The Liberal Thread #2 - No Debate Please

[Hound 109]

I don't doubt that both Obama and McCain supporters will get angry at the other side during the general. That's when we expect the bloodletting...not during the primaries by the candidate that has a 5% chance of winning the nomination....

I think that the "liberal thread" should have folks offering differing opinions (since we "liberals" are not monolithic). I suspect many have put me & other HC supporters on ignore because of our opinions....it's your right to do so, but i don't get it. (& obviously anyone reading this doesn't have me on ignore yet. )

I think tht Obama SUPPORTERS were under the belief that the nomination was in the bag & are disappointed/frustrated/angry that it isn't a done deal. The fact that a very rational (imo) BO supporter like Laugh O. states that there is still a 5% chance that HC might win the nomination says something. (Like it's probably more like 20-25% imo). Don't get mad (or whine) when we continue to support our candidate (& see perceived or actual negatives towards yours.)

But...the comment "we expect" the bloodletting to take place later....is telling. I think WAY more BO supporters "expect" a new kind of campaign. While HC (& Edwards & every other candidate & candidates supporters) "expect" a traditional Presidential Nomination & Election.

This hasn't been "bloodletting".... it's been normal, spirited politics. (& pretty mild).

I don't understand why folks will respond to a reasoned argument (that is objectionable) with it's just "a bunch of crap". (unless of course my favorite ragin Cajun is spewing his louisiana home grown "bunch of crap".......but he brings it to an art form.)

 

[wvrevy]

Amanda - You feel the same way I do. Just for a different candidate. I also never thought you were flaming me.

wvrevy - Has Senator Obama taken any money from a union? I know he has been endorsed my many ( including the one I belong to). If you don't think that unions are the biggest special interest groups with agendas to seek, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
I'm glad that Senator Obama is flush with cash right now. He is going to need it, but I don't think for a minute he will turn his back on the former President.

The "grassroots" campaign that the Senator has started out with has been the surprise of the nation. In the fall, however, Senator Obama is going to need big bucks.

I usually just donate to the party and not the candidate. This year will be no different. It probably won't be as much as I want, because I have gas to buy and a war to pay for

He has taken no money from federal lobbyists. Period. Has he taken money from people that are in a union? I'm certain he has. From the unions themselves? I don't believe so, but would have to check opensecrets to be sure of that.

He is going to need the "Big Bucks"? Bigger than the 50 Million he just raised...in a 30 day period? Even if he only averages 50% of that per month between now and November, he'll be able to outspend McCain 10 or 20 to 1.

I haven't donated a penny to the DNC in a couple months, and won't be until after the nominee is named...and then only if they name the person that won more than 60% of the states and had the highest number of delegates. If they appoint Hillary or name someone like Gore, they've seen the last penny from me they'll ever see.

 

[Chicago526]

Amanda - You feel the same way I do. Just for a different candidate. I also never thought you were flaming me.

wvrevy - Has Senator Obama taken any money from a union? I know he has been endorsed my many ( including the one I belong to). If you don't think that unions are the biggest special interest groups with agendas to seek, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
I'm glad that Senator Obama is flush with cash right now. He is going to need it, but I don't think for a minute he will turn his back on the former President.

The "grassroots" campaign that the Senator has started out with has been the surprise of the nation. In the fall, however, Senator Obama is going to need big bucks.
I usually just donate to the party and not the candidate. This year will be no different. It probably won't be as much as I want, because I have gas to buy and a war to pay for

This is why I haven't donated yet. He's been flush with cash since day one. I want to wait and see how things go in the general for him. Once we get down to the last couple of weeks, when even the most well funded campaign starts to feel the pinch, that's when they really need the money!

 

[wvrevy]

In order to win the nomination, Hillary needs 65% of all remaining delegates, which means she needs to beat Barack by 30 points in every state remaining. Considering he is likely to win North Carolina and Oregon outright, and Indiana is too close to call, that drives the real percentage she needs up into the 70's...at least.

So...does ANY Hillary supporter think that is realistic? That not only will she win PA, WV, and every other state she wins by 40 points, but that she'll take the remaining 300 or so super delegates by the same margin?

If so...then it just so happens that I also have a bridge for sale.

 

[Laura]

Delegate counter game: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

 

[LuvDuke]

In order to win the nomination, Hillary needs 65% of all remaining delegates, which means she needs to beat Barack by 30 points in every state remaining. Considering he is likely to win North Carolina and Oregon outright, and Indiana is too close to call, that drives the real percentage she needs up into the 70's...at least.

