have to ask why people over here are getting so pissed off at attacks against him.

What that means for you guys over in Clinton land is every time you launch an attack on Obama's character the reaction will be appropriate to you doing so against the Democratic Presidential nominee

Every time you attack Obama's electability, the response will be appropriate to your doing so against the Democratic Presidential nominee.

Because from over here, that's what you're doing. I know you don't see it that way, because you're still insisting on believing Clinton can still somehow win, but that perspective isn't shared over here. If you'd tried making these arguments 4 or 5 months ago you probably would have found a lot less people up in arms and ready to throw you out a window over it, but it's not 4 or 5 months ago. It's now, Obama has an effectively unassailable lead in pledged delegates, and the superdelegates would have to have a collective psychotic episode before they would decide to do anything to overturn it. You're not attacking just "some other candidate running against Hillary" anymore. Those days are gone. Dead and buried. You are attacking the CLEAR leader for the nomination with most of the primary season done and over. The person we need to have beat McCain if we don't want 4 more years of Republicans in the White House.

Now what I just said should be obvious, but it clearly wasn't penetrating. Maybe this will help bridge the perspective gap. People get pissed off at attacks on Obama because from where they're standing you're now presenting the Republican argument. They're going to react as such.

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. Then let's try this again: it's a nominating convention. The rules

were established to keep the leader from presuming the nomination. So, trying to truncate the process, here or in the field, is wrong. Enjoy silly season.

[gcomeau]

5. The point just went right over your head didn't it?

The primary process has now reached a stage where it is no longer rational to think Clinton has a shot at winning this. You can talk about the nomination not being official all you like, you can't just make that go away and it's going to factor into people's treatment of topics in this forum.

[LVjinx]

78. So should we just do away with elections all together?

Or only when the person you want to win is in the lead?

[gcomeau]

117. You didn't even read the post you responded to, did you?

[The Doctor.]

120. If the shoe were on the other foot...

If the delegate and vote totals were reversed, not only would Clinton supporters be calling for Obama to step down, but it would have likely actually happened by now.

[Liberal Gramma]

126. I think the Republicans are still voting, even though they have a nominee

Not that we need to do what they do, just sayin'

[wileedog]

128. Isn't that the same as letting the SDs decide it over the PDs?

[krkaufman]

157. Note that "in the lead" does not accurately reflect the current scenario

Rather, the OPer was trying to communicate that Obama's lead cannot be overcome, is effectively clinched, barring what would be a politically untenable move by superdelegates to overthrow the will of the voters.

[Drachasor]

34. Hillary can only win the same way Romney can win for the Repubs

Hillary can only win if Obama's candidacy implodes. At that point, he'd have to step down and the people would gladly accept Hillary's nomination. As a whole the Democrats would not accept her nomination otherwise, since it would be against the popular vote and against the pledged delegates. Poll after poll shows those scenarios as unacceptable. Only a candidacy implosion makes it ok.

If Obama's candidacy implodes, however, Hillary doesn't need to have an active campaign to win, for she could step in at that point. Just like Romney could step in if McCain's campaign suddenly imploded for some reason. There is no logical reason for her to keep running. Let the Republicans spend money attacking Obama.

[BearSquirrel2]

131. Except ...

Except Huckabee has more nominees. By Democratic right Huckabee should be the Republican nominee if McCain strokes out.

[ingac70]

147. Romney has two more delegates than Huck.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_delegate_count.html

[Ken Burch]

109. Fredda, you know as well as the rest of us that HRC only hurts the party

by fighting until the end. If you actually want us to win in the fall, how can you condone your candidate doing hurtful things to the party?

[FogerRox]

136. Obama will be the nominee.

[Catherina]

2. You might as well bang your head against a wall but recommended n/t

[lapfog_1]

4. Banging your head against a wall would be

less painful and more productive.

:)

[americanstranger]

3. K&R

Your points are irrefutable. Having said that, expect about 50 replies trying to refute them.

- as

[here_is_to_hope]

12. I am going to refute your reply...

...I dont think there are 50 Clinton supporters here...

[How to be positive]

152. kudos

love your sig line, "black is the new President, beeyach."

[Solomon]

16. Nah. I think it's sinking in by now. They won't be here because

they can't refute the position.

[ossman]

6. I'm printing this and taking it to Easter dinner tomorrow night. It will save a food fight.

Some of my relatives are Clinton fans.

[saracat]

7. Really? And aren't you just demanding all march in lockstep?

I find this assumption and your post just as offensive as I found the inevitability of Hillary not so long ago. I also found the repeated calls for various candidates to "step down" reprehensible and I think our party is poorer for their loss.Posts such as this also serve to explain why some Hillary folks and undecideds are in a perpetual state of being offended. This is not the way to unite or gather support for your candidate. But, on the other hand , many have been told on a regular basis , that our votes aren't needed.We are replaceable. Some of us have been referred to as "worthless" and "geriatric Hillary supporters".I am not accusing you of saying such things but the arrogance reflected in this post matches that kind of sentiment and is a real turnoff.

[ThatBozGuy]

18. Goodbye saracat.

[elixir]

97. Too funny.. every time I see your post you're ignoring someone. I'd love to see you at a debate..

"I'm right, the end."

[ThatBozGuy]

104. Please feel free to point out this pattern and I wasn't talking about ignoring

It doesn't make sense, to keep trying to convince someone, no matter how right the point is.

And I do occasionally close off a conversation with a respectful good bye of closure so that they know not to continue any more than I would want to continue to someone who has reached a point of dichotomy, that can not reconcile itself

I do not ignore anyone, even you whom I disagree with vehemently, most times.

In this forum, like any other, there comes a time when someone is beyond logic.

When someone is taking pleasure in inflicting pain not point, and here on DU there is a very vocal minority that has reached a desperation and victimization level in their mindset and belief and they feel like they are "in a perpetual state of being offended" (not my words)and that is all they have left and are bonding around.

Many who are in that situation are against the wall and fighting for fightings sake and much like seeing symptoms in an animal that goes ferrel just before it has to be put down their is an unmistakable pattern to where they will end up.

Whether it is a final biting fit and crash and burn or a whimper and fade away, the outcome can not be turned around when a threshold is met.

Time will tell the when and how, but once that threshold is met it is definitely just a matter of time.

[DireStrike]

123. Close off a conversation?

There was no conversation to close off. What else could you mean but ignore?

[DireStrike]

121. nt

[americanstranger]

31. Yeah, but the 'inevitability' of Hillary was different.

They tried to set a perception based on nothing. No votes, no delegates, no wins, nothing.

'It'll be over by February 5.' That's what they were planning on, because her campaign proclaimed her 'inevitable.'

Obama's nomination is inevitable because the Clinton team managed a crappy campaign, and they've burned far too many bridges to buy back any good will. There's no way they can overcome their own mistakes.

Popular vote, delegates, caucus wins, primary wins, campaign war chest... Obama's ahead in all of them. That's why his nomination is inevitable.

Need I go on? If you're gonna call yourself 'inevitable,' it helps to actually win something first.

- as

[BearSquirrel2]

132. Don't blame Hillary ...

Don't blame Hillary for her inevitability. That was Faux News putting that out. Something to think about ;-)

[americanstranger]

134. Fox News didn't say 'It'll be over by February 5.'

That was the candidate herself.

The whole campaign was built around her supposed 'inevitability.' That's why things fell apart when it wasn't over by February 5.

- as

[gcomeau]

99. No, I'm not.

And I fail to see what can be construed as arrogant in a simple laying out of basic facts and figures. I'm not talking about Obama being the nominee because he has some kind of golden destiny, or because Clinton is <insert generic anti-Clinton insult here>... I'm talking about Obama being the nominee because we are through 42 states in the primary process and the outcome has become undeniable. It's simple math. Basic probability. Arrogance doesn't come into it.

