Given the latest primary results, the voices suggesting that Sen. Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race and concede the nomination to Sen. Obama are getting louder and more emphatic. What is your opinion?
Background: NY Times
I still think she's holding out for a vice-president offer, but I'm only marginally informed on this...
She has a valid chance to win it in terms of the super delegates...so no, in that regard she shouldn't drop out. But it is really hurting the party right now.
No. I don't think she should drop out. She's by no means out of the race. If there is no clear winner prior to the convention, they could vote during the convetion to allow the primaries of Michigan and Florida to count. Furthermore, delegates are not "legally" bound to vote in accordance with the state primary or caucus outcomes. It's just an honor system. Superdelegates could change their minds as backroom deals and raucous debates pervade the convetion floor. National polls of who is best vs. McCain could definitely sway opinions in a contested convention.
It'll make for the most exciting party convention since the Democractic Convention of 1980! Personally I'd love to see some good ol' politics on prime time instead of the boring speeches and pats on the back we normally see at conventions as they annoint their candidate.
Counting Michigan and Florida is absurd. They knew the regulations that were in place by the Democratic Convention and they blatantly disobeyed them. This caused Obama to drop out of the race in Michigan as a sign of respect to the Convention. To count Michigan is completely wrong and shouldn't be in the discussion. Florida...well, we saw how far Florida has gotten us (Bush)
They're not laws, just rules. Therefore they are open for debate and negotiation at every point in the game.
I just wish them both luck, when they are done beating each other to a pulp, they must face McCain..... I am foreseeing another republican president.
I didn't say they were laws. They're still regulations and they were voted on and supported by the Democratic Convention (they were also supported and voted for by many of Clinton's advisers). What they are in technicality is irrelevant. Michigan and Florida disobeyed the regulations set in place and voted on by the Democratic Convention. When they did this, Obama (and Edwards) pulled out of Michigan as a sign of respect to the Convention's decisions. How exactly would it be fair at all to now count the votes in a state where the other candidates respectfully removed their names from the ballot...just so Clinton can get more delegates? Florida openly disobeyed the regulations made by the Democratic Convention. Again, how would it be fair to count votes that have been deemed invalid just so Clinton can get more delegates?
It can be discussed all people want it to be and I don't really care if it's part of the debate or not. The point is, counting either state undercuts what the Convention set in place. Everyone knew the regulations and they knew they were disobeying them. I don't see why it would be okay to suddenly count votes that are deemed invalid just so one candidate has a better chance of winning. The decision was made (by the states involved at that). To go back and reinstate the votes for the sole reason of giving Clinton more delegates is about as close you can get to fixing a political election. If Obama was in Clinton's shoes and vice versa, I can pretty much guarantee you Clinton wouldn't be supporting reinstating the votes at all. In fact, she would most likely deem it unfair to do such a thing.
Whether or not it's discussed, it isn't the right thing to do to reinstate the votes just so the other candidate has a decent chance at making a comeback.
I want to see a good old fashion draw to settle it. To bad I don't think either Clinton or Obama would know how to shoot a gun!
But honestly though, I think it is good to finally see a real battle in politics. Usually people just wimp out and sink into obscurity. I think they both would make horrible presidents but for very different reasons.
I just hope that voters can see through all the disgusting amounts of money that are being spent by the democratic candidates. Here is a short summary I put together over one small 3 month period of what the campaigns are spending, and who is receiving the most money from Exxonmobile Corporation.
Clinton 07/01/2007 through 09/30/2007
Net operating expenditures: $38,518,167.38
Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period: $45,351,256.30
ExxonMobile donated $5,643.00 to Clinton
McCain 07/01/2007 through 09/30/2007
Net operating expenditures: $20,846,527.34
Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period: $3,224,427.60
ExxonMobile donated $0 to McCain
Obama 07/01/2007 through 09/30/2007
Net operating expenditures: $43,314,950.91
Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period: 36,211,653.38
ExxonMobile donated $3,500.00 to Obama
That all came from the Federal Election Commission's website
I can't imagine the actual good things that could be done with all that money!
As of right now, many news sources are putting the number of superdelegates backing Barack Obama as higher than those backing Hillary Clinton, so I'd say her chances to win via superdelegates is pretty much slim.
Honestly, I don't believe that at this point in time Clinton has a chance at winning the nomination anymore; she is losing in terms of superdelegates as well as regular delegates at the moment. If you take into account the poll numbers of the upcoming states, you will see that it's not enough for her to secure the nomination.
