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

[JARNJ3]

This is an honest question, so please explain: WHY would/should Senator Clinton be willing to step down? As long as she has campaign funds, supporters, is within a reasonable number of delegate difference, I have searched various online sources and can find no valid reason she should be obligated to withdraw. Just thought, as the Senator Clinton supporters you can give this Independent an insight on what the argument is for her withdrawal. TIA.

Because the Obama people insist the math says she can't possibly win.......

They may be right - but every time I read when they say it - it reminds me of GWB's "fuzzy math" argument that got him elected.........

 

[DisneyMomOK]

Maybe I am not looking at the numbers correctly, but it still looks close to me.

 

[JARNJ3]

Maybe I am not looking at the numbers correctly, but it still looks close to me.

It looks close to us too. I was just giving Obama supporters stock answer - a little tongue in cheek.

They feel that she can't possibly catch up to the delegates he has - because its assumed he'll have at least 40% of the vote in most of the states he's expected to lose in.

The reality is neither candidate will have the 2,205 votes needed to win outright. But conventional wisdom is Obama will have more than Hillary - and even if it is only 1 more - Obama supporters feel that he's then won it -- and the super delegates need to vote his way to bring him to 2,205.

Hillary argues that as time marches on, and more people get to know Obama - they will have sort of a "buyer's remorse" and want to change their mind.

Bottom line is - this is a nightmare scenario for the party - as the super delegates (mostly current elected officials) are being asked to rubber stamp the Obama lead, and not think for themselves.

 

[DisneyMomOK]

It looks close to us too. I was just giving Obama supporters stock answer - a little tongue in cheek.

They feel that she can't possibly catch up to the delegates he has - because its assumed he'll have at least 40% of the vote in most of the states he's expected to lose in.

The reality is neither candidate will have the 2,205 votes needed to win outright. But conventional wisdom is Obama will have more than Hillary - and even if it is only 1 more - Obama supporters feel that he's then won it -- and the super delegates need to vote his way to bring him to 2,205.

Hillary argues that as time marches on, and more people get to know Obama - they will have sort of a "buyer's remorse" and want to change their mind.

Bottom line is - this is a nightmare scenario for the party - as the super delegates (mostly current elected officials) are being asked to rubber stamp the Obama lead, and not think for themselves.

Thanks for the response. It just seems the height of "audacity", to expect another candidate to remove themselves from the process, as long as there is a possibility and the electorate is so fluid.

 

[KikiFan]

Thanks for the response. It just seems the height of "audacity", to expect another candidate to remove themselves from the process, as long as there is a possibility and the electorate is so fluid.

I agree. I pray Hillary fights to the bitter end.

 

[wvrevy]

Thanks for the response. It just seems the height of "audacity", to expect another candidate to remove themselves from the process, as long as there is a possibility and the electorate is so fluid.

Ask this question on the Obama supporter thread (or just search political sites on the web) and you'll get a different answer. I won't go into it here - it's their thread, and I'm not going to get into it here again, but there are reasons why we reference "the math". If Hillary wins all 9 of the remaining contests 59-41...she still ends up behind in all three important numbers (delegates, popular vote, and states).

But again...if you want to discuss this, post over on the Obama thread. I won't respond to anything over here again.

 

[DisneyMomOK]

Ask this question on the Obama supporter thread (or just search political sites on the web) and you'll get a different answer. I won't go into it here - it's their thread, and I'm not going to get into it here again, but there are reasons why we reference "the math". If Hillary wins all 9 of the remaining contests 59-41...she still ends up behind in all three important numbers (delegates, popular vote, and states).

But again...if you want to discuss this, post over on the Obama thread. I won't respond to anything over here again.

Thanks for the offer, but I think the previous response was sufficient.

 

[MerryPoppins]

"Why in the world would an employee of a firm headed by an Obama advisor access Obama's records though? It makes no sense."

"Because if all records are looked into it is less conspicuous. If McCain and Hillary's were the only 2 looked into it would automatically point to an Obama adviser."

I've said since this story broke, that if it wasn't just looking because they could (and it may have been)... they covered their tracks by looking at all three candidates.

"The whole lying about the reverend solidified my NO VOTE! I am convinced that he is as crooked as they come."

This worries me too. So much for running as a different type of candidate...not old school. Sounds like a politician to me.

"Rasmussen Reports:

West Virginia
Clinton 55
Obama 27"

"....If Hillary wins all 9 of the remaining contests 59-41...she still ends up behind in all three important numbers (delegates, popular vote, and states). "

Ah, but who says she's going to win by 59-41? Some polls are looking up for Hillary.