Given that circumstance, a continued campaign by Clinton under the conditions that she is creating by pushing the issue at this late stage in the game from the position she is in is destructive. It benefits nobody. But that wasn't what this post was about, I didn't even mention Clinton stepping down although I think that she clearly should. What I did was explain to Clinton supporters why the continued attacks on Obama at this stage of the Primary process are generating the levels of outrage and anger that they are.

[The Doctor.]

122. If it were mathematically improbable for Obama to win, you'd be calling for him to step down.

And it would have likely happened by now.

[FogerRox]

138. It started to be over after super tuesday ..... Obama will be the nominee.

[youngharry]

155. Obama has won

Do you not understand? Are you so stupid that you don't know how to count? Why do you think Networks call the winner of a State when only half the Precincts have reported? It's because they know how to add, regardless of what the uncalled precincts report. To refute that logic only makes you look like a total idiot or in this case a Republican, The race has been called, even though there are still a few states yet to vote.

GET OVER IT!!!

JUST STOP AND READ THIS ARTICLE AGAIN.

IT IS IRREFUTABLE. OBAMA IS THE WINNER!

[NanceGreggs]

8. Too damned excellent!

GREAT post!

:kick: & REC'D!

[mrbluto]

159. Wow. Why am I not surprised?

You want what you want and care not a whit for what gets trammeled in the process.

Seeing you recommend this post just makes clear to me the circle jerk nature of mutual demagoguery.

You, the OP, and similar ilk seem to crave a bandwagon so bad you seem heedless to any voice of caution, moderation, or fact-based deliberation.

Look - the thing that really frightens me about the Republican party is how many of them drink the Koolaide their leaders serve up. Quit cribbing from their playbook - it's what they want. Their methods are poison no matter the end goal. Fighting fire with fire on this is a losing game. Progressive governance takes more than pompoms and bible-thumping. It takes foresight, planning, work and a sense of taste. Taste? Did I say "sense of taste"? Yes I did.

The taste to not so gleefully twist the knife on people whose support you might want down the line. The taste to not badger people who are going to toe the line, just not with the same gleam in their eye. The zeal with which you and your crowd come at this with would be more at home in an old Soviet Politburo. It's not much of a stretch to imagine you guys parading insufficiently enthusiastic supporters of your "dear nominee" down the street wearing signs and dunce caps ala' the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

You guy scare me. One doesn't have to be a genius to figure on what the typical Republican voter (some of whom we'd like to win over BTW) is going to think of you. No wonder the polls show the GE as a total crapshoot when we should be way ahead considering the glaring idiocy and provable malfeasance of the current administration. Sometimes I even wonder if that isn't the goal.

This shouldn't be a squeaker folks, this should be a slam dunk.

Instead we have a juggernaut.

If you're the face of the new Democratic party, or even the old one, then I need to start looking for a party that is both progressive and rational.

Any party without the latter isn't going to retain the former quality for long.

And you're already post-date judging by your behavior.

[Herman Munster]

9. how she can win?

She basically destroys him and makes the supers lose all confidence in his general election viability.

Wins PA 65-35 or better. Considering she won white democrats in OH 70-30, this isn't as far-fetched as it might sound to an Obama supporter. PA whites did not like the Wright scandal, she has ed rendell and every mayor and politico in the state in her corner, PA is traditionally resistant to change and likes "brand names", also PA shares large borders with NJ, NY, OH, all states Hillary did very well in.

She then wins Indiana big which has a very small black population and the very popular Evan Bayh in her corner.

She then wins whites 70-30 or better in NC and even with Obama's advantages with black support ekes out a win.

The key is she needs to start getting better than 70% in a string of primaries all over the country with the white vote to plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of supers.

It's much more likely a scenario than people here choose to believe.

That politico article said her chances are 10%.

I say more like 30%. Obama is the odds on favorite but I think people here don't get the institutional racism and anger that is bubbling under the surface among white working class people that flat out don't like and in many instances hate Obama.

[UALRBSofL]

20. Hey Herman, be careful tonight, someone is on the war path

Well should I say whomever was on the evening shift was on the war path. Anyway, you didn't even count MI/FL, and, they may not be decided till june from what I have heard. This is just march which means 3 more months. :hi:

[DerekJ]

42. They seem like they don't sleep eh?

I bet that if I follow thier posts, they are here 24/7.

[dchill]

21. "She basically destroys him ..."

With what - lies, insinuations, SNIPER FIRE ??

[gcomeau]

22. Review what you just said. Please.

Better than 70% in a string of primaries? 70%? In a string of primaries? She hasn't won ONE with 70%. And she's already run in her own home state. And she's now widely viewed as finished where before she was the presumptive frontrunner. How exactly are you concluding that her suddenly doing it in a whole string of the remaining contests is "much more likely a scenario than people here choose to believe"? What data is that possibly based on?

And the politico article said members of her own campaign staff put her odds at 10%. Consider what those not on her campaign staff put it at?

[Herman Munster]

30. I said 70% with the white vote

please learn how to read.

She's not going to win pledged delegates but if Obama's white support collapses to sub 30% levels like we saw in the deep south all over the country, he's finished.

Supers will declare he's unviable and he will lose the nomination.

[Drachasor]

39. If she can't win the popular vote or the pledged delegates, then she won't win

The supers aren't going to override the will of the people. The only way they will vote for her is if Obama's campaign absolutely implodes to the extent that he loses MOST of his support.

Guess what? If that happened to Obama then Hillary could step in even if she had withdrawn. Just like Romney could step in if McCain's candidacy suddenly imploded and he had to withdraw.

[gcomeau]

46. Now you REALLY need to listen to what you're saying.

You want to make the argument to superdelegates that they should override the delegate and popular votes of the first seriously viable African American presidential candidate in U.S. history and take the nomination away from him after he wins the Primary races... based on looking ONLY at the white vote? And you expect that to go over with the black community how?

Are you completely out of your mind?

[FogerRox]

143. Obama will be the nominee.

[SoftPretzel]

24. The politico article did not say her chances are 10%

They said that people in the Clinton campaign were making that estimate

[Herman Munster]

35. the people in her campaign thought she would lose NH

Bill and Hillary Clinton didn't and they fought.

If you believed every pundit or advisor in campaigns or on the tee-vee, Hillary would have lost New Hampshire, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts Texas, Ohio......

[ekwhite]

40. Herman, if I understand your post

She continues to sling mud for the remaining primaries, playing the race card as much as possible. Then, when the primaries are over, she convinces the superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegates.

That is a plausible scenario for winning the nomination, but a certain scenario for losing the general election. Essentially, she would divide the Democratic party and drive blacks into the arms of the Republicans, making the Democratic party a permanent minority party. This would be a Pyrrhic victory for her, at best. She would lose the general election and become one of the most hated people in the Democratic party. She would most certainly lose her re-election bid for the Senate, as her negatives would be off the scale after this.

[Asgaya Dihi]

57. That's the most probable result of this path

I don't see how she can possibly win the nomination short of Barrack imploding. If he implodes on his own that's one thing but if she just swiftboats him that's going to end up not only losing her the general election but she'll be hated worse than Nader was for 2000.

I've got serious doubts about her ability to win under the best of circumstances. Trying to face McCain straight up on experience rather than undercut the value of bad experience was a huge mistake. Both she and Obama are dwarfed there by McCain and that's already out of the bag with her 3 am call stunt. He can be beat if you devalue the experience of doing the wrong things though and I think Obama can better make that argument. But if she rips the heart out of the party in her race for the nomination neither she nor the party will have a chance at the Whitehouse and it'll likely hurt us in other races as well. It's a price we could be paying for a decade or more.