I believe that she should just drop out right now because the way she has been campaigning is only going to weaken the Democratic Party even more, which is not what it needs.
Yeah, I hadn't watched a whole lot of reporting on the super delegates up to this point. Looking at them now, I'd say she should pull out for the sake of the party as well as her possible chances in 2012 if the election is open. She's hurting both right now.
Although I have not made up my mind how to answer my own original question in this thread, I always find political discussions concerning U.S. presidential elections especially interesting. The nomination and election process under which this is done seems so flawed and contradictory that no one in their right mind could possibly have designed it and expected it to work. I am of course aware that all these rules and regulations have historical roots which attempt to placate any and all possible complaints by any number of interests.
The pros for Sen. Clinton to concede the nomination are manifest and most have been addressed above, some of the "cons" though still leave me undecided.
Although undecided, if I was asked and forced to answer today if Sen. Clinton should drop out of the race, my answer would probably be "no", simply because this would further warp a more or less democratic process.
I think she should because it's pretty much mathematically impossible for her to overtake Obama's lead in pledged delegates. (The only way for her to win the primary at this point would be the "undemocratic" superdelegates, not by votes.)
I remember various psychics predicting that she will become President in 2008. Maybe that's her motivating factor for her holding out?
I have never been a Hilary Clinton fan, and this was reenforced by the lack of intregrity that she has shown during the campaign. (Example - Her saying that "He won't be my pastor", refering to Rev. Jeremiah Wright)
I use to like Barack Obama. But he has shown the same behaviour recently. He completely disses his close friend and pastor in front of a nation!?! Rathering than having the balls to stand up to the media and the ignorant who were outraged by Rev. Wright's comments. (These people won't have voted for him anyone - in the primaries or the election!) America is suppose to be a free country, were one values free speech. He could of easily stood up, condeming the comments if he felt he had to, without comdemning the man. Obama clearly puts his politics above friendship.
I rather support : Ron Paul, Ralph Nader (Ind), Cynthia McKinney (Green), or Mike Gravel (Now seeking the Libertarian Party nomination).
How exactly was he supposed to stand up for him? He did everything he could to defend the man's integrity. You're not going to remove the shock value people have when they see a guy screaming about how the US government created AIDS and all the other silly things Wright said...and then that guy is the 30 year pastor of a likely Democratic nominee.
For weeks Obama attempted to slide past questions by saying he disagreed with Wright's comments and even defended the guy saying he really was patriotic and a good man. He said multiple times in debates and interviews that he condemned Wright's comments. Yet the media continued to hound him non-stop...what else was he supposed to do? How was Obama supposed to defend the man any more than he did?
Yeah, he put his politics above friendship...on national television after four weeks of every media station hounding him to the point where he had absolutely no choice but to give in. If Obama putting politics above friendship is what it takes to keep McCain out of office, far be it from me to say anything about it.
I think that Hilary should withdraw from the nomination race. Her stay makes the things more difficult for the Democrat candidate whoever he/she is. Anyway I prefer Barack Obama to Hilary Clinton.
Though George Bush Jr. was probably the most dim-witted US president ever, I still prefer a Republican president instead of a Democrat one. Therefore I hope McCain will be the next president. So in the end the thirst for power of the dishonest Hilary suits me.
For the power-mongers of Washington, being the The President of United States is as big as it can get........and after getting so close to it (she is behind Obama in primaries but just by a small margin) Hillary Rodham Clinton is unlikely to just throw in the towel.
She has some valid reasons too for not doing it. Shes been a favorite among the super-delegates. In case Obama is made the Democrat Presidential candidate, then he is going to loose out on a lot of white votes while taking on Republican rival John McCain.
In case Hillary is the candidate, the same can be said about her and the black votes. I think the guys really in a fix due the Hillary-Obama stand-off are the Democratic party super-delegates. Because, Irrespective of whether Hillary or Obama wins, the Democratic party is going to lose, to some extent, the edge it had over Republicans (due to mounting disapproval for Bush and the usual anti-incumbency factor).
There are two ways for Democrats to turn around the situation. The first: One of the candidate has to voluntarily give in and whole-heartedly support the other. This seems highly unlikely. The other way is for one of the candidates to be content with running for vice-presidency. This doesn't seem very likely either.
