Superdelegates' Purpose / Everyone hates your candidate

[palindrome]

My opinion on Superdelegates might be wrong, but I always thought they were brought back into the process specifically to override poor voting judgment on behalf of the party (a la Mondale), not to be tiebreakers. I mean, I like Obama as much as the next guy, but I'm for Clinton and never even once thought he was remotely electable. I'll gladly vote for our nominee, however, if Hillary drops out. She probably will drop out unless he tanks, and I've accepted that, yet my gut tells me that McCain would have a much easier time playing nice with Obama on stage while the (w)Right Wing eats him for breakfast from the flanks.

Here's a hypothetical question: what if droves of voters came back and said they wished they hadn't have voted Clinton or voted Obama, etc? With the current state of things, it's a possibility. I think it's that one can go back and forth in opinion on someone they don't "know", especially when elected said person to be commander and chief of the most powerful position on Earth. I'd LIKE to see a no-fight election, but realistically, will that ever happen vs. the Republican party? No way. In any case, if the polls DO continue the trend (and they might not, I realize), you and I both know what will happen. The Dems simply won't nominate someone who is polling down into the general election when they can put someone in who is polling a win... why would you?

On the other hand, if there is a tie or very close result in which both candidates are polling up, the SDs and DNC leaders CAN make them run on the same ticket, regardless. If you think either of them wouldn't accept, think again. It's a good strategy for Obama to say he wouldn't accept VP, for instance (as an argument to sway SD's to support him on ther top of the unity ticket), but everyone knows that he would--it's seen as a very big insult to the party to decline a VP spot, isn't it? It's like saying "If I don't win now, I quit". I know Hillary would accept VP if asked. Same goes with Huckabee, Romney and the rethugs. Unless I'm wrong, a VP spot has never been declined. Shit, if you think about what Bush and Cheney have done to the office of the VP, hell, it might even be more powerful than the executive branch (since it answers to no one!)

Would Clinton/Obama supporters riot/vote McCain if their candidate was VP? Never!


Now on to hating my candidate:

I just still can't believe people can't see through their own Hill Hate. I really thought people hated her for a long time... and I know now it's simply not true! I know, I'm new and my opinion doesn't matter much here on DU, but sheesh, I never hated Obama, and still don't. Since when does one expect a politician to remain clean forever? The more experience they have, the more dirt people have on them. Like I said, this is all just opinion...

My perception is that people are hiding the truth here. This election is a personality contest right now! You know, it's okay to really like Obama... so do I. He's great. Your support of him isn't problematic. It's the attacks on Clinton that confuse me. This so-called 'dirty' candidate I support looks like any other successful politician to me.

Now it looks like every one of us (Democrats) is a politician. The game we're playing, however, is swaying each other. It's kind of cute actually. I mean, pretending to hate someone who uses their ambition on making things better (...beating McCain...) rather than financial gain is just silly. People hate Nazis, not people trying to implement universal pre-kindergarten. So in the game, we pretend (and sometimes believe ourselves) to hate whatever candidate for any reason we can find.

Here's the current anti Hill scenario I love: Hillary is a warmonger who will nuke Iran.

My answers?

a) Oh my god, I mean, like, she was TOTALLY clean for like, uh, 15 years in the public eye, but this Iran statement... OMG, I can't support her now.

b) Dude... I'D NUKE IRAN




... a burrito for lunch.


Another one: I hate her for a war vote she hasn't apologized for...

This is just silly shit. I think we shifted the blame from the repubs to Clinton. Enabling is such a lame word. Maybe they should have read the future on WMDs.

What about the other Senators that voted as well, do they warrant hate? How about other candidates that voted for or supported that resolution? How about the almost identical voting record of Obama and Clinton on the war?

Who cares? It's only fuel for an anti-Clinton attack because you like Obama so much. You might fool yourself into thinking you hate Hillary, but I don't believe you anymore. If I really really liked Hillary as opposed to liking them both pretty much equally, I'd probably attack Obama on his present votes, I'll give you that. But I Don't, because it's normal politics. Who Cares. He voted present. Yay. I seriously doubt you hate Hillary for her votes.


As a 28 year old college educated white man, I'm supposed to automatically be pro-Obama. I love the guy. He's inspiring and commands the stage well. HOWEVER, I feel that she is just smarter and more prepared to do this job. It's like she was freakin born to do it, and my perception of that hasn't changed one bit! Don't hate me for it! My bottom line: If I like Hillary, and you like Obama, what's so wrong with laying off the attacks? I don't want to end up hating Obama supporters because of some sexist comment or off base attack, so I have simply chosen to see through the BS. No one hates anyone here, but they sure as hell want you to think that everyone HATES your candidate. Don't fall for it!




Edited for typo

[movonne]

1. No she has many year building up a machine...and the DLC..

[palindrome]

2. Finally we have a centrist machine that will elect liberal judges.

Or should machines only exist when they elect conservatives? I got no qualms with the DLC. They might be overly capitalistic for me, sure, but on a smaller scale most Americans are. It's easy to throw mud. Try finding something nice to say about "not your candidate". That's the challenge I want people to meet. I'll go first:

Obama's opposition to the gas holiday is better than my candidates position.

[featherman]

3. McCain: terrible candidate and worse campaigner = unelectable

I'm not sure why we are always downgrading our candidates in terms of electablity. The GOP is a badly damaged brand name and John McCain is nobody even remotely capable of overcoming Bush's truly awful record and approval rate and convincing the American voters that the GOP should retain the White House. I've been around the block a few times in politics and this is a disaster in waiting for the GOP.

I'm guessing the MSM, in the best pack journalism tradition from 2000 and 2004, is currently most interested in evening up the playing field by actively promoting a train wreck on the Dem side. Looks bad now but a week is a lifetime in politics and it's a long way to November.

[palindrome]

4. They would like us to believe he can't win. n/t

[Mooney]

5. The superdelegates, in their wisdom, chose Mondale.

Just saying.

[palindrome]

6. Well

There's the caucus thing too.

Do Caucus

Docaucus

Dukakis

you be the judge...

heh just playin

Barack and Michelle coming on KO countdown soon gotta run

[Mooney]

7. What's the "caucus thing"?