Things are getting pretty serious here, I wish people would think past this one campaign and look at the gamble they are taking.

[DerekJ]

47. Exaaaactttlyyyyy ... you got it

"Destroy him" ... that's what we see. She is not trying to win voters by running a clean campaign. She is trying to destroy him, and that's why she is still in the race, to use the donation to destroy him.

And they ask why Obama supporters are pissed off. :shrug:

[roguevalley]

59. either way she goes, she will need to have the suport of

the party to get shit done and frankly, I don't think after this that they will be in a collegial mood.

[slinkerwink]

87. it's a pyrrhic victory that will ruin her Senate reelection

[pointsoflight]

51. She has only won one state with over 60%: Arkansas

She now needs to win ALL of the remaining states by over 65% to gain the delegate lead. So how, again, can she do this?

[MH1]

69. I'm a "PA white" and I am fine with Wright.

More than fine, in fact.

Also, I can name a couple "politicos" that are not in Hillary's corner, such as Teresa Heinz (okay maybe she isn't exactly a "politico" but she has influence in Pittsburgh) and Patrick Murphy. And I know at least one early Hillary endorser who is being hurt by lost donations and lost volunteers.

[roseBudd]

70. So pretty much the "white is right" strategy, and will she still expect AAs to vote for every white

face with a D after his or her name in the down ticket races in November?

[IndependentDem]

76. interesting but possible...

so the only way that clinton can possibly win is by destroying Obama by making white people dislike him more than they currently do by painting him as an anti-white racist... you do realized that there is nothing in your post and apparently in the only viable clinton strategy to win that is not race related, right? basically you are saying that clinton will win because she is white and the whites are going to vote for her-- and therefore obama is going to lose because he is black and there aren't enough black people left to vote for him...

I am not saying that i necessarily disagree with the possibilities here-- especially in pennsyltucky. But i think it would be only fair if we were honest about why she still has a chance and who is actually using the race card here.

With all this being said... who do you think started the Wright scandal and the "Obama is a muslim" lies?

[FightTheRight89]

108. You're assuming that superdelegates...

...only care about whites. See, there's a whole other group of people of a different skin color out there. They're called blacks. And they have just as much of a voice as whites.

Also: What "string of primaries" could you be talking about? We've got 8 states left.

[Ken Burch]

110. We get it. And we're sickened that HRC's campaign has stoked it.

She could have got out on February 5th and said "we must bring working-class white voters and the Rainbow together, because together they are the majority".

Instead, she ran a campaign that basically said "I'm all that matters and If I have to sound like Wallace or Nixon on race to win, then by God I'll do that".

This is what I find so infuriating about her continued presence in the race: Her willingness to keep the wounds open in the name of personal power.

And this is what has provoked the anger in my recent posts and thread: The fact that HRC is campaigning against racial healing, against party unity and against youth, idealism, and optimism. You can't campaign AGAINST all that and campaign FOR anything that is worth campaigning for(unless you're a Republican, of course).

[Politicalboi]

118. Sounds like dirty tricks

That as you have seen this past week haven't worked. Obama camp needs to bring in the NAFTA lie and show Pa how Ohio was duped by Hillary. He still has 4 weeks, and oh yes if Hillary is s lady of her word she should let us all see her tax returns by 4/15 like she said she would. One week before the vote. Should be quite interesting. And she's running out of money. She should concede now.

[BearSquirrel2]

139. Indiana ...

<i>She then wins Indiana big which has a very small black population and the very popular Evan Bayh in her corner.</i>

Yeah, like Wyoming and Iowa are noted for their African street creds. :smoke:

In case you didn't notice, Indiana borders Illinois. Obama gets good press from the Chicago. Obama will TROUNCE Hillary in Northwest Indiana. Anywhere that gets Illinois media, Obama similar numbers as in Chicago.

It's not a white black thing. Maybe you should have listened to Obama's speech. And BTW, if you want crazy ass preachers ... Indiana is your kind of state.

BTW, Bayh isn't popular on the left. He is a VERY conservative Democrat (unlike his father). He is re-elected because he is Republican light in a red state. And BTW, if Al Gore was a wooden dummy, Evan Bayh is a concrete statue. You could single handedly end a riot by dropping Evan Bayh into the frame. Even bloodied and lifeless, he would suck all the emotion and energy out of the crowd and send everyone into a zombi-like trance.

Of course, with all the dittoheads crossing over to vote for Hillary, I think it will be close. Ultimately, it won't matter because Hillary has to trounce Obama it all the remaining states in order to take a lead superdelegates and capture the votes of all those folks sitting on the fence waiting to see what the voters do.

[UALRBSofL]

10. I take exception to that. I'm sorry you miss all the posts by OP's denigrating Hillary

But that is OK, I wouldn't expect a Obama supporter to see it any other way. That said, the campaign is not over. FL/MI has not been decided and we still have 10 more states to go. Seeing he is only ahead 150 delegates she is not out of this. It's obvious your buying into Keith Olberman's rhetoric. And because they know Obama has not gotten it in the bag yet, they will act out and attack Hillary supporters as such.

[ossman]

15. Clinton can still win the delegate count. Thanks for proving the OP's point. Dillussional.

[dchill]

23. Dillussional.

Congratulations.

[ossman]

27. Wow. A spelling error. No intelligent refute I see...

[dchill]

53. Not trying to refute. I agree with your comment...

I was congratulating you on your new word. Dillusional - a hybrid of delusional and disillusioned. A perfect description of the post you replied to. Sorry about that.

[quakerboy]

135. Heh.

[FogerRox]

140. Obama blocked Clinton fron getting 2025 weels ago

[Drachasor]

25. She has just as much a chance of being the Dem nominee of Romney does of being the Repub nominee

It is not reasonable to think she can win the states by the margin she'd need.

Look at the facts. She just can't get there.

Obama would have to implode to so an extent that he would have to end his campaign. That's how big a fiasco would be needed (other Dems and everyone would want him to leave). That's the same way Romney could win; McCain's candidacy would have to implode in some insane way.

Is it possible? Sure it is (though extremely unlikely), but if it happens then she doesn't have to be running an active campaign to win; because the winning won't be because she was fighting.

[gcomeau]

28. Sigh...

"3. *Both* sides have their attack dogs in here that have been acting like 4 year olds, if four year olds had the opportunity to develop really foul mouthed vocabularies."

Taken from the OP. Right up at the top. And the entire post was an attempt to explain why people are getting pissed off at Hillary. But yes, I surely miss all the OPs denigrating Hillary.

[Hepburn]

41. Hello???

FL and MI have been decided ~~ Hillary lost...again. And she has gotta get like about 70% in all the remmaining states to catch Obama.

So what the fuck is the game plan??? :eyes:

[Drachasor]

43. Furthermore, if you add them in as-is, then she still loses

If you had a revote, it would be much more favorable to Obama than that; Michigan especially.

[bhikkhu]

11. K&R. Very well put.

[TwilightGardener]

13. Wow--your post totally nails it. We're swarming like hornets

to protect our nominee, not just our candidate--yep.

[mikelewis]

14. Which is why the mother fucking gloves are coming off!!!!

I have chosen my candidate... and most of the Democratic party agrees with me. I am not about to be hornswaggled by sharks who want to install their corporate choice for Prez. Once Obama won... and it became clear... I have become unleashed. I am a partisan... A Democrat Partisan... If you don't like it... go sign up at McCainFucksAmerica.com. The gloves are off!

[anamandujano]

56. .

:scared:


































:rofl:

[anamandujano]

17. Plain and simple, Obama has not won.

[ossman]

19. Why? Prove it Hillbot.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ossman]

29. Still didnt prove it.

[anamandujano]

55. Click for proof

Thread after thread, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, the frantic calls from Obamatrons for Hillary to step down come fast and furious.

There's your proof right there.