All in all, these are the lucky days for John McCain. For an election which seemed to be a forgone conclusion as far as a Republic v/s Democrat contest was concerned, it now seems that another republican candidate just might make it to the oval office. Personally I don't mind seeing the old guy(pun intended) in white house. Now I am neither being racist or sexist, but as far as those hollywood movies go - no one fits the cast of the POTUS (with serious looking agents and sophisticated secretaries toting along) than the stereotype white caucasian male president.
Hillary Clinton definitely should drop out, otherwise her win could be very unfair to everyone in America who voted in the Democratic primary.
Barack Obama has won the popular vote so far and a majority of the state contests. He is most likely going to win just by the popular vote, but Clinton can still win by super delegates.
A win by that is unfair. It would completely contradict the popular vote and be the opposite of the ideas of a democracy. She should drop out before she wins unfairly, like Bush did in 2000 (and look where that got us.)
the point is that with Obama as the democrat nominee, despite his charisma and talent, he'll simply lose to McCain - end of story.
Its a shame they didn't come to an agreement earlier. The republicans have the advangate of unity (and it looks to all accounts that mccian is going to be bush release 3 - vomit!) so that whoever wins the nomination knows that have large parts of the democrats against them, the republicans will make hay of that big time.
Unfortunately, mccain is probably as we speak taking out his tape measure and measuring the rooms in the white house for his furniture - and the sad part is that isn't compacently or over-confidence.
What I would have liked to see is clinton - obama ticket - with obama set for the top job in 2016. He wil be in his 50's by then and a more seasoned campainger by then if this was agreed 3 months ago - we would have had a contest and america would have a real chance of waking up to itself.
... perhaps we need the UK guardian newspaper to campaign in marginal states urging people to vote mccain - this is the only chance the democrats have...
Don't be such a cynic. He has a very good chance against McCain. McCain will be the same as Bush, and we can see how well he did.
McCain is having a hard enough time getting votes from the right. To act like he already has this in the bag is ignorant and silly. Time and time again people have said Obama/Clinton couldn't do this or that. Well they have, and they've proved everyone of those statements completely wrong. Obama has set record after record for fund raising. He's energized people to vote when they regularly wouldn't. He has a huge base supporting him.
The Republican Party is hardly united. Yeah, they want a Republican in office in the future, but a huge number of conservatives are really wary to cast their vote for McCain. He is no where near winning this election clear cut. McCain is only getting like 65-70% of the votes in recent primaries...and he's up against zero competition on the Republican side. That says quite a bit.
This election hasn't even began, it's definitely not even close to over. It's a hell of a lot closer than you think.
I think Hillary shouldn't drop out.
It will really be a neck to neck race between Obama and McCain, if Obama gets nominated.
And on top of that, I am always of the opinion that a known devil is better than an unknown angel!
Let us hope that USA gets a better president this time around compared to old Dubya who made a mockery of the post of the president of arguably what is the most powerful nation in the whole world!
As an outsider looking in,it seems the Clinton/Obama democratic candidacy is the real presidential election,as whoever wins that will surely become the next president of America,would America really vote for someone like McCain?
^I certainly would; he shows a good record of fighting the corruption that I see as the biggest problem in Washington, and the more I look into what he stands for the more I like him. I just hope that Bush hasn't ruined his chances by making people hate the republican party.
(Also, despite the democrats' promises, I'm sure McCain in office would be better for the military, which means better quality of life, more promotions, and fewer denials of reenlistment.
Hillary has shown in the past that she has a low opinion of the military, and would rather see it as a world aid organization than as a defensive force. (Not to mention cutting the size of it in half.)
Obama's speaking of an immediate pullout from Iraq seems to show that he values political gain over creating the stability in the whole of the middle east that we've been fighting for for years now.)
The problem with that is,that we live in a world where style over content matters,in the UK, Gordon Brown,who has clearly been the brains behind the throne of Tony Blair for the past 10 years,has now got the top job,but hes not as media friendly as Blair,there is even talk of a party coup to oust him as they think he is unre-electable.
McCain to me doesn't come across well on TV,whereas both Clinton and Obama do,and in the TV/media age,i think that will sway the vote in the democrats favour.
Brown was never the brains behind 'New Labour'. That title would go to Mandelson, enforced by Campbell. Brown was always a more 'traditional' Labour figure.
Mandelson was the media brains,the machiavelli,the spin doctor. In terms of the economy,the thing that matters the most,thats where Gordon made his impact,the UK has been in a strong position since Blair took over,and most of that is down to Brown in his role as Chancellor of the exchequer.