So...does ANY Hillary supporter think that is realistic? That not only will she win PA, WV, and every other state she wins by 40 points, but that she'll take the remaining 300 or so super delegates by the same margin?

If so...then it just so happens that I also have a bridge for sale.

Hence the "kitchen sink" campaign tactic. The only way Hillary can accomplish any of that is if she destroys Obama aka: "Break his back" and make unelectable.

 

[DisneyDad1960]

Laugh O Grams you are welcome

I would post more, but I am not as knowledgable about the political topics as the majority of you guys are, and I refuse to get in a p...ing contest with anyone. For the most part,I'm learning more this political season than ever before and that's a good thing.

Michael

 

[lilyv]

Hence the "kitchen sink" campaign tactic. The only way Hillary can accomplish any of that is if she destroys Obama aka: "Break his back" and make unelectable.

Unless, of course, she can convince the super delegates to override the democratic results and ignore those stupid little people who showed up to vote in the primaries. What do they know, anyway? If this continues, Tanya H is going to get annoyed her good name is being besmirched.....

 

[Chloe'sMom]

I think that the "liberal thread" should have folks offering differing opinions (since we "liberals" are not monolithic). I suspect many have put me & other HC supporters on ignore because of our opinions....it's your right to do so, but i don't get it. (& obviously anyone reading this doesn't have me on ignore yet. )

I put people on ignore when they question my intelligence for why I think Obama is the better candidate. For to long this thread was full of of nothing but name calling by 2 posters in particular and I got sick of reading their BS.

I think tht Obama SUPPORTERS were under the belief that the nomination was in the bag & are disappointed/frustrated/angry that it isn't a done deal. The fact that a very rational (imo) BO supporter like Laugh O. states that there is still a 5% chance that HC might win the nomination says something. (Like it's probably more like 20-25% imo). Don't get mad (or whine) when we continue to support our candidate (& see perceived or actual negatives towards yours.)

for myself I disagree - I am outright SURPRISED that Obama has done this well. However - once it got to be so overwhelmingly Obama to win the nomination - and I think LOG's numbers are a good estimate - then I do think Clinton is not only embrassing herself, but causing division in the party. However I also think every vote should count and WV, PN, OR, and so on should get their fair say. I do not think we should change the rules to make FL and MI count.

But...the comment "we expect" the bloodletting to take place later....is telling. I think WAY more BO supporters "expect" a new kind of campaign. While HC (& Edwards & every other candidate & candidates supporters) "expect" a traditional Presidential Nomination & Election.

This hasn't been "bloodletting".... it's been normal, spirited politics. (& pretty mild).

I don't know exactly what your point is.

 

[robinb]

The only Clinton supporter I haven't seen whining is Robin. The rest of "you" are to busy complaining about BO to realize that your own candidate screwed up. Tiem to grow up people - you can't blame everyone else because your candidate had a crappy campaign.

Oh, I whine . I just don't tear down Obama in the process. FWIW, I don't think that Clinton's campaign has been all the bad, per se. I honestly think that it is more "politics as usual" which contracts sharply with Obama's campaign. I think the biggest problem now is that there are supporters in both camps that just can't wait to crow about the faux pas of the other candidate. Last week it was Wright. This week it is "sniper fire". I wonder what next week will bring .

 

[Chloe'sMom]

From Sen Clinton:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VKQH282&show_article=1

"So I made a mistake," she said. "That happens. It proves I'm human, which you know, for some people, is a revelation."

emphasis mine.

I've read alot about how Barrak Obama comes across and condscending..... I think this sort of fits the bill. I mean come on - we all knew you were human, we didn't know you were to stupid to remember gun fire or not.

~Amanda

 

[chobie]

Oh, I whine . I just don't tear down Obama in the process. FWIW, I don't think that Clinton's campaign has been all the bad, per se. I honestly think that it is more "politics as usual" which contracts sharply with Obama's campaign. I think the biggest problem now is that there are supporters in both camps that just can't wait to crow about the faux pas of the other candidate. Last week it was Wright. This week it is "sniper fire". I wonder what next week will bring .

I can only hope next week will bring something on McCain.

 

[robinb]

I can only hope next week will bring something on McCain.

From your mouth to someone's ear!

 

[wvrevy]

Robin, part of the reason we "jump on any" Hillary mistake is that we want her out of the race so that the party can start to heal itself. She has next to no chance to win the nomination, and all she's doing is deepening the divide between the two sides of this nomination fight.