If he had won already, there would be no reason for her to quit the race. In fact, the never ending calls for her to quit show how desperate the Obama camp is. They know they can only win if Hillary withdraws from the race.

[emilyg]

32. Hillbot?

[ossman]

37. Yes. If you believe that Obama has not won, you are not thinking rationally. Programmed like a robot

[emilyg]

45. I know he hasn't won.

[ekwhite]

44. Dude - just stop it

Quit using the Hillbot term. That is not helping us. These are fellow Democrats.

[roguevalley]

61. a hillary supporter on another thread said if you support

obama you aren't a dem and you need to leave the party. delusional.

[mrbluto]

160. Prove what?

Prove the f*cking alphabet!

Prove Chess!

Those make about as much sense as your question.

It is what it is: a convention - not a direct election.

Are the words too big?

Why not do a little research yourself and check out the entry for brokered convention on wikipedia.

Yes, yes - I know - wikipedia is both racist and/or a Clinton supporter, right? Obviously so since it doesn't agree with the OP and it leaves the merest possibility that "Dear Nominee" might not be certain to be corenated?

Doesn't it embarrass you how much energy you and some Obama supporters invest in willfully ignoring facts as part of crushing the hope of other people? You really have lost any right to complain about past and future instances where Republicans will try the same mojo on you BTW. It's like you guys have internalized their methods and can't help but spout little teeny reverse Wille Horton ad distortions with every post. Twisted self-serving chauvinism from the other end of the spectrum is still twisted self-serving chauvinism pal.

Supposedly they got the jury to acquit the crowd of paid thugs LAPD officers who beat on Rodney King by showing individual frames of the tape and saying "This particular blow was not excessive." - dissolving the gestalt of what any reasonable person would admit was a wanton assault. Do you really want to go down a similar rhetorical road with your "Prove it. Prove it." tactics?

I'm starting to think that many Obama supporters are suffering Stockholm Syndrome from Republican rule and have picked up Republican Echo Chamber tactics a their own.

And Please, please, please call me a "Hillbot"?

Why?

Because you'd be f*cking wrong!

She's not my favorite by a long shot, but at least I don't worry about her driving everyone off a cliff in lemming-like behavior.

[mrbluto]

162. Why am I not surprised?

That you haven't responded.

Showing some real courage there.

That's the way to stand up for your position:

Yammer about it and then when you are proven wrong you slink off to yammer elsewhere.

[gcomeau]

33. He hasn't *officially* won.

That doesn't mean it still isn't over for all practical purposes.

[gcomeau]

36. Note to OBAMA supporters.

This was an explanation for the Hillary people of some of the perspectives and sentiment fueling the anger against their camp. It was NOT intended as a justification for calling them names. Keep the "Hillbot"s out of my thread if you don't mind.

(Edit: ...and I replied to the wrong post to say that, but still.)

[NashVegas]

79. He Hasn't Unofficially Won, Either

In order to win the nomination, officially, one must be nominated, seconded, and 'ayed' to death on the convention floor.

In order to win, unofficially, one must have the necessary delegates and BO doesn't have them.

I know the DC element of the Party wants him, and the press does as well, but he hasn't wrapped it up yet and some of us are still into, you know - Democracy - as long as that's what we're calling it.

[gcomeau]

154. For all practical purposes, yes he has.

Once it becomes clear that there's no reasonable scenario that has him losing, there is no rational objection to taking that projection properly into account in your actions and treatment of the race.

And trying to suggest that it is undemocratic to be calling the result of the race based on the vote totals already tallied while holding out for the only last hope that those votes will be overturned by the superdelegates to put the other candidate in place after the voting is done is so far beyond absurd I'm having difficulty figuring out a way to adequately describe it. The reason it is clear that he has won is because so many people have voted for him that there is no reasonable grounds for concluding that the remaining contests can reverse the preceding results. It's not undemocratic that the people who have voted so far have done so in a sufficiently clear pattern that the nominee has been clearly identified.

[roguevalley]

60. plain and simple, show me the math

[OzarkDem]

73. True, he doesn't have the magic number

and no matter how many times Obama supporters post otherwise, the facts remain the same.

It is frustrating trying to discuss politics with people who don't understand the process.

[Politicalboi]

129. Or trying to discuss politics with people who don't understand math

She can not win by a big margin. She will have less states and delegates and popular by the convention. She has lost.

[FogerRox]

142. Obama will be the nominee, plain and simple.

[rucky]

148. That's very Winston Churchill...

nevernevernevernever give in and whatnot...

but this is becoming Gallipoli.

[SunsetDreams]

38. Excellent post and rec

Thank you, you have framed it well.

This has gone on far too long!

[melody]

48. Excellent post n/t

[F.Gordon]

49. "the Democratic Presidential nominee"

People get pissed off at attacks on Obama because from where they're standing you're now presenting the Republican argument. They're going to react as such.

Do you have any idea how disingenuous and condescending that statement is? Instead of belittling Clinton Supporters and calling them "Republicans" by proxy... how bout' a different approach? Try this one.... if Obama is the "the Democratic Presidential nominee" we would really like to bring this party together and we need (the Clinton supporters) your help.

All I ever hear is this condescending bullshit. Soooo... until the day comes when Obama supporters actually start acting like adults and respect the other 1/2.... I'll take the Obama "high ground" and say Fuck You and Good Night.
:hi:

[Taxmyth]

50. Winners do not take all

This is going to the convention where it will be decided politically. That's the way politics works when there are two or more substantially qualified candidates. Two people left in the race, if either dropped out, the other one wins the nomination. You might as well be calling for Senator Obama to drop out also. And then there's the mystery of the 3rd candidate, the one that can get the majority on the ballot the first go round. Politics, the way the game is played. It's not what you know it's who you know here in America. What, you think this was a Democracy or somethin'?

[Jamastiene]

58. Actually, no you cannot start an OP calling for Obama to drop out,

but it is ok to start an OP calling for Hillary to drop out. It's only flame bait if it is calling for Obama to drop out.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5037832

[gcomeau]

89. That's because asking for the *frontrunner* to drop out...

...so your candidate who is in second place can take the nomination, is ludicrous.

[KaptBunnyPants]

106. If someone called for Clinton and Obama to step aside for Kucinich, it'd be flame bait too.

Obama has won. He beat my preferred candidate, and my second favorite candidate. And he has beaten yours. How long this process is drawn out, and how much the Clintons choose to aid McCain's campaign, is up to them. For God's sake, what policy difference between Obama and Clinton is so drastic that her supporters are willing to risk 4 more years of Bush policies?

[gcomeau]

75. Yes, it most likely will go to the convention.

And then Obama will be selected barring an earth shattering new development in the race. You can say you don't like it all you like, it's what's happening.

He's going in with more pledged delegates.

He's going in with more of the popular vote.

He's going in with a hugely energized base of support that are highly reliant on him personally for their motivation to turn out for the Democratic party at all, and which the party has been desperately trying to turn out for a very long time.

He's going in with national polling showing him with even or greater chances than Clinton of winning in the GE.

There is NO argument for Clinton to make that would realistically convince the super delegates to swing it her way against the outcome of the primaries. And because that is the case it would be political suicide for them to do it. And they know it. And Clinton being "conected" isn't going to make these people sink their own political prospects for her. The electability argument they keep trying to make falls flat on it's face before they even start. Her negatives are higher than Obama's. Her positives are mostly lower. The "Big States" she keeps winning are mostly solid blue and going to vote for the democratic nominee whoever it is. And even the fact that she's almost kind of even with Obama in the GE in national polling isn't based on if she had won the nomination through a backroom deal against the clear winner of the primary votes. Try taking that poll and see how well she carries the battleground states her camp keeps talking about when half the party is furious that the nomination was decided in a smoke filled room against the results of the voting.