You know everything he stands for is irrelevant considering no domestic problem will come close to being solved until we stop spending $3 billion (yes, $3 billion) a week in Iraq. He can talk all he wants about how he'll end immigration, step up the economy, etc., but it's just empty promises as we'll never be out of Iraq with people like him in office.
Why "despite the democrat's promises?" You really think the military is better off in the middle of a desert not knowing who they're even fighting? You think it's better we're paying groups in the Middle East millions of dollars so they'll stop firing at us and each other? The guy who says he will stay there for a 100 years if that's what it takes cares more about the military? Odd.
How has Clinton shown she has a low opinion of the military? That's silly. No politician in this country has a low opinion of the military. Hardly anyone in this country does. She's as supportive of the troops and military in general as any person in this country and any person in this race. Just because she no longer wants to spend $500+ billion annually on the military so we can go jump on everyone we feel like doesn't mean she has a low opinion of the military.
Do you really think our military is a defensive force? Think about it. We spend $500+ billion a year of defense? Bull. We're nothing but an offensive military. If we're so defensive, what are we doing in Iraq? I know it's sad that it always comes back to that, but it's the truth. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or any of the "terrorist" attacks around the world...why do we have 130,000 troops there? Wouldn't we have made Afghanistan the major front of the war seeing as how the Taliban and Al-Qaeda actually were there before we invaded? You know, the guys that attacked us. Don't give me the bullcrap about our defensive military. We haven't been a defensive military since the Revolutionary War and War of 1812.
Obama's "immediate pullout" is at least over a year. It's not like he's leaving within a month. And he's said countless times that whatever the generals say is best in terms of withdrawal is what he will base his decision upon. Your view seems to be that we stay there forever because giving the Iraqi government a blank check is a good thing. How? The political process in Iraq is still in 2003. They've hardly taken a step forward.
Not only that, but how does it show he cares more about political gain? Seems to me he cares more about the future of the US as this war has done nothing but send us down the toilet. It's time we show the Iraqi government that WE WILL NOT be there forever...and they're only going to get that message when we show we will leave if they don't make stronger efforts.
There will never be stability in the Middle East with our current attitude and actions in place. And definitely not stability with 130,000 troops from an imperialising Western nation breathing down the necks of every country in the region. There will not be any remote stability until we, like it or not, sit down and talk to Iran and other powerhouse countries in the region. There will never be stability in the Middle East until Israel is gone or no longer given a blank check by the west.
But hey, it's okay. Let's vote for a guy who wants to make no changes to our foreign policies, who wants to ignore the people who hate us rather than understand why they hate us, who wants to endlessly continue the blunders of Bush, who thinks we're on the right track when 70% of US citizens say we're on the wrong track, who wants to pretend we're making overall (not military) success in the Middle East, etc. etc. McCain is a carbon copy of Bush, he's adopted pretty much every policy of Bush including the most important issue...war.
I don't see why both domestic and foreign objectives couldn't be pursued at the same time, despite lack of funds. We really do need to stick it out in Iraq and Afghanistan; the whole of the middle east hangs in the balance. Will they become a modern, prosperous and free people, or will they be ruled by oppressive governments that strictly enforce Islamic law, look the other way from terrorist activity, and by their policies discourage the foreign investment that could grow their economies and connect their people to the global community? Terrorist organizations from all over the middle east are flooding to Iraq to try to remove the USA's influence from the region. If they succeed, then there is no hope for anyone in the region who is part of any minority (especially religiously) or a woman.
The military isn't something that should be kept safe and secure at home, it does need to be used to justify its large price tag. The casualties of this war are tiny compared to nearly all the previous ones.
During the last Clinton administration the military was cut in half though, and Hillary has been known to say things like "See these poor, starving people... Why is our military doing nothing?" (Answer: because that's not what it is for.) In the long run, creating peace and stability in the middle east will cause fewer casualties, because the threat will only grow if we leave now.
All of them say the same things like that, but look at previous actions and private words.
Yes, taking the fight to the enemy rather than waiting until they get here to fight. It makes far more sense to seek them out where they hide then try (and inevitably fail) to catch them as they enter the country and attack. Taking the offensive is the only way the military can effectively stop terrorism.
Giving in to terrorist demands will not cause peace in the middle east, it will just make them demand more. What will cause peace is economic prosperity, spread all among the people, not just in the hands of a select few, which will lead to a populace that is better connected, better educated, freer, less tolerant of terrorism, and less likely to accept the fundamentalism that makes them into terrorists.
