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

[Fitswimmer]

Some do, some don't.

As for the argument...nobody ever said exercising your right to vote had to be something you could conveniently fit into your schedule. There is nothing undemocratic in making sure the people casting their vote actually are willing to stand by it.

Personally, I wish I lived in a caucus state. Better to be able to go and cast my vote with other dedicated individuals (this is, after all, a nomination process, not a final vote, which should be done in private) then to see the drive-by crowd that isn't really all that invested anyway.

Sure, I think we'd all like our voters to be a bit more informed and active, but I'm not ready to say that if you can't take off work or get child care then too bad for you.

 

[Laura]

If not Obama, I just don't see her choosing another senator, as I think she'd probably need some executive experience on the ticket. One I've read about who looks like he could fit the bill is Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland. If not Strickland, how about Wes Clark? Both could give Hill a very strong ticket without having to involve Obama...

I want to keep Strickland in Ohio. Clark was someone I was thinking of... my DH was soooo into him in 2004, it was funny. I'd be cool with him as VP, but my DH would be falling all over himself to get to the polls.

 

[wvrevy]

Sure, I think we'd all like our voters to be a bit more informed and active, but I'm not ready to say that if you can't take off work or get child care then too bad for you.

Again, it's just a vote for the nomination. If we were talking about disenfranchising people in a general election, it'd be different.

Also, I edited that post...I fully believe that, on average, caucus goers are better educated about the candidates than primary voters, due to the fact that they have to spend so much time casting their vote, so you likely wouldn't get as many people "just dropping in" to vote.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Again, it's just a vote for the nomination. If we were talking about disenfranchising people in a general election, it'd be different.

Also, I edited that post...I fully believe that, on average, caucus goers are better educated about the candidates than primary voters, due to the fact that they have to spend so much time casting their vote, so you likely wouldn't get as many people "just dropping in" to vote.

Yeah, but look how important each vote in the process is this year! Other than doing their own homework on the candidates and the issues, I want to make sure that it's as easy for them to be a part of it as possible. The more involved and better informed the electorate is, the better it is for all of us.

 

[jacksonsmom]

Jacksonsmom highlighted it herself in her original post.

Yep I was the one that highlighted 'proud' not Fitswimmer

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I've heard Wes Clark's name mentioned before as a potential VP. Not a bad choice, nor is Strickland. I think it really will boil down to what the VP can bring.

I know both candidates are after the endorsements of Gore and Edwards. I doubt Gore would run the VP route again but what about Edwards? Could he bring her the southern states she needs?

I don't see Gore doing it at all. If he didn't want the top job, why waste his time? Edwards has also said on the record that he has absolutely no ambition to do the veep thing again. I used to think Richardson, but I'm thinking now, not so much. I really think a fresh new name is definitely what Hillary needs.

I want to keep Strickland in Ohio. Clark was someone I was thinking of... my DH was soooo into him in 2004, it was funny. I'd be cool with him as VP, but my DH would be falling all over himself to get to the polls.

I've got to admit, I've always had a bit of a man crush on ol' Gen. Clark myself. He's got a real Steve McQueen going on for sure!

 

[jacksonsmom]

here's a question for the Hillary supporters-who is her best choice for VP?

Obviously, I like Obama-but I would also be really delighted with Bill Richardson or Joe Biden.

Anyone?

Well I would love to see a Clinton/Obama ticket! Despite my uneasiness with some Obama supporters I do like the guy and I do think he is very smart and could do some good in Washington.

With it can't be Obama I would equally love to see John Edwards

If it can't be either one of these guys I think Joe Biden would bring a lot to the ticket.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Romney was NOT the "winner", as the Republicans have a rule that the candidate has to have a certain percentage of the vote in order to win the delegates.

No kidding? Really? In tennis, if the person has a higher score at the end of the first game do they say they won that game or do they have to wait until the match is over?

BTW, I said he won the first vote. There is nothing incorrect in that. I never said he won the caucus. And by my stating first vote, it's safe to make the assumption that there was at least a second.