Yes, "by the rules" the supers are allowed to do that, but that doesn't mean they're stupid enough to think that's going to make people ok with it. They're not morons. Obama will be the nominee unless a satellite de-orbits and lands on him or something.

[Taxmyth]

94. If Obama cannot win the GE

and it should be evident at convention time, he cannot be the candidate. The chosen Democratic Party nominee for President will be the person who stands the best chance at winning the General Election. If it's Senator Obama, so be it. If it's not, so be it.

[gcomeau]

95. Would be a good point...

...except there's little to no chance that the GE differential between Obama and Clinton suddenly swings massively in her favor before the convention. Which means we're still looking at there being slim to no possibility of Clinton being the nominee. Which is the point we are dealing with here.

[Asgaya Dihi]

107. That's a pretty big if

considering that even through the Wright story he hardly dropped behind her at all and it didn't take but days to make up much of what he lost.

Obama has two huge advantages over Clinton in any election. The more people get to know him rather than the garbage people sling around about him the more people tend to like him. Texas was supposed to be one of her big States, part of her firewall? Well, I live in Texas and followed the polls here pretty close. When she made that claim she was running ahead by about 20% in the polls, the last polls before the election showed her with roughly the slim lead left that she ended up with when the votes were counted. Obama can gain ground by force of personality where she can't, her negatives are too high and that doesn't seem to improve as she works a State. The Wright situation *might* change that in some places, but judging by the way he bounced back from it in the polls so far, it might not as well. My guess is that by the General the only people who will care are those who would have voted against him anyway.

Second big advantage Obama has is the same thing some love to give him crap about, change. People believe it from him, they don't from Clinton, they seem to expect something closer to back to the 90s from her. When she started in with that 3 am call stuff and patted McCain on the back for his experience she painted herself into a corner she will never get out of in the general election, she told us that the highest measure of value was experience and on that front McCain dwarfs both her and Obama. Her polling numbers for honesty are low now, the Bosnia bit isn't helping that, and she's got no realistic way to worm out of her own position on experience without coming off as simply disingenuous. By her own standards on what the most important measure is, she loses, and I'm pretty sure that's how it would play out in the general.

The wrong experience, that argument could be made though and Obama with his change mandate is the better one to make it since he hasn't been congratulating McCain on the value of it so far. Hillary tries that and all it takes is a clip of her fawning over McCain and an interested "Oh Really?" to leave her looking dishonest again. Experience at doing the wrong things and taking us down a bad path doesn't have so much value, make that argument and we can win.

[Awsi Dooger]

52. Our priorities in identifying a nominee are an ongoing issue

Sorry, but your bold fonts can't evict that very real concern, which is proper for continued scrutiny. 2008 was always destined to be a tight race vs. the GOP nominee. The only DUers who denied/doubted were the same caliber who insisted Bush would be trounced in 2004. Races when the White House has been controlled for exactly two straight terms feature the narrowest finishes in modern American history -- '60, '68, '76, '00. The only exception was '88, when voters preferred Bush 41 as a theoretical extension of Reagan.

We're in that 2-term scenario in '08. Our solution is to champion a black man with a tender resume. Gad. I'm still confident about '08 due to situational advantage, but damn straight I'm nervous about accumulating 270 electoral votes with a nominee who has demographic weakness in Ohio and Florida, the two most critical swing states. Ohio is more likely for us but it's still a conservative state at base instinct. Don't be fooled by '06 midterm results, when everything was avalanching our way. It will be hell to win Ohio even by squeaker if Obama is the nominee. And without at least one among Ohio, Florida and Virginia the electoral margin for error remains with the GOP. That's not an attack. It's math. Math is something Obama supporters are thrilled to front and center in regard to delegate relationship to Hillary, but they conveniently look the other way toward November.

And let me be blunt. In a cycle that figures to be very close there's no way I'm dodging racism as a potential factor. Call me whatever you want. I know what I've experienced, and it's not slowing down. Since the mid '80s I've lived in Las Vegas and frequented sportsbooks almost daily. It's a mixture of guys from throughout the country, all ages and overwhelmingly white. Inevitably when the games are on the line and cash transfer is decided by a late turnover or missed free throw, etc., the ugly racial epithets flow, even from sources you wouldn't expect. I can scold them on it, and have. More often than not the terms are repeated, unless security is nearby. One of them has chortled several times, beginning more than a year ago, "I can tell you one thing. The name of our next president will not be Barack Hussein Obama." Every time I want to believe racism won't play a ballot box role, I picture that guy's smirking face when he said it, and hear the tone. He's from Pennsylvania.

Nothing wrong with polarizing, when the cycle naturally favors your side. I'm concerned about vulnerability. To oust an incumbent you need charisma, like Reagan and Bill Clinton managed, the only two successful challengers in the TV era. In an open race it's more about strength and competence, with the course of the nation at stake. My concern is we handicap incorrectly, an ongoing problem. In '04 instead of charisma we ineptly identified resume, and now in '04 we prefer speeches and likability.

Plus, the candidate we prefer would not be the favorite, if market sites were asked to project whose presidency would feature the superior economy 4 years from now, Hillary or Obama. I guarantee Hillary would be favored in that contract, and probably by wide margin.

I have no idea how we're so content to dismiss variables like that. Any so-called attack I make will not be against Barack Obama, but questioning whether our party has fundamental grasp of what to prioritize in identifying a nominee. We damn sure don't get much help from Republicans. They have an annoying tendency to get it right. This cycle a standard Joe Republican would be dismissed by 2+ points. Only a phony who the far right detests, and who manages pull from independents, can possibly overcome the stigma of the past 8 years.

BTW, I'm a Hillary supporter but more than a week ago in this forum I detailed how unlikely it was for her, essentially a multi level parlay of about 8-10 variables. Parlay battors are inevitably burned by the math.

[grantcart]

54. This was my attempt at the same problem

What makes this especially aggravating is that the Clinton campaign has now acceded the premise that they cannot win by the rules. And followers in here continue to say things like 'its still close.


In addition to the Clinton 'dead enders' there is another group of folk who want to be the self appoited judges at the finish line and they help maintain the fiction that this thing still has life

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5212725

My point is that the line you and I are talking about is a real one and one that is not going to go away after Obama has the nomination. There are Clinton supporters who have already done the right thing.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

62. An excellent post.

My passion in defending Obama against the attacks have been directly proportional to his likelihood of attaining the position of nominee. The attempts at character assassination coming from across the aisle have been decidedly undemocratic, vitriolic, and unsubstantiated opinion rarely backed by factual evidence. It is time to stop doing Rove's work against our nominee.

K & R

[Gore Edwards]

63. Bush Vs Gore 2000

Can't we just finish the recou er' election? Please.

[Perry Logan]

64. You guys started it. Don't start squealing, now that Hillary people are fighting back.

NEWSFLASH: If you savagely attack people, some of them are going to retaliate.

Unless you have a severe memory problem, you know that anti-Hillary types have been attacking Hillary's electability since forever. Also her character, the character of her campaign, the character of her supporters, the chacater of her pets.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5120659

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4779500&mesg_id=4779500

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4849238&mesg_id=4849238

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4922044&mesg_id=4922044

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4942967&mesg_id=4942967

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4964704&mesg_id=4964704

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4965088

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4965227

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4982708&mesg_id=4982708

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5036756

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5065868&mesg_id=5065868

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5156352&mesg_id=5156412

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5165104&mesg_id=5165104

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5180133&mesg_id=5181094

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5195072&mesg_id=5195072

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5204441&mesg_id=5204441

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5214352&mesg_id=5214352

Reporting threats against Hillary:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4999545&mesg_id=4999545

[baldguy]

67. How very adolescent of you.

[gcomeau]

103. What are we, six?

First, I highly doubt either side definitively "started it". There has been a steadily escalating pattern of provocation and retaliation from both sides for quite a long time. Posting links to a bunch of Obama supporters acting like jackasses can be responded to by posting links to a bunch of Clinton supporters acting like jackasses over the same time period... and that will be just so incredibly productive now won't it? So let's just skip it shall we?