I would ask all Hillary supporters to do me a favor. Go to this link:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

and do the following. Give Hillary 61-39 wins in PA, Guam, WV, KY, Montana, SD, and Puerto Rico. Then give her a slight win in Indiana, 52-48. Then give Barack slight wins in Oregon and North Carolina by that same 52-48.

Now...Check out where the two candidates are at that point, before any of the remaining 342 super delegates cast their vote. Barack's lead is down...but still substantial. In order for Hillary to win the nomination under this BEST case scenario, she would need to get 229 of the Supers to vote her way, or just about 67%.

Considering the FACT that since Super Tuesday, Obama is up something like 50 SD's to Hillary's 1, can you give me SOME justification for saying that it's NOT over right now?

 

[Hound 109]

I don't know exactly what your point is.

My point is that so many people "expect" the tone of a Presidential Nominating process to be civil...when they never have been.

My point is that this nomination process is probably more civil than many have been & more civil than it SHOULD have been. Had it been more "freewheeling", then we would have:

- heard about the Pastor videos in November instead of two weeks ago.
- held HC accountable for her vote to prosecute the war. Examine it. Rip the scab off of it.
- held HC & BO accountable for their vote to FUND the war...all of them....all for political reasons.
- held them both accountable for their positions on the mortgage crisis, for their ignorance on the issue (& of their scapegoating of brokers,), when if fact they (the federal govt.) were PART of the problem by offering 100% loans to folks in appreciating value areas that had no business entering into a mort. contract. (Lots of villians here...including realtors, builders, developers, Bank CEOs & of course the Wall St. syndicates who bought & packaged the loans). & for offering bogus solutions.

Neither they, or the news media (or we) have addressed these & other issues aggressively. Everyone has been polite. Even the supposed pit bulls (Mathews & Olbermann) are getting all emotional & are turning into Limbaughesque entertainers.

I wish Edwards & Kucinich (sp) were still in the race, at least those two weren't so sensitive to everyones "feelings" (& didn't give a d*mn how the "need a headline a day" news media would play it) & they weren't afraid to call b*llsh*t on opponents when it was warranted.

 

[robinb]

Robin, part of the reason we "jump on any" Hillary mistake is that we want her out of the race so that the party can start to heal itself. She has next to no chance to win the nomination, and all she's doing is deepening the divide between the two sides of this nomination fight.

You have been singing that song for a long time . The fact is that neither candidate can win without the Super Delegates. It's really that close.

Are you really saying "Hillary is tearing apart the party!" in one breath and "We need to get Hillary to drop out by any means!" in the next? The jumping on mistakes and constant crowing on both sides is what is tearing the party apart. As for the party "healing itself" I have to wonder about the sincerity of that thought when you say that you will not vote for the Democratic candidate if it's Hillary. What kind of healing is that? Are the Clinton supporters the only ones who need to "come to Jesus"?

 

[wvrevy]

You have been singing that song for a long time . The fact is that neither candidate can win without the Super Delegates. It's really that close.

No, it's really not. Again, go look at the link.

The only reason the SD's are needed is because they are included in the total number that is used to derive the "magic" number. Take them out of the equation entirely, and Barack needs about 20 delegates per contest over the last 2 months of the campaign...which he could get at this point without spending the first dime.

Are you really saying "Hillary is tearing apart the party!" in one breath and "We need to get Hillary to drop out by any means!" in the next? The jumping on mistakes and constant crowing on both sides is what is tearing the party apart. As for the party "healing itself" I have to wonder about the sincerity of that thought when you say that you will not vote for the Democratic candidate if it's Hillary. What kind of healing is that? Are the Clinton supporters the only ones who need to "come to Jesus"?

I'm sorry, but YES, the Hillary supporters are the ones that are going to have to "come to Jesus", because Barack is going to end the nomination process with more delegates, more popular vote, and more states won than she is. There has been nothing she could do about that since the day after the Texas and Ohio contests, which is why I've been saying that she needs to drop out for such a long time.

Yes, I believe the party will "heal itself" if Barack is the nominee. Again, he has won by every measure you care to name, and I honestly believe that the vast majority of Hillary supporters will accept her defeat eventually. But if the SD's were to take the nomination away from him - telling the first black man to ever do the things he's done that they're awarding the nomination to the person he beat in roughly 2 out of every 3 contests - then not only do I think the party wouldn't heal itself around Hillary as the nominee...I wouldn't even care at that point, because I would no longer be a registered Democrat.