And I think many people are experiencing "buyers remorse" already. I've seen several interviews where Democrats are wishing they hadn't voted for Obama now.

Hmmm. Something is goofy with this post. It messed up my quotes. Please excuse the fact that I had to quote using quotation marks. Not sure what was going on.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

She should stay in for sure at least past Indy/NC. If she wins the next three(not counting Guam), then stay till the end. All the people that have written her off have NC as a win for Obama. She was closing the gap there slightly even before this stuff broke last week.

Her staying in the race is not causing Obama (if he gets the nomination) to lose and votes in Nov. His attitude, and how he deals with issues that come up in the primary might. But that's on him and not her. I find it very hard to believe for example that if he goes on to win the nomination, and she were to have dropped out the day after Texas/Ohio and this pastor stuff were to have broken right after the Democratic Convention instead of last week that his campaign would have been better off.

 

[JARNJ3]

My one last post before leaving to celebrate Easter with my family.

This is a long article but very informative:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/22/AR2008032202229.html

A snippet below:

What is Clinton's path to the nomination?

3. Clinton needs at least four things to happen. First, she must significantly narrow Obama's lead in the pledged delegate count. Under almost no scenario is there a way for her to overtake Obama in that column, given the rules of proportionality. But by winning the overwhelming share of the last 10 contests, she can begin to cut down the margin and also claim momentum at the end of the race.

Second, she must also finish the primaries ahead of or nearly tied with Obama in the popular vote. Because she cannot take a lead in pledged delegates and because Obama will have won more states by the end of the primaries and caucuses, she will need the popular-vote edge to give uncommitted superdelegates a rationale to deny Obama the nomination.

At this point she is more than 700,000 votes behind -- more than 400,000 if the Florida results (but not those from Michigan) are included. She will need big victories in Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Kentucky and West Virginia to come close. But without new voting in Michigan and Florida, her chances of winning the popular vote are greatly diminished.

Third, Clinton must emerge in national polls as a stronger candidate against John McCain. Clinton has gained ground in recent polls, but the superdelegates will look at the polls in June, not March, before making their decisions.

Finally, Clinton must persuade uncommitted superdelegates to deny the nomination to the candidate who has more pledged delegates. But to side with her would almost certainly offend African Americans, the party's most loyal constituency. How many superdelegates will be prepared for that?

What's not clear is whether Clinton can accomplish all this without a much more negative campaign -- and that could prompt rebukes from party leaders and calls for Democrats to coalesce around Obama.

Has Obama successfully dealt with the controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.?

 

[Planogirl]

I don't recall a time when a race was close and one side kept requesting the other side to drop out. But then I don't remember an election being like this in a lot of ways.

As for the math, Obama may end up ahead but will he have enough? That's a big question.

 

[Uncleromulus]

Will he have enough??
Let's hope not---.

 

[MyManGoofy!]

I just read something on another board that sums up how I have been feeling lately.

"This election may be historic but I wish it was history!"


Actually - I kind of think that is what the problem is - too much historic. The Dems should never have gone for pitting two historic events against each other. Personally - I think Obama should drop out and let Hillary be the first woman president - I mean blacks were recognized as citizens 50 YEARS before women - Civil Rights Acts passed - but not ERA - I think it should be our turn next.

 

[Planogirl]

They're fussing about the sniper fire in Bosnia thing not being true now. I'm certainly willing to listen to any reasonable explanation about this just like I did when it came to Obama's racist minister. Does anyone know anything about this?

 

[MyManGoofy!]

They're fussing about the sniper fire in Bosnia thing not being true now. I'm certainly willing to listen to any reasonable explanation about this just like I did when it came to Obama's racist minister. Does anyone know anything about this?

Did she only make one landing that trip? I have no idea what the story is and if it is true that she lied or embellished the facts - then she needs to step up and explain herself.

I guess I am a little cynical. I come from the school of "if you see a politician's lips moving - they are lying". I also do not think of her or any politician as any kind of messiah. They ALL lie - the question is - what are they lying about?

 

[jacksonsmom]

I'm hesitant to post this - but say "we lose" <- which is unfortunately looking likely as the Obama supporters keep repeatedly telling us .......

1. How do you think Obama can "heal" the party? For those of us that may not vote for him - is there anything he can do to change your mind?

2. How do you think Obama can unite Democrats and Republicans? Maybe this is why I don't like him so much - Bush promised this - and did the opposite. Now Obama doing the opposite obviously would not annoy me as much as what Bush did..........