Second, "they started it!!!" stops flying as an excuse for uncivil and generally objectionable behavior once you leave the sandbox.

Third, the post wasn't even about calling out Clinton supporters for their attacks. It was an attempt to explain why the Obama people are increasingly reacting to them in the manner they are these days. It's called attempting to establish mutual understanding.

[dansolo]

125. The electability argument has already proven itself out

If she hasn't been able to take a lead in the Democratic nomination, where she came in as the presumptive nominee, then how can we reasonably expect her to fare well in the general election? And that was before the start of the primaries. I'd say that it is even worse now, because her main argument for picking her (experience) essentially concedes the election to McCain, who can make a much stronger argument.

[Norrin Radd]

65. kr

[Snarkoleptic]

66. k&r

[guruoo]

68. 'Worth a thousand words'...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

85. Two letters: GE

[TomBall Democrat]

71. Great Post, thanks for the thoughts

you've expressed some of what I feel.

One other thing that sticks on my shoe. The woman as victim thing.

So tired of it, am I. As a woman, yes, I've had to work 2x as hard for everything. But, that doesn't mean I have to vote for a woman.

Just means I understand the inherent bias against women in this culture.

As a independent woman, I own my vote. I've never gone along with anything "just because" - and not gonna now.


I have dear friends who tell me they're voting for a woman because they can this time. Same folks who probably howl if someone told them they were voting for Barack because he's black.

And she's not losing now because we all hate women. It might actually be because Barack Obama is a better candidate. IMHO, he is.

When that tired old saw of sexism comes out, it's impossible to have a discussion. I wouldn't mind a discussion based on record, not tired old kvetching.

[OzarkDem]

72. I don't care if Obama supporters are pissed off at me

Those are the ones who don't take seriously the need to win in November. They know little about the issues or public policy, so I don't have a great deal of respect for their opinions in general.

[gcomeau]

92. You should care.

Fomenting discord within the ranks of your own party is a stupid thing to do. That's why I keep taking time out from my posts to take other Obama supporters to task for shooting their mouths off inappropriately about Clinton. Pissing off half your own team doesn't help anybody come GE time.

As for this comment:

"Those are the ones who don't take seriously the need to win in November"

That would seem to indicate you didn't bother really reading the OP. The main reason they're angry is BECAUSE they see the continued attacks as undermining the ability for the Democrats to win in November, and it's infuriating them.

[OzarkDem]

105. Our party?

How about pissing off over half of the Dem base with sexist bs?

Sorry, but a bunch of wild eyed political narcissists, most of whom are not registered Dems don't bother me.

[Asgaya Dihi]

115. The whole subtext

of the Clinton campaign has been to point out at every opportunity that they are running against a black guy, does a black guy really have a chance? The sexist tones in the campaign bother you but the racist ones don't?

The name calling and judgment such as "wild eyed political narcissists", or assumptions such as "They know little about the issues or public policy" strike me as too close to the way another party we've dealt with over recent years dealt with their opponents too. They can't simply have another opinion? Just as valid a one as yours is?

The "If you can't beat them at debate or at the polls then discredit and trash them as people" style doesn't do a lot for me and personally I'm ashamed to see it from fellow dems on either side. We're adopting the very attitudes and tactics we've spent the last 8 years complaining about. Both sides need to step the fuck back and realize that they are still on the SAME side.

[Blue Fire]

114. You sound just like Darth Cheney.

As has been shown all around the country, the majority of the Democratic base is rallying around the message of hope and change Obama has brought to the forefront. And when it's pointed out that the Rovian tactics employed by Camp Clinton merely serve to erode the solidarity this party and Senator Obama will need in November, the best you can come up with is a snide "SO?"



Well done. Well done, indeed.

[youngharry]

156. November GE

YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE A PAID PROPAGANDIST IN HERE TO STIR UP TROUBLE AS YOUR POST IS BEYOND LOGIC TO THE POINT OF STUPIDITY<, WHICH LEAVES ME TO BELIEVE YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN.

[NashVegas]

74. I Don't Care What Obama Supporters Think of Clinton Supporters, Or Anyone Else, For That Matter

With the people who really decide who the nominee will be, Obama was selected before the first vote was cast by the rank and file, as surely as Bush was selected by SCOTUS.

I and others watched the party and the press behave as if no other candidates were in the race but Clinton and Obama, while John Edwards nearly won the Iowa caucus.

I and others have had to view the systemic campaign to propagandize female voters into thinking it would be wrong! Wrong! to vote for Hillary Clinton on the basis of gender, while the entire Democratic electorate was encouraged to vote for Obama on the basis of his skin color.

As someone who chose - with my head - to back Clinton after my preferred candidates were forced out, I have absolutely zero concern with the opinion of Obama backers -

Don't berate me with exclamations about how he hasn't reached 2024 delegates yet

- Backers who make it so fucking obvious that you don't give a shit about even maintaining the illusion of a democratic process this cycle.

[LVjinx]

77. There are still 10 states left. Should they not get to vote, or just for the person you want?

This race isn't over, or even close to over. Whether or not Clinton can win, and of course she can, is pretty irrelevant. She can stay in the race as long as she pleases, just as Edwards stayed in the race for several states after it was clear he wasn't going to win. If people didn't understand that Hillary Clinton is a fighter, against any odds, and not a quitter, they are beginning to understand it now. Personally, I would prefer a president that doesn't just give up when things don't go their way

[gcomeau]

82. Sure they should.

And then Obama will be the nominee. You're just breezing right past this part. The race has progressed to the point where the odds of the remaining states falling out in such a way that We could reasonably expect Clinton to become the nominee is past and gone. She needs 2/3rds of the remaining vote in all ten states just to CATCH Obama. Yes, they can vote. Yes, they should get to. But THAT is not HOW they're going to vote. They're just not. There's no data to support even speculating that it would happen. It's over. Finishing the primary is almost a formality at this point.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. What it DOES mean is that we should recognize reality and the fact that Obama is the presumptive nominee now, and stop trying to tear him down unless we want a Republican president elected again.

[FogerRox]

144. Obama will be the nominee, plain and simple. TIme should be alloted for grieving

We have same major repub ass kicking to do this year.

[Willo]

149. That's what we have in Bush now. A president who's not giving

up on the war just because it wasn't going his way.

His uses the recent surge as support for not quitting and continuing. None of us support that thinking, right?

[WinkyDink]

80. Vile and disgusting posts about the Clintons started long before this.

[gcomeau]

90. As did ridiculous libelous posts about Obama

Both sides have had their isolated idiot fanatics from pretty much the beginning, that is not what I was addressing in this post. What I was addressing is why the Obama supporters are more and more reacting as an entire group in a very angry and outraged way to continued attempts to pull Obama down at this stage in the contest when he has already effectively sewn up the nomination. I was providing an explanation of the view from this side of the issue. You can either consider it or ignore it.

[NashVegas]

100. Your Entire Premise Is Disingenous Bullshit

Hillary supporters aren't going around asking why Obama supporters are pissed off at us and at Hillary. We know they're pissed off simply because she's still in the race.

We are not stupid - we know very well that the overwhelming majority of the most objectionable material is being posted by newbies and lurkers who are here either to completely disrupt the board (both sides engage in this), or shout down everyone else into compliance.

We don't care what the most objectionable Obama supporters think of us and Hillary because we think they're undemocratic assholes. Actually, we're pretty sure of it.