Robin, I know I'm one of the harshest critics of Clinton (not her supporters...there are only a couple of those that I've eventually had to come to ignore, and you were never one even close to that). But I really do understand people that chose Hillary from the beginning and are going to stick with her to the end. But can't you see how it angers people like me when she goes to a Richard Mellon-Scaffe newspaper and - REGARDLESS of prompting - throws Obama under the bus? I mean...is that really who ANY Democrat, much less Hillary Clinton, should be aligning themselves with? I can't think of ANYTHING Obama has done that even approaches that...and it's only the most recent thing she's done. Can you?

 

[Hound 109]

Robin, part of the reason we "jump on any" Hillary mistake is that we want her out of the race so that the party can start to heal itself. She has next to no chance to win the nomination, and all she's doing is deepening the divide between the two sides of this nomination fight.

I would ask all Hillary supporters to do me a favor. Go to this link:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

and do the following. Give Hillary 61-39 wins in PA, Guam, WV, KY, Montana, SD, and Puerto Rico. Then give her a slight win in Indiana, 52-48. Then give Barack slight wins in Oregon and North Carolina by that same 52-48.

Now...Check out where the two candidates are at that point, before any of the remaining 342 super delegates cast their vote. Barack's lead is down...but still substantial. In order for Hillary to win the nomination under this BEST case scenario, she would need to get 229 of the Supers to vote her way, or just about 67%.

Considering the FACT that since Super Tuesday, Obama is up something like 50 SD's to Hillary's 1, can you give me SOME justification for saying that it's NOT over right now?

So she only needs 60-67% of the SuperDs to vote for her (given your scenario). & we have 2 months of Vetting still to go.

I think after all the states have voted it will be that she will need 50-55% of the SuperDs votes.

Either way there is "SOME justification" for saying it's "not over right now".

& there is also 100% justification for her to stay in. For the good of the party & the good of the country.

 

[robinb]

I'm sorry, but YES, the Hillary supporters are the ones that are going to have to "come to Jesus", because Barack is going to end the nomination process with more delegates, more popular vote, and more states won than she is. There has been nothing she could do about that since the day after the Texas and Ohio contests, which is why I've been saying that she needs to drop out for such a long time.

You are probably right that Obama will win the nomination and I have NO PROBLEM with that. I came thisclose to voting for him myself. It's just this kind of ... smugness ... for a better word that gets under my skin. Obama is going to win so Hillary might as well just quit. That and the one-sided blindness and the finger pointing on both sides. Those are the main reasons I have not posted on the political threads in a long time. I really have no interest in fighting with you or the other dedicated Obama supporters and I honestly don't give a flying fig about what angers you about Hillary or why you think she should leave.

I mean no disrespect as we agree all on so many other things ... this just isn't one of them.

 

[wvrevy]

So she only needs 60-67% of the SuperDs to vote for her (given your scenario). & we have 2 months of Vetting still to go.

I think after all the states have voted it will be that she will need 50-55% of the SuperDs votes.

Either way there is "SOME justification" for saying it's "not over right now".

& there is also 100% justification for her to stay in. For the good of the party & the good of the country.

I will accept ANY bet you care to name that she won't get anywhere near needing "50-55%" of the Super D's votes. To do that, she'd need to win every state between now and the end of the process by somewhere near 70-30, and that simply isn't going to happen.

Seriously...Name anything you want. A trip to Disney? You name the terms, and I'll agree to 'em.

You are probably right that Obama will win the nomination and I have NO PROBLEM with that. I came thisclose to voting for him myself. It's just this kind of ... smugness ... for a better word that gets under my skin. Obama is going to win so Hillary might as well just quit. That and the one-sided blindness and the finger pointing on both sides. Those are the main reasons I have not posted on the political threads in a long time. I really have no interest in fighting with you or the other dedicated Obama supporters and I honestly don't give a flying fig about what angers you about Hillary or why you think she should leave.

I mean no disrespect as we agree all on so many other things ... this just isn't one of them.

It's not that she "might as well quit". It's that she should quit to give Obama a better chance of winning in November. In 9 of the past 10 elections, the nominee that was chosen first among the two parties has won the general election. Did you know that? Part of the reason is fundraising, which I already said wouldn't be a problem for Obama. But another part of it is that while John McCain is busy making stupid mistakes and getting corrected by Joe Lieberman, the media is too focused on this "race" between Hillary and Barack to notice. McCain's got free reign to do pretty much as he pleases, 'cause Hillary is already doing his work for him.