As said earlier, McCain is very much against the corruption in Washington, and against corporations using 'donations' to buy politicians. This is the main reason I like him. I do agree with him about the war as well though. Bush may have made a mistake in invading, but now staying in is the only chance for a positive outcome. Pulling out now would just allow us to see which happens first: 1) Iraq's government is overthrown and replaced by a fundamentalist dictatorship, or 2) It is overtaken from within and becomes a 'democracy' just as oppressive as any other government in the region.
What I would like to see is the US military becoming less and less involved in the day to day affairs, and more and more just a lifeline that the Iraqi police and military can call on in case the insurgents are causing problems they can't handle. Eventually the US would only have a couple of permanent bases there, isolated from all the major cities. These would stay there as long as the Iraqis permitted them, but would only actually do anything when the Iraqi government was in a desperate situation.
There are many reasons to stay in a race, besides the hope of winning.
One reason is to publicize a specific issue, agenda or cause. Third party candidates often have no hope of winning the presidency, but often run for this reason. Hillary has the perfect platform to advance any cause she chooses.
It's unfortunate she doesn't seem to think this way.
Well, at this point, she's hurting herself if she would want to run in 2012 if the field is open. She's starting to annoy more and more people by dragging this out when she really can't/won't win.
So in essence, we're fighting them there so we don't fight them there (common Bush rhetoric).
If we leave now, everything will fall apart (as if it were together) and the place would be a bloodbath like it already is (more Bush rhetoric).
We're waiting patiently for their government to develop when it's stuck in 2003 and relations between Sunnis and Shiites have hardly gotten better. And really only better because we've payed off groups from both factions to stop shooting at each other.
We have no problem spending $3 billion a week standing on the sidelines waiting patiently.
We have no problem setting up basically permanent bases in the middle of their countries, which I believe was the #2 reason Bin Laden cited for attacking on 9/11 (US bases in Syria I think it was). Let's make the same mistakes over and over.
We have no problem fighting "terrorists"...when we have no idea who we're fighting. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are hardly in Iraq. They're in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
We have no problem strengthening Al-Qaeda through out actions. At the moment, they're arguably at their strongest point since the war began. Great success.
We have no problem backing Israel without any doubts...#1 reason cited by Bin Laden for the attack on 9/11.
We have no problem having ZERO troops (not a single brigade) to send anywhere in the world if something drastic were to happen and they were needed.
We have no problem watching the biggest invasion (illegal immigration) of our country since colonial times while we're off protecting other nations.
We have no problem with the growing hate and resentment towards the US that is growing around the world.
We have no problem offering blank checks to the Iraqi government because we refuse to demand they do something drastic or we're done.
We have no problem ignoring Iran and other dominant countries of the region...countries that could very much help with stability in the region.
We have no problem spending $12 billion a a month and $2 trillion total while our economy is going down the hole.
This list goes on for days. Now what have we gotten out of this war again? I'm confused. I see a terrible economy, a very strong Al-Qaeda, very few political gains in Iraq, no stability in the region currently or in the near future, mass immigration being a low priority, growing resentment towards the US, nobody wanting to really help us, troop deaths, billions and billions borrowed from China, huge trade deficits not in our favor, triple the national debt in 8 years, etc. etc.
And yet we want to continue the same exact path and foreign policy.
More so than it already is. As said earlier, we're fighting for the whole of the middle east. As Iraq goes, the rest of the region will probably eventually follow. The terrorists also know this, which is why they're coming from all over the region to try to push us out. And bloodbath is a little over the top as a way of describing the situation. It has been overstated somewhat by the media.
Yes, let's do whatever it takes to make Bin Laden happy so he won't attack us...
How about no; that would be giving into their demands. If we did that they would win.
Which would be why we're still in Afghanistan, and supposedly working with the Pakistani government. These organizations don't respect national borders though, and I would find it extremely surprising to find out that Al-Qaeda does not have a large presence in Iraq.
Once again, yes lets do whatever the terrorists tell us to, that's a great idea...
We do have troops available. It works on a rotation, with some units deployed and some resting. We could probably nearly double the deployed strength, though we could only maintain that for a short time before returning to present levels.
A different problem entirely. What we need to do there is make legal immigration quick and easy, not stop the flow of immigration. America has always been improved by immigration into it.
