Hillary Supporters unite....no bashing please! only smiles

[punkin]

Correct. I've grappled with this - but I will be voting for Obama - I can't have McCain on my conscience, though part of me feels he's going to win...... Ugh.

I have not yet decided if I can, in good conscience, vote for Obama. It will be a difficult choice in November for me.

 

[Chuck S]

I will likely cast a vote for Obama, not because I think he is good candidate, but because of the Supreme Court. You know several vacancies will be coming up soon, and W has already appointed 2 conservatives. McCain has already stated some of the opinions he'll be looking for in the justices, including overturning Roe v Wade, also think about civil rights and equality.

 

[WildernessBride]

I will likely cast a vote for Obama, not because I think he is good candidate, but because of the Supreme Court. You know several vacancies will be coming up soon, and W has already appointed 2 conservatives. McCain has already stated some of the opinions he'll be looking for in the justices, including overturning Roe v Wade, also think about civil rights and equality.

I am a supporter of Obama, but this is one of the main reasons why I will not vote for any other candidate besides the democrat, no matter what is going on now between the dem nominees. I could not in good conscious not vote in a year in which so much rests on who is the final winner. I may prefer Obama, but I do not want to see our nation's highest court reflect a philosophy I do not believe in. We have had a conservative influence for too long in this country and we need a democrat to have the control over the next Supreme Court nominees, this is too important because it effects us not only for the next four years, but for decades to come.

 

[robinb]

And on other note - she can't catch a break.

I disagree. I think the ouster of Mark Penn is a very, very good thing. She has received some very bad advise in the past few months and I am happy to put them at Penn's door. I hope that her campaign will now turn around in a more positive direction.

 

["Got Disney"]

I have not yet decided if I can, in good conscience, vote for Obama. It will be a difficult choice in November for me.

Be sure that it is Obama that you feel you cant vote for and not his supporters(not all) and media. When I put Obama and the media and supporters in a package I have a hard time coming up with a vote.

But when I separate Obama from all of that and look just at his issues and deeper into the man I can vote for him.

WE have to remember that he is a politician (no matter what some say) and that all in all his issues are close to Hillary's. Hillary keep in mind is also a politician. The difference with her is that she claims as such Obama IMO does not think he is.

My main problem with Obama is that he has not the political experience of how things work as well as Hillary. I don't mean experience in getting this or that done but how politics works. Obama wants to change things and that is great but we have enough going on without having to add change into the works.

I don't feel training on the job is what we need at this time. I feel he will go in and to many people/politicians will be pulling his strings to get what they want passed. I feel they will walk all over him. I am also worried that he will make deals overseas with the wrong people. But we have to remember that he does not run the US all by himself.

At this point I believe he will be the next POTUS and watching the news last night...of course watched FOX for 1 hr and it was all about Hillary's shortcomings and McCain's also and not a word about Obama for a full hr until at the end they said they think that Obama will be pushed into taking Hillary as his VP if he does not offer it to her and if she does not except than she is silly.

They said she is a smart, strong, fighter and he would be silly not to offer it to her because she is a go getter and not a quitter! That was the last 10 seconds of the show at 11 pm last night.

I was so disgusted at there going at her but had to keep watching to see if anything came up about Obama...the whole hr was basically poking jabs at Hillary. About 5 minutes on McCain...and notta on Obama...of course

 

[JARNJ3]

Really, really interesting article from Salon

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/

Posting Page 1 below:

Why Hillary Clinton should be winning
Under a winner-take-all primary system, Hillary Clinton would have a wide lead over Barack Obama -- and enough delegates to clinch the nomination by June

By Sean Wilentz

April 7, 2008 | The continuing contest for the Democratic presidential nomination has become a frenzy of debates and proclamations about democracy. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has been particularly vociferous in claiming that its candidate stands for a transformative, participatory new politics. It has vaunted Obama's narrow lead in the overall popular vote in the primaries to date, as well as in the count of elected delegates, as the definitive will of the party's rank and file. If, while heeding the party's rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama's supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart.

These arguments might be compelling if Obama's leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count. If the Democrats heeded the "winner takes all" democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257. If she splits the 10 remaining contests with Obama, as seems plausible, with Clinton taking Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Puerto Rico, and Obama winning North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Guam, she'd pick up another 364 pledged delegates. She'd have 2,107 before a single superdelegate was wooed. You need 2,024 to be the Democratic nominee. Game over. No more blogospheric ranting about Clinton "stealing" the nomination by kidnapping superdelegates or cutting deals at a brokered convention.

But Clinton does not now have 1,743 delegates. According to CNN estimates, Clinton has about 1,242 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,413. Most of that total is based on the peculiar way that delegates are apportioned in 2008. Some of it is because Obama's backers are using the same kind of tactics as George Bush's camp used in Florida in 2000.

Crucially, Team Obama doesn't want to count the votes of Michigan and Florida. (And let's note that in a winner-take-all system, Clinton would still be leading in delegates, 1,430 to 1,257, even without Michigan and Florida.) Under the existing system, Obama's current lead in the popular vote would nearly vanish if the results from Michigan and Florida were included in the total, and his lead in pledged delegates would melt almost to nothing. The difference in the popular vote would fall to 94,005 out of nearly 27 million cast thus far -- a difference of a mere four-tenths of 1 percentage point -- and the difference in delegates would plummet to about 30, out of the 2,024 needed to win. Add those states' votes to the totals, and take a sober look at Clinton's popular-vote victories in virtually all other large states, and the electoral dynamic changes. She begins to look like the almost certain nominee.

The exclusion thus far of these two vital states has come about because of an arbitrary and catastrophic decision made last year by Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee. Two democratic options are available to clean up the mess: Either relent by including the existing Michigan and Florida results or hold new primaries there.

Yet in this, as has happened more than once this primary season, the Obama camp's reaction has not been to clean up the mess the party has created, but to benefit from it. Given the original primary outcomes in Michigan and Florida, Obama has rejected the idea of certifying the results. Although Obama's supporters conducted a stealth "uncommitted" campaign in Michigan after he voluntarily removed his name from the state ballot, and even though, contrary to DNC directives, his campaign advertised in Florida, Clinton still won both states decisively. This leaves open the option of holding new primaries in both states. National and state party officials have announced that such revotes could be conducted.

Yet the Obama campaign has stoutly resisted any such revote in either state. In Michigan, Obama's supporters thwarted efforts to pass the legislation necessary to conduct a new primary. In Florida, campaign lawyers threw monkey wrenches to stop the process cold, claiming that a revote would somehow violate the Voting Rights Act, and charging that a proposed mail-in revote would not be "fraud proof." (Obama himself, it's important to note, proposed a bill in 2007 to allow for mail-in voting in federal elections.)

Instead, Obama's campaign has tendered the startling proposal that he arbitrarily be allotted half of the votes already cast in Michigan and Florida. Of course, a large number of these votes -- more than a quarter of a million in Florida alone -- were not cast for Obama. He simply proposes that the party add these votes to his total, as though they were rightfully his. Saying that votes already cast for other candidates should go to him is a bold power grab, worthy of the Chicago machine organizations that claimed the votes of the recently deceased, their names gleaned from the voting rolls. By any definition of democracy, those votes do not belong to Obama; nor do they belong to Hillary Clinton, nor to Howard Dean. They belong to the voters. Obama can no more lay claim to them legitimately than his supporters can declare he has won the nomination before the remaining primaries take place.

 

[TexasErin]

It sounds like everyone is giving up hope that Hillary will win. I am still hoping and praying that she will get the nomination. Does anybody still think she has a realistic chance?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Really, really interesting article from Salon

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/

Posting Page 1 below:

Why Hillary Clinton should be winning
Under a winner-take-all primary system, Hillary Clinton would have a wide lead over Barack Obama -- and enough delegates to clinch the nomination by June

That's true, but the Democrats decided that they didn't want a winner take all. Unfortunately for her, she can't go back and change that rule now.

I disagree. I think the ouster of Mark Penn is a very, very good thing. She has received some very bad advise in the past few months and I am happy to put them at Penn's door. I hope that her campaign will now turn around in a more positive direction.

I agree-the only negative is that it didn't happen sooner. He's been a drag on her campaign and I think she'd be in a better position if he hadn't been there.

 

[NewJersey]

Kudos to Hillary for calling for a boycott of the opening ceremonies.

 

[Chuck S]

Oh,, don't get me wrong, I really hope she wins the next few states in a big way, and the Super Delegates will take that into consideration.

But looking at the biased reporting in the press, I think it will be difficult for her to win.

 

[WildernessBride]

That's true, but the Democrats decided that they didn't want a winner take all. Unfortunately for her, she can't go back and change that rule now.




I agree-the only negative is that it didn't happen sooner. He's been a drag on her campaign and I think she'd be in a better position if he hadn't been there.

But wasn't he the person who came up with the "3am ad" that she received such a boost over?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Kudos to Hillary for calling for a boycott of the opening ceremonies.

YES!! Excellent idea.

But wasn't he the person who came up with the "3am ad" that she received such a boost over?

I HATED that ad. It reminded me of the Bush administration and the "fear factor".


It's not over until the fat lady sings..and she's only on the scales now. There's still a long way to go until the Primaries end.

 

[JARNJ3]

I disagree. I think the ouster of Mark Penn is a very, very good thing. She has received some very bad advise in the past few months and I am happy to put them at Penn's door. I hope that her campaign will now turn around in a more positive direction.

I hear you! I guess I meant that she can't get a break in the fact that it seems to be negative press that always gets the attention.

I know Mark Penn generated a lot of negative press - so I am presuming its a good thing he's gone.......

 

["Got Disney"]

I will never give up hope!!!!! I still think she has a chance to win and she would have IMO already if it was not for all the media blunders and praise of Oh Obama (I blame the media for this not Obama)they they had all over there networks. I am still donating $$$ to her campaign and will push for her to the very end.

I feel Obama will win the General and the Nom due to the media showing all of Hillary's shortcomings and only a few of Obamas. And to boot making his lies seem like ....well that's okay because he wants Hope and change so will go easy on him..and there's that nasty old Hillary woman lets nail her to the wall for everything she does and has done.

If she does not win PA big she is in trouble, and if she wins it but not big she will stay in but think things will start to change after that. She needs a big win there

 

[JARNJ3]

It sounds like everyone is giving up hope that Hillary will win. I am still hoping and praying that she will get the nomination. Does anybody still think she has a realistic chance?

I don't know. Obama's supporters overall - are so passionate - I don't see how it could happen without a huge big fight......

I still want her to win too - but it doesn't look so good.....

 

[KikiFan]

I will likely cast a vote for Obama, not because I think he is good candidate, but because of the Supreme Court. You know several vacancies will be coming up soon, and W has already appointed 2 conservatives. McCain has already stated some of the opinions he'll be looking for in the justices, including overturning Roe v Wade, also think about civil rights and equality.

It pains me to say it. But this is probably where I'll wind up come Nov (if Hillary doesn't get the nom) But it really pains me because this will honestly be the first time I've felt like I've had to hold my nose and vote. I still think both Obama and McCain are bad news just that Obama is slightly less so.

I disagree. I think the ouster of Mark Penn is a very, very good thing.

I sure hope it is and that's it has come soon enough to make a difference.

Really, really interesting article from Salon

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/
<snip> Instead, Obama's campaign has tendered the startling proposal that he arbitrarily be allotted half of the votes already cast in Michigan and Florida. Of course, a large number of these votes -- more than a quarter of a million in Florida alone -- were not cast for Obama<snip>

See everytime I think I'll be able to reach the point of being able to vote for Obama, I read stuff like this and it turns my stomach.

There was an episode that happened at our convention that I didn't share before because really it was more about his supporters. But reading things like this make me feel like it is more of a top down attitude.

Our precinct holds it's caucus in a building with another precinct. There was a voter who was checked in, but walked into the wrong room caucusing with the wrong precinct. He was an Obama supporter. His presence threw off the count for that precinct and as a result they got one extra Obama delegate.

To me it's a cut and dry issue. You got a delegate you didn't deserve, you lose that delegate. And I would have felt the same if it had been a Hillary delegate. But the Obama people didn't seem to care that this situation was wrong, they kept trying to vote for the minority report and keep the delegate they didn't deserve. Even though a committee made up equally of Obama and Hillary people had voted to remove the delegate. Even after the issue was resolved an Obama supporter (from another precinct no less!) approached the mike demanding that that the issue be discussed further. It was all so slimey and one of two points where I thought our convention was really going to get ugly.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I don't know. Obama's supporters overall - are so passionate - I don't see how it could happen without a huge big fight......

I still want her to win too - but it doesn't look so good.....

As someone who will be happy with either candidate-there's a lot of ground to cover between now and June. Having said that-I do not want EITHER of them to win by virtue of some shady looking backroom deal. It will stink to high heaven and make the Democratic candidate an easy target for the Republicans and give John McCain an easy win in November.

My goal through this whole thing remains the same-NO GW BUSH THIRD TERM.

 

["Got Disney"]

It pains me to say it. But this is probably where I'll wind up come Nov (if Hillary doesn't get the nom) But it really pains me because this will honestly be the first time I've felt like I've had to hold my nose and vote. I still think both Obama and McCain are bad news just that Obama is slightly less so.



I sure hope it is and that's it has come soon enough to make a difference.



See everytime I think I'll be able to reach the point of being able to vote for Obama, I read stuff like this and it turns my stomach.

There was an episode that happened at our convention that I didn't share before because really it was more about his supporters. But reading things like this make me feel like it is more of a top down attitude.

Our precinct holds it's caucus in a building with another precinct. There was a voter who was checked in, but walked into the wrong room caucusing with the wrong precinct. He was an Obama supporter. His presence threw off the count for that precinct and as a result they got one extra Obama delegate.

To me it's a cut and dry issue. You got a delegate you didn't deserve, you lose that delegate. And I would have felt the same if it had been a Hillary delegate. But the Obama people didn't seem to care that this situation was wrong, they kept trying to vote for the minority report and keep the delegate they didn't deserve. Even though a committee made up equally of Obama and Hillary people had voted to remove the delegate. Even after the issue was resolved an Obama supporter (from another precinct no less!) approached the mike demanding that that the issue be discussed further. It was all so slimey and one of two points where I thought our convention was really going to get ugly.

Did they end up keeping the delegate? or sis the commitee remove it?

 

[KikiFan]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";24303950]Did they end up keeping the delegate? or sis the commitee remove it?[/QUOTE]

Before the issue was resolved someone came to the mike and made the motion that we all take the decision of the challange committee as binding. There were like 17 other challanges and it would have taken all day to resolve them otherwise. His point was that a committe made evenly of Obama and Hillary people was probably the least biased solution we could get. Otherwise we'd be haggling all day just to move one or two delegates around.

The motion finally passed but not with out a lot of screaming and booing. Ultimately the more seasoned voices won out. But part of the issue was that the Obama alternates didn't seem to understand that they didn't have a vote. So anytime we had a vote the alternates still voted. It was a mess. And really slanted towards Obama even when it wasn't right. And in our state it was particularly infuriating because Obama hadn't won the popular vote.

 

[JARNJ3]

From Page 2 of that article

Obama's totals thus far have come in great part from state caucuses nearly as much as from actual primaries. (Eleven out of the 30 states and other entities he has won held caucuses, not primaries. Washington held both, as did Texas, where Obama won the caucuses and lost the popular vote.) Of the two systems, caucuses are by far the less democratic -- which may be why there will be exactly zero caucuses in this fall's general election. By excluding voters who cannot attend during the limited times available, the caucuses skew participation toward affluent activists and students, and against working people, mothers and caregivers, and the military. Clinton's victories, by contrast, have come overwhelmingly in states with primaries, not caucuses. Obama is certainly entitled to the delegates he won in the caucuses. But he can hardly, on that account, claim that he is clearly the popular favorite.

With the bolded statement - therein lies the problem.

I still contend - the only way to resolve this is to have both of them on the ticket........

So - I read - that McCain might be considering Condi. Ugh.