[Oversoul]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm telling you now, Hillary will not be the nominee.

She feels she has a better shot at the generals. She will follow the lead of Lieberman, select the most moderate running-mate she can find with a name and run as an independent. With the support of Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter, she will win.

Hillary as a third-party candidate? Not going to happen. A third-party run by her would literally split the Democratic base – more than it already is. There will be no post-Convention rapprochement and Hillary will siphon women, labor, and Hispanic votes from an Obama candidacy. If she is narcissistic enough to pursue a third-party run, she'll be more reviled by the Democrats than Ralph Nader.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm telling you now, Hillary will not be the nominee.

She feels she has a better shot at the generals. She will follow the lead of Lieberman, select the most moderate running-mate she can find with a name and run as an independent. With the support of Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter, she will win.

A less likely scenario is that the two make nice and Hillary becomes Obama's running mate; a kind of "look how progressive we've become" show of solidarity to one another and to society. The running mate is not nearly as important as people make out, but the Republicans would find Hillary too blatant a choice to ignore and waste most of their time bashing the #2, leaving Barack an open road to the White House.

It's now or never for Hillary. She will be 60 in October and in another four years there won't be enough Clairol and makeup to hide her age.

[zerostar]

Grace? No, she will go down hard if she does go down. I think she still has a good shot no matter what everyone is saying right now. I am 90% sure FL will be counted after the push I have seen today.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

Grace? No, she will go down hard if she does go down. I think she still has a good shot no matter what everyone is saying right now. I am 90% sure FL will be counted after the push I have seen today.

Do you think she wants to incur the wrath of Jackson, Sharpton and others? Clinton was the only one of consequence on the FL and MI ballots. Obama, Edwards and other pulled their names from the ballots. If they are seated, it will be done as uncommitted, or they will have to hold a special election before the convention

[zerostar]

I voted in FL and both their names were on, I was involved in the election (on a local level) so I know a lot of people involved and have attended recent discussions on this issue. MI is another story but there has been talks...

[Oversoul]

You can parse it however you want, but this election cycle has me in complete disgust at the Clinton campaign and the hypocrisy and disregard the campaign or its surrogates have shown towards the rules of the game, and often rules those involved in her campaign have formulated themselves, whenever they no longer suit Clinton.

Take the comments made by Harold Ickes, one of Hillary's senior advisors, arguing that the delegates from Michigan and Florida should be counted.

"Why should Florida not be heard at the convention?" he asked. When asked if those contests should be held again, he replied, "We don't need a re-do. Everybody was on equal footing."

But, as the Washington Post pointed out,

Ickes, prior to working for the Clinton campaign, was a member of the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Commission that stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates. But in today's call, he asked that those delegates be re-instated with full voting rights.

The motivation for Ickes' change of heart couldn't be more clear: Hillary needs those delegates to regain the edge on Obama going into the convention. This is not about giving a voice to Michigan and Florida voters and preventing their disenfranchisement, it's pure math motivated by desperation. But if disenfranchisement is truly the concern, what about those voters who didn't turn out because they were told their votes wouldn't count, or those voters in Michigan who could not vote for anyone but Hillary or Kucinich? Any vote not for Hillary apparently doesn't count, just like the eight primaries and caucuses held in the past week don't matter.

This is only the latest in a disturbing pattern in the Hillary campaign's disrespect for rules that do not favor them. In Nevada, recall that the state Democratic party created “at-large” casino precincts to accommodate casino employees (most notably, union members) so they would be able to participate in the causes easily and conveniently. These at-large precincts were approved by the state and national parties and drew no complaints -- until Obama won the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union, whose members mostly work near these precincts. Then, the Nevada State Education Association, which had endorsed Hillary, sued to enjoin these at-large precincts, complaining that they made it too easy for culinary workers to vote (for Obama) and that no other similar accommodations were being made. Interestingly, four co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit, all associated with the Clinton campaign, were in attendance when the measure creating these at-large precincts was passed and none of them voted against it. Again, no one complained until the rules were suddenly to Hillary's disfavor.

It doesn't bode well when Hillary goes into a campaign with the backing of a political machine, honed over two decades, the support of the Washington establishment and powerful lobbyists, prominent members of the party involved in drafting the very rules leading to nomination, an unpopular president in the White House, and still, still fail to attract the excitement and support to clinch the nomination without having to change the rules ex post facto whenever they no longer suit her.

Shame on Hillary and her cronies.

[zerostar]

I never said I was applauding her actions, but placing the blame solely on Hillary is a pretty gross over simplification of the events and the people calling to be counted.

[vmarks]

That a Clinton would want to change the rules to be advantageous is no surprise.

What is a surprise is that some superdelegates are changing