[IndependentDem]

81. this obama supporter has no problem with Clinton still being in the race...

it is her choice and the choice of her supporters. Just like with Huckabee, its not over until its over-- even when it is VERY unlikely that she can win. I just wish that she would run a respectable campaign like Huckabee did and run on her own merits not on a campaign hellbent on destroying the more than likely nominee. this whole thing was much cleaner and more productive before the kitchen sink was thrown at obama. its sad that i now have more respect for Mike Huckabee than i do for Clinton. but on the other hand i think that some of the kitchen sink strategy has helped obama, some former clinton supporters have found her campaign so disgusting that they have jumped ship and it has given obama the chance to debunk the lies and tame some of the fires.

[JAbuchan08]

83. It's funny that the Hillary camp was running on inevitability before the first vote was cast

and now they lecture us about having the full contest. I remember I used to frequent Bartcop, but he would broach no criticisms of Hillary because she was the front-runner and shouldn't be "torn down."

[NoBushSpokenHere]

84. Nice OP ty for saying it nt

[slinkerwink]

86. thank you for your post

[TheDeathadder]

88. This thread makes a good point

It's going to be awesome when Clinton crushes Obama in Pennsylvania and the democratic party wakes up and Obama goes away.

You can say it's over all you want, you can say Obama has won all you want, you can say LET IT STINK all you want.

Clinton is going to beat Obama and then she is going to bury John McCain. When it goes down, the Clinton people won't rub it in your face, we'll be MOVING ON DOT COM :)

[Ken Burch]

113. No one will celebrate if the unpopular conservative establishment candidate

Stops the inspiring, popular progressive candidate and then leads us to a Mondale-size collapse in the fall.

Which is what HRC will have to do, since she can never be popular again and inspires no enthusiasm.

Why do you want us to lose?

A HRC presidency would be Republican anyway.

[TheDeathadder]

158. You're dumb

[ForeignSpectator]

91. There is a saying over here, don't know if there is some like this in America...

...about hope always being the last thing to die. So the clinton people, regardless of your (good) post, cling to this hope that she somehow will end up as nominee. No matter how irrational that hope is...which is quite ironic actually.

But good try to convince them of the inevitable... hey another irony!

[BlueJac]

93. Well stated ...n/t

[Rubiconski2009]

96. It's O-VUH!!!!!

Pack your bags, Hillary, you're going home!!!

Hillary,

P
L
E
A
S
E

Get out now.

Bye bye :hi:

[K Gardner]

98. K&R ! Simple, logical, wonderful :-)

[mrbluto]

163. And factually incorrect.

But don't let that stop you from chirping in with your sheep-like, subject-line-only, thumbs-up to a factually incorrect rant.

[NC_Nurse]

101. True. I'm not sure what the point of all the delusion is, but some people are

REALLY invested in it. Nice post. K&R

[mopinko]

102. thanks for your effort

pissing into the wind though it might be.

[Timbuk3]

111. I'm not a "Clinton Supporter" or an "Obama Supporter", but

I WILL vote for "the Democrat" in November, because a McSame Presidency is unconscionable. However, the hero worship of Obama is a bit disturbing to anyone who thinks he may not be able to walk across the Atlantic to solve all of our foreign policy problems his first day in office.

I don't know if you guys have seen this, but there's an interactive calculator on CNN that you can play with. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

Everything that follows assumes FL and MI won't be seated, which is the reality today.

Either candidate needs 2025 delegates to win.

If Clinton wins 100% of the pledged delegates in the remaining primary elections she'll have 2051.

If Obama wins 100% of the pledged delegates in the remaining primary elections he'll have 2188.

It's ridiculous to believe that either candidate will win 100% of the remaining delegates. A more reasonable guess is that (without counting super-delegates) Obama will end up with roughly 100 - 150 more delegates than Clinton, but less than he needs for the nomination. We already have, in effect, a brokered convention (unless one of them drops out.) This leaves the superdelegates to decide who the nominee will be.

If you were a super-delegate, what would you ask for in exchange for your vote?

Or perhaps a better question is this; What are you asking from your favored candidate?

Or do you think that (s)he is perfect?

[Buzz Clik]

112. k&r

[ACanadianLiberal]

116. You Obama folks stick your heads in the sand obviously.

I don't care anything else, even the Rev. Wright thing. One thing I want all of us to be honest and fair is that how Mr. Obama reacted to his constituents who lived in those 11 builings in which the slumlord Rezko and Sen. Obama were involved when his constituents complained the situations. What did Mr. Barack Hope Obama do for those small people?

One source (Carol Marin, NBC News) said his answer was: "I didn't know".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP-YoB5mnZs&NR=1

Another source, from Sen. Obama's communications director Robert Gibbs, said he “did follow up on constituency complaints about housing as matter of routine”.

Sun-Times' questions, and Obama campaign's answers
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353786,CST-NWS-rezquestions23.article

"Q: Many Rezmar government-financed housing deals have ended up in legal battles, including foreclosure. Several Rezmar buildings are now boarded up, and others are in need of major repairs. Taxpayers have lost millions of dollars on these deals. While Senator Obama has called Mr. Rezko a legal client, campaign contributor and a friend, there's ample evidence that Mr. Rezko was a slum landlord. Was the senator aware then that Mr. Rezko's projects were deeply mired in physical and financial problems? Does the senator think it is fair to characterize Mr. Rezko as a slum landlord?

"A: Housing partnerships in which low-income-housing tax credits are syndicated frequently struggle financially. The reasons for the problems such partnerships struggle are complex but frequently include urban crime, demographic changes and social factors outside the control of any developer or owner. Senator Obama was not otherwise aware of financial and physical problems attributable to misconduct by Mr. Rezko.

"Q: Rezmar's buildings were often cited for code violations, including lack of heat in the winter. One third of Rezmar's government-financed housing projects were in the state Senate district represented by Sen. Obama. Did anyone ever complain to the senator about the physical conditions of Rezmar's buildings? If so, who?

"A: Senator Obama did follow up on constituency complaints about housing as matter of routine. Further questions about their condition should be addressed to the CHA . It is our understanding that, according to CHA, the buildings owned by Rezmar were maintained in good condition and good standing.

"Q: Did the senator ever complain to anyone -- government officials, Rezmar or Tony Rezko -- about the physical conditions of Rezmar's buildings?

"A: Again, Senator Obama did follow up on constituency complaints about housing as matter of routine.

Be honest to yourself, if this were the senator from your district, and those scandals had occurred under this Senator's watch, would you be satisfied with his "matter of routine" answer? Do you want to drill this a little bit deeper? Things like, asking him to be specific about what matter of routine is supposed to look like, what end answer Mr. Obama got from the matter of routine, wheather he visited any of those 11 slum buildings.

This Gibbs guy obviously tried so hard to talk away from the hot issue, which I view as a central piece of this man's political character.

Forget about the presidential race a few seconds. When you look at this specific example, can you simply sweep it under the carpet and tell yourself that this is just a minor issue belonging to the small part of his imperfection?

[odelisk8]

119. i dont care

what anyone says...the clinton campaign has used race as a weapon...people can say obama started it...i have eyes and ears...SC SC SC....the clintons started this...anyone who thinks the good old boys in the race don't have an incredible social advantage coming out of the box...well, you don't live in America...see, the problem is...the good old boys thought that Wyoming & co. had as much racism as Mississippi... turns out, thank God and may He bless America for this...the good old boys were wrong...

[quakerboy]

124. Thank you for a rational

explanation of my reactions to the issue. They may not agree with us, but hopefully it will help them understand where we are.

[Enrique]

127. Obama hasn't won

I won't berate you, but I will state the fact that the nomination race goes on.

[Willo]

146. This is a very telling thread.

Interesting and scary at the same time.