 

["Got Disney"]

I've seen that criticism of her before from some men, and it pisses me off to NO END! And then she gets crap because she tears up in an interview. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If she showed no emotion, she'd be a ball-busting *****. If she kept crying, she'd be a weak-willed flower of a female.

Wow I started this thread late last night and nice to see so many Hillary "Likers" come out of the wood work of the DIS

Agreed she seems to get no breaks...yet all they can really come up with about here is superficial stuff...nothing of substance. I mean come on so she teared up

When I have asked people why they HATE Hillary they just say...well because I don't trust her...okay..why dont you trust her...well because she is so polarizing ..not good reasons.

To me it is because she is not someone that they would want to sit down and have a beer with. and with all the chatter on the news saying she is old politics and we need new politics...

Okay than I'll bit.....but give me a good reason not to vote for her if Obama wins.

DH is a Rep but will vote Dem on occ. He has always stated that he thinks a woman would not be able to handle the pressure if gets PMS or menopause....they might push the button ...What ...idiot...

Guess after all these years I have scarred him

He has come over to what the Rep call the Dark side(Dem) because he is so unhappy with the Rep candidates...he said the other night that he would vote for Hillary and than if she did not gt the nod than he would vote for Obama.

Bush has put a sour taste in his mouth towards Rep. Sure my chatter about Bushy Baby has not helped him

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Well I would love to see a Clinton/Obama ticket! Despite my uneasiness with some Obama supporters I do like the guy and I do think he is very smart and could do some good in Washington.

With it can't be Obama I would equally love to see John Edwards

If it can't be either one of these guys I think Joe Biden would bring a lot to the ticket.

Biden's gone on the record as saying he wouldn't be Clinton's veep for fear of being overshadowed by Bill. He also said would like to remain chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where he can do more good than he would holding a mostly "ceremonial" post as Hill's VP.

Honestly, I don't see him bringing all that much to the table anyway. What Biden's got, Hillary has in spades...

 

[wvrevy]

Yeah, but look how important each vote in the process is this year! Other than doing their own homework on the candidates and the issues, I want to make sure that it's as easy for them to be a part of it as possible. The more involved and better informed the electorate is, the better it is for all of us.

The problem with that is that more people rarely equates to better informed. After all...more people voted for Bush than Kerry in 2004.

No kidding? Really? In tennis, if the person has a higher score at the end of the first game do they say they won that game or do they have to wait until the match is over?

BTW, I said he won the first vote. There is nothing incorrect in that. I never said he won the caucus. And by my stating first vote, it's safe to make the assumption that there was at least a second.

He didn't "win" the first vote, he simply had more votes than anyone else. In order to "win", he had to have a certain percentage (greater than 50%, I think, but I'm not completely up on WV Republican procedures). Your analogy is incorrect. It's more like a game of "Jacks or better" poker. Even if you have a pair of 10's on the deal, it doesn't matter because you can't even get in the game without those jacks. It's like the hand never happened.

 

[jacksonsmom]

From what I've read - they are held during restrictive period of time where not everyone can attend - and you're usually supposed to stay a couple of hours to talk over the candidates and come to a consensus.

I know - I'm a bad citizen.... - I would not take off work for a primary vote!

I also read that some caucuses were so understaffed, they just allowed people to write a name on a piece of paper and leave - that was not very secuirty-conscious......

I have to agree with you! I am from Minnesota where we had a Caucuse on Super Tuesday. It was my first caucuse and I hated it. It was SOOOO disorganzied and yep you wrote who you wish to see on the general election on a piece of paper and in our town we threw it in a waste paper basket!!!!
To be counted up later by 3 different people.

Now luckily in my state you do not have to stay the whole time, you can just vote and go BUT you could not vote until 7:00pm. I know some people could not do that time because of other activities. Voting stops at 8:00pm.

I don't think caucuses give a real feel as to opinions in the state. I would much rather of had a primary where one could go in and vote throughout the day.
I would be very happy to see them do away with caucuses. JMO

 

[jacksonsmom]

I can see how it would be a problem for some voters. People who work nights or have 2 jobs might not be able to afford to take the evening off. What if they can't get child care?

do those states have provisions for absentee voting if you're on vacation or something?