Unfortunate, but world opinion is volatile. Pulling out would only make world opinion worse, while staying and finally creating a stable, peaceful nation in the middle east could eventually turn opinion around.
Exactly what "something drastic" should they be doing? They are doing exactly what they should be, growing in strength and stability and rebuilding the infrastructure of the nation.
Or very much hurt the stability of the region. I don't see what could possibly make them want to help, especially Iran. Pakistan seems to waver between lip service help and actual help.
Another reason we need to gradually hand over the job to the Iraqi government. 2 trillion would be a small price to pay to integrate the middle east into the global community and economy though.
That would be mostly the best option. The proponents of change keep saying we should use 'diplomacy' to miraculously turn all these problems around, but that's as specific as the alternative plan gets, as far as I can tell.
If we are to continue this, we should do so in a different thread, instead of hijacking this one. We might just want to drop it though, it would just be the same old debate that has been gone through so many times.
So be it. I guess you feed into FoxNews and Bush rhetoric and I'll stick with CNN. Have a glance at the history of the Middle East and explain to me how:
A) We're going to eliminate terrorism with guns and tanks...you don't kill deep-rooted ideologies with weapons
B) How 130,000 military troops from a hated western nation are going to bring stability to a region
Listening to what their problems are with our foreign policy and attitude toward their region as a whole is not "giving into their demands." The whole we don't talk to our enemies attitude is pure stupidity.
Why would you repeat the very same actions that caused your country to be attacked if you don't have to? I happen to think they have some quite legitimate points.
Talking to them doesn't mean you sit there and fight on their side. It means you listen to them, you find common ground, you at least attempt to understand their perspective of the situation, you act like you're not trying to blow every one of their heads off, and possibly, it comes out to a win-win situation. Something we're not going to see with permanent bases in the middle of Iraq, billions of dollars in aid going to Israel, imperialism, oppression, and so on.
Let me ask you a question: When does this end? What is your definition of victory in this situation?
My definition is when we stop giving young Muslim men the motivation and desire to strap bombs on themselves and blow us up. I'm sorry, I will never feed into the crap that we can kill this ideology and desire with 130,000 troops on their doorsteps. That's fuel to their fire and it will not end until we change our attitude and policies toward their region.
I would love to say, "yes," but I can't without being biased. I don't like her. She should stay in because she could still, technically, win. Anyways, even if she did lose the nomination, she would be set for being vice president.
I thought that there were practical reasons for Hillary Clinton not conceding earlier than expected. She has a large campaign debt that needs to be attended to and hoping for contributions while she remains in the game. The longer she stays in the race, the more contributions she can get to lighten her huge debt.
Pity the Republicans could not come up with a race of equivalent youth and vigour. Get a feeling that there is going to be no contest for Obama. The current candidate for the Republican party is as much ready to be archived as Vietnam is. The West needs more of a contemporary of the crisis in Iraq. Surely the Republicans have better candidates that they could have offered for the election?
Even now when Barack Obama has crossed the threshold of delegates needed to claim the Democratic presidential nomination, Hilary Clinton refuse to bow down.
She probably wants to be chosen Obama's running mate. I hope Obama chooses somebody else.
Why do people continuously say that McCain has no chance or Obama has no chance. The race is going to be extremely close. Neither candidate is going to completely destroy the other. To say that is silly.
Agreed; I just hope it comes out in favor of the one I want, though I suspect it won't. Bush's unpopularity has decreased McCain's chances.
Oh, and given that the nomination is decided now, she definitely should concede!
Clinton still has a ton of power and leeway in this race. She basically decides whether or not Obama does well considering a lot of the people who voted for her said they wouldn't vote for Obama. And if she voices the idea that they shouldn't vote for him, then he's going to have it rough. However, I think she'll get some high position under Obama and she'll endorse him eventually...hopefully. Democratic Party is ripped right now.
I think the democratic party would gain some more votes if she ran as vice-president with Obama. It'd be a good idea definitely.
Which is excellent news for us McCain fans; all I've ever read about Hillary would suggest that she'll still be contesting the results of the democratic nomination in 2012.
I am very curious. Exactly what has McCain going for him? Possibly lots of money? The Republican Party? Conservatives, rightists? I am almost positive that most of his votes will be by those who do not want Obama to be elected. And yes, I have to agree, this is going to be a close election just by the reason of a total different candidate in every sense of the word. BUT still would like to know as a person in his own right, exactly what has McCain to offer?