The way I see it, Obama got hit with below-the-belt, non-issues, right before Texas, Ohio, et al. He, having no time to recover and the voters having no time to get over their knee-jerk (albeit, understandable), reactions...went to the polls.

Since then, new information came out that, while not being beneficial for Texas and Ohio, was certainly timely for Mississippi.

But, why give Mississippi any credit for thinking? They were just a bunch of black people voting for the black guy. Completely clueless to all that's just transpired and certainly not voting with Katrina in their minds.

A whole lot easier to rally up the upcoming white voters if you can simple spin that blacks are sticking together. (The next new spin) And for spin confirmation enters Wright.

The problem with these low-blow tactics is when the alarms stop ringing and the smoke clears, you have to do a lot more to get those same people to listen.

I'm sure a lot of states would like a re-vote.

[BearSquirrel2]

130. You're obviously unfamiliar with the "MAD" strategy ...

See, Hillary is on a campaign to nuke the party if she doesn't get the nomination. She's making it clear that she's ready to do it and she will take this case to the superdelegates. As far as she is concerned it's either her, or she'll tear everything apart.

You see in that light ... she can win. If she can damage the party enough to make the superdelegates know she's serious enough, they just might vote for her and throw her the nomination.

Of course, the tidy after-benefit is that even if the super-delegates don't capitulate to her MAD strategy she will torpedo Obama and then the way is clear for her to run again in 2012. That is, after John McCain appoints 3 more 30 something year old Regent University graduates to the Supreme court.

It's all her baby. You can either hop on her bus or she'll run you over with it!!! It takes a village of scared people to elect an asshole.

[dbmk]

133. Why is it..

.. that all the analyses, numberswise and political, I can find on the remainder of the race, ALL say that there is NO chance that Hillary can make up a significant amount of delegates and that none of them believes that there is a way that Hillary can gain the needed support from the superdelegates to make up the difference. I have seen 4 or 5 seperate and extremely detailed pieces of number crunching and they all point to this. I have seen none that supports the opposite.

And I have seen at least 3 detailed analyses supporting that Obama has a much better possibility of beating McCain in the GE, given the current poll numbers. I have seen none that supports the opposite.

And yet I get the idea here, that no small amount of people find the opposite possible. I just haven't seen a presentation here that supports it. There was a decent try further up in this thread, trying to argue that Clinton would/could accumulate a large enough base among white voters for it not to be overlooked by the superdelegates - and in a way that would make them switch. The numbers needed a bit more work and to be put into the general context - numberswise and politically - I think.

I see this as facts:
1: Everybody knows its not over technically, no need to go there. The OPs argument was that it was seen as practically over by the Obama supporters - and supported by all analyses, apparently rightly so.

2: Noone is trying to disenfranchise the voters in the remaining contests. Given that both campaigns would like the race to stop as soon as possible succesfully for themselves - thats a hypocritical argument. Especially in the light of this being a campaign already drawn out further than usual.

3: Obama supporters would not have such a big issue with Senator Clinton still being in the race - if they did not see her campaign as being hurtful to Obama - in their eyes the established nominee. (That being the OPs main message)

BUT! I am genuinely interested in hearing the other side.

So, in the interest of having a decent base for this discussion, I would like to see the numbers and political reasons (both being interdependant to a large degree) that makes supporters of Senator Clinton state that the race is not over - for all practical purposes.
And if I have missed analyses available online or in the media that does support it, I apologise for my lack of due diligence, and would appreciate being pointed to it.

[mrbluto]

137. Making up your own rules?

You say it yourself:

...he hasn't reached 2024 delegates yet.

What else is there? That counts I mean?

Does he have 2024 or not?

No?

Then it's not a win yet.

This is what worries me: How fast and loose are Obama supporters willing to be with the rules?

The convention can pick any damn person it wants!

He could have 2024 delegates and still not be chosen.

This is how a convention is not a direct election.

Is there any part of that you find incomprehensible?

Are the words too big?

You can make some pretty compelling arguments how the convention ought to choose Obama, but they are not bound to choose Obama. No lead is unassailable in the convention. If 51%, if 99.9% of registered Democrats like a candidate, IT DOES NOT MATTER. Not if, for whatever reason, the delegates at the convention choose differently. As a thought experiment consider this: suppose Hillary was winning and she has over 2024 - then some huge scandal breaks. Polling subsequently shows she'd never win. You'd thank your f*cking lucky stars that delegates had the latitude to choose another nominee.

I guess I should say "If you are honest" you'd admit right now to thanking your lucky stars. If you are willfully deluded and willing to say anything to "win" an argument you wouldn't admit it. But I doubt you'd be believed.

So if you're honest you'll admit the convention is not bound to choose Obama.

If you're unwilling to stipulate that fact then my next step is to wonder in apprehension about how many Obama supporters are like you and what steps I can take to insulate myself from the likelihood that the Democratic party is about to be taken over by a bunch of people who like to ignore facts.

Not that I'm saying that would be similar to another group we've had trouble with over the past 7+ years.

You really shouldn't be disappointed, when what you see as obvious (which happens to be factually incorrect) doesn't *penetrate*.

BTW it wouldn't take a "collective psychotic episode".

Look at how divided the party is.

As far as I'm concerned the best choice is...NEITHER.

I'm not even gonna mention who I'd like to see because people tend to go bezerk. Right now is when you think to yourself "Yeah, some of those Hillary supporters can get pretty shrill"....WRONG. This is not me saying "A plague on both houses". Nope.

I'm not going to put any frosting on it folks - it's mainly Obama supporters.

They can just "taste" victory and seem to enjoy tearing a new orifice for any scenario that doesn't include Obama as president. Twist any logic, hurl any invective. You can agree with them on 99% of an issue, but express any HESITATION, never mind actual reservation, and watch them go. I watched them tear down every other candidate since day one it seems. Made sure NOTHING got talked about other than the F*cking horserace and scandal and murky, useless, dreams of hope.

Obama is fine in my book. Not the best choice we had, but O.K.

It's his "followers" that piss me off.

AND YES - The word is Zealots.

Because that's what a significant chunk of them are. As far as I can tell.

They're as insistent as bible thumpers testify'in at you.

Won't take many of them to make me, and plenty of others, decide to vote, drop out and check back in four years.

[BlackVelvet04]

141. LOL.....

what a bunch of shit.

[varelse]

145. Hopefully one doesn't need to be a Hillary supporter to respectfully disagree

with your premise. And before you tear into me, I do understand what you're saying. Just don't agree with it. The vitriol here against Democratic voters (by which I mean, anyone, party member or otherwise, who plans to vote the Democratic vote in November) who don't support Obama in this primary is harmful. I also beg to differ with your assertion that Obama's lead is "unassailable". It isn't, although with his skillful handling of the Jeremiah Wright 'issue' he's shown that he and his campaign team are first-class and surely capable of deflecting the mud that will be thrown by Republican opposition in November. Still, it's premature to label Obama as the Democratic nominee and it's a lame excuse for some of the spiteful spewing I am seeing here.

In case this matters at all - I'm an independent ("ex-Green") here who voted for Edwards in the Primary, donated to Kucinich's presidential and congressional primary campaigns, and I plan to vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

[sellitman]

151. The numbers don't lie.

Know when to say when.

[How to be positive]

153. great sig line but here's what I think

let's look at the larger picture. who can beat McBush er I mean McCain?
We lost with Al Gore as nominee and then lost with John Kerry nominee.
He who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it. Let's not repeat it! Beat John McCain. That is our real struggle. (IMHO).

[sellitman]

161. Evidently Obama can.

The people have voted and that is what they think.

Are they right?

The General Election will tell us that.

[Laelth]

150. I doubt this will be heard by its intended audience.

But I applaud the effort, all the same.

k&r

:dem:

-Laelth