Child care was not a problem, kids are invited to come but who really wants to bring a handful of kids to sit for sometimes hours??? I did bring my 8 yrs old but it was a zoo that I wish I didn't bring him.

Nope, there are NO absentee voting! You MUST be at the causcuse to vote. If you can't be there --- Tough Luck!
Another thing I had a problem with was when you signed in there was NO checking ID or anything. You just signed your name on a blank piece of paper. I could have been Joe Blow and no one would questioned it.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

He didn't "win" the first vote, he simply had more votes than anyone else. In order to "win", he had to have a certain percentage (greater than 50%, I think, but I'm not completely up on WV Republican procedures). Your analogy is incorrect. It's more like a game of "Jacks or better" poker. Even if you have a pair of 10's on the deal, it doesn't matter because you can't even get in the game without those jacks. It's like the hand never happened.

OK. You are right. I guess it's important to you.

So lets just say I used the right word everyone. He didn't win the first vote. He was the leader. Sorry. It destroys the whole premise of my point. Maybe I should change my mind about the caucus now?

 

[jacksonsmom]

Yeah, but look how important each vote in the process is this year! Other than doing their own homework on the candidates and the issues, I want to make sure that it's as easy for them to be a part of it as possible. The more involved and better informed the electorate is, the better it is for all of us.

That is true. At our Caucus they were overwelmed with the amount of people that showed up. A lot did just showed up to vote, in my state that is allowed. But the man that was running it said he never seen so many people turn out for a caucus. Last election there was less then 40 people, this time we had over a 1000 and I live in a small town!

I even saw people walk out before voting because it was so disorganized.
Every one I talked to would rather see a primary voting process vs a caucus.

 

[BelleBoo&AmisMum]

So far the Obama campaign seems to be about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.

I would like to mark this day on the calendar - I agree with Dawn.

 

[Laura]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";23154995]When I have asked people why they HATE Hillary they just say...well because I don't trust her...okay..why dont you trust her...well because she is so polarizing ..not good reasons. [/QUOTE]

I don't hate Hillary, let me just start with that. I do think she can come off as less trustworthy, less honest. She does come with baggage, for good or ill, thanks to her husband. Some will vote for her because of Bill, and some will vote against her because of him. Some see her as a "Slick Hillary" and don't like it, some think she may not have been truthful during the whole Monica scandal. These are issues that would be brought up in a general election if she got the nomination.

Having a candidate like Barack Obama with less of a record to criticize seems like a good thing to some Democrats considering what we'll face this fall. It does make Obama seem like more of an unknown entity, of course. Hillary has the name recognition, more experience, etc. So it's a tough choice, especially considering how the Clinton platform and the Obama platform are so similar.

 

[JARNJ3]

Child care was not a problem, kids are invited to come but who really wants to bring a handful of kids to sit for sometimes hours??? I did bring my 8 yrs old but it was a zoo that I wish I didn't bring him.

Nope, there are NO absentee voting! You MUST be at the causcuse to vote. If you can't be there --- Tough Luck!
Another thing I had a problem with was when you signed in there was NO checking ID or anything. You just signed your name on a blank piece of paper. I could have been Joe Blow and no one would questioned it.

Ad therein lies the problem with the caucus!

 

[JARNJ3]

OK. You are right. I guess it's important to you.

So lets just say I used the right word everyone. He didn't win the first vote. He was the leader. Sorry. It destroys the whole premise of my point. Maybe I should change my mind about the caucus now?

And that's another problem with the caucus - its manipulated by opinion! You are sometimes forced to change your vote!

 

[Fitswimmer]

The problem with that is that more people rarely equates to better informed. After all...more people voted for Bush than Kerry in 2004.


He didn't "win" the first vote, he simply had more votes than anyone else. In order to "win", he had to have a certain percentage (greater than 50%, I think, but I'm not completely up on WV Republican procedures). Your analogy is incorrect. It's more like a game of "Jacks or better" poker. Even if you have a pair of 10's on the deal, it doesn't matter because you can't even get in the game without those jacks. It's like the hand never happened.

and more people voted for Gore than Bush in 2000-at least that's what I've been hearing for 7 years.