Obama has been the regular Energy Bunny from probably the day he has been born, all of it by his own effort, extremely focussed, hard-working, productive, industrious, brilliant, intelligent, forward moving. Can imagine he would be someone who can motivate many by the sheer example of his life and works. McCain does not have that effect on me. Impression is of someone who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I miss energy, innovation, fire. Bush was not well liked but he had FIRE in his belly and political balls. I do not agree with a lot of Bush, but at least he was a man's man. McCain has a beautiful wife and looks like someone who likes to please everyone. I am open to anybody contributing on McCain's plusses. Maybe I have missed something somewhere and am open to education.
Well, I did predict some time ago on this forum that Clinton would hold out for a vice-presidential post. At the time the suggestion was greeted with some degree of ridicule....time will tell
So right now she is only one heartbeat away from the nomonation.
For Obaba's safety sake I hope he picks a running mate soon other than Clinton.
I'm sure Vince Foster's family would agree.
Well, McCain's biggest offer, the one I'm enthusiastic about is that he is strongly against the government corruption. These days nearly all politicians have been bought by corporations because in order to get elected you need LOTS of cash, and the easiest way to get that money is by doing favors for corporations in return for campaign funding. I had read of McCain being praised for going against this corruption around 2006. (The book was written sometime between 2002 and 2004)
Lots of money? Hardly, he is having finance problems. Probably because he isn't selling himself to corporations.
Republicans, Conservatives, Rightists? Likely enough. Just like Obama would automatically get many of the Democrats, Liberals, and Leftists, simply because of the party they're running under.
Well, of course. If the people who vote for him wanted Obama elected, they would vote for Obama, therefore, the ones that do vote for him do not want Obama elected.
Hilary is in so much money trouble with her campaign, isn't she? Geez, that would be a HUGE warning sign for me if I was in her shoes. I've heard figures like 20 million in the hole! That's got to come out of her own bank!
What corruption exactly? I would imagine that any whiff of corruption would immediately be sorted out by the media? Sounds nice though. McCain is going to hunt down evil. Though I would rather prefer someone to focus on good and positive. As when you focus on good and positive, people feel trusted and good about themselves and that sort of takes care of the evil part of things. If I was working for the Government and someone talks about sorting out corruption, well, not a nice feeling is it, sort of feels as though someone is going to be looking over your shoulder?
Am curious what corruption there is? I cannot understand that a system in the US where everyone knows exactly what debts Hilary Clinton has, leaves room for corruption. But am open for any views to the contrary. Maybe I am ignorant about events and will welcome being informed.
Corruption is quite known, you're right (although I would never trust the mainstream US media as a completely reliable source on any subject). It's a matter of people taking care of it...something Bush hasn't done at all even when it's plain and obvious a government person/group is corrupt.
As for Hillary trying to turn her supporters into Obama supporters, just take a look at her web site now. She wants people to support Barack Obama now that it's clear that she has no chance of winning -- probably the smartest thing she's done all campaign.
At least now she's going to put aside the negativity and all that and focus on the fight vs. McCain.
They are rules, not Biblical Law. If something is wrong, shouldn't we try and change it? Michigan currenly has the worst economy in the USA and the highest unemployment. Really deserves some attention, hence the reason the primaries were moved up... We are leading the nation into recession, and it's gotta change.
But the candidates were too focused on Iowa and New Hampshire ...
As for Hillary dropping out ... um, duh! Barack has a lot more support from the general public, people who actually matter (unlike the superdelegates that sit behind closed doors and cause corruption).
But I just really don't like Hillary at all ... she's not what our nation needs.
Okay, well you couldn't just give Clinton all the delegates. Obama took his name off the ballot out of respect for the Democratic Convention. How are they going to determine who gets the delegates? The only way would be to have another primary of some nature...and this has already taken too long.
Drug company donates large amount of money to many congressmen for campaign finance, and puts more than one lobbyist (many of them retired politicians) per congressman on in Washington there to remind them. This is not altruistic behavior. The drug company gets profit from the deal because the politicians they bought tweak patent laws to allow the company to sell its drugs longer without generic competition. Good for politicians and drug companies, but bad for the many people who pay more for their prescriptions because generic alternatives are not available yet.
This is just one of many examples. Drug companies are some of the worst offenders.
Almost like the Pelican Brief! Yuck! I get the idea. And yes I can see it too.
Yes. She should! And possibly join hands with Obama as his running mate.