I really don't think there is any way for him to "heal" the party.
I will not vote for Obama if he is the nom. I was going to but with how the last few weeks have gone, not anymore. I don't trust him and I don't think he will make a good president. He is WAY too inexperience and to me he seems smug.

I really don't think there is anything he can say or do to get me to change my mind. The damage is done and sometimes it is too hard to repair an image.

If Obama gets the nom I think I will cry. Not because Hillary didn't get it, but because this will be the first election in all my voting life that I will not vote for the Dem candidate.

 

[Planogirl]

Did she only make one landing that trip? I have no idea what the story is and if it is true that she lied or embellished the facts - then she needs to step up and explain herself.

I guess I am a little cynical. I come from the school of "if you see a politician's lips moving - they are lying". I also do not think of her or any politician as any kind of messiah. They ALL lie - the question is - what are they lying about?

I wonder if this EVER happened and she confused the events? I don't know - that was eons ago or seems that way.

It won't change my choice though. I guess I'm just sold at this point.

 

[DISUNC]

Maybe I am not looking at the numbers correctly, but it still looks close to me.

It is!
They are using 'Obama math' with a big dose of "Obama wont get less then 49% of the votes in any of the Primaries" logic.
By the time thre rest of the primaries roll out, Obama can get thess the 20% of the remaining votes. They arent figuring any of that!

I don't recall a time when a race was close and one side kept requesting the other side to drop out. But then I don't remember an election being like this in a lot of ways..

AHEM! Year 2000 Team Bush did the same thing to Gore!!!!!

BTW....the Bill Richardson thing seems to be backfiring.....Bill came out yesterday with a Press release saying "in essence' he is not a Benadict Arnold. (they are my words...not his) Obviously many people see Bill Richardson as for what he truly is, a Political whowho...and as a "If this is your friend...who needs enemies" type of guy. So much so that he wrote a press release.

 

[DISUNC]

The National Review Defends Bill Clinton's remarks!

In Bill's Defense [Kathleen Parker]

It isn’t often that I’m called to defend Bill Clinton, but since I was present in Charlotte, N.C., Friday when he made the remarks — now being spun by the Obama campaign as “like McCarthy” — I’m compelled to set the record straight.

The AP is reporting that Hillary Clinton is trying to clarify comments by her husband that “seemed to question” Barack Obama’s patriotism and that an Obama aide likened to Joseph McCarthy. Nonsense.

In no way did I interpret Clinton’s remarks as questioning Obama’s patriotism. Clinton was making the case for his wife’s electability against McCain, who last time I checked is the presumptive Republican nominee and her challenger should she win the Democratic nomination. He may have intentionally bypassed Obama in his leap to match Hillary against McCain, but he didn’t say anything that could be construed as questioning Obama’s patriotism. The sequence went as follows: He noted that Hillary polls ahead of McCain in Ohio and Florida and also that McCain leads “Hillary’s opponent” (I quit typing here and don’t recall exactly which states he mentioned in that part of his comment.) His point, obviously, was that Hillary should be the nominee and, in that case, she and McCain would face each other in the final contest.

Before he made the so-called controversial remarks, he praised McCain as an “honorable man,” who has “paid the highest price short of giving your life.” He mentioned that though Hillary and McCain disagree on many issues, they’ve worked together successfully on others. In that context, he said it would be great “if you had two people who really love this country and ask who’s right on these issues” instead of all the non-essential clutter that now distracts in politics.

This was toward the end of his talk, which focused on Iraq and the economy. Obama was no longer on the radar at this point. Bill Clinton was saying that Hillary and McCain are both good patriots who love their country, not that all those unmentioned are something else. At least that’s the way I heard it. Now, if I were the sort of reporter who looks for some random sentence to blow up into an attention-grabbing headline . . .http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzZjZjQ5YWUyN2ZkZDQ1ZjI3YmM0YTNlYzAxMDY3ZGQ=

 

[va32h]

Actually - I kind of think that is what the problem is - too much historic. The Dems should never have gone for pitting two historic events against each other. Personally - I think Obama should drop out and let Hillary be the first woman president - I mean blacks were recognized as citizens 50 YEARS before women - Civil Rights Acts passed - but not ERA - I think it should be our turn next.

Frankly, I think the notion of "letting" Hillary Clinton become president because "it's her turn" is incredibly sexist. Wasn't the whole point of the ERA that women should have equal opportunity, that they didn't have to be "let" anything, that they could earn their way?

I guess I should say "our" way since I am female.

I would be insulted if I were competing against a male for any title and he "let" me win because I'm a girl and it's my turn. I would expect/hope HRC would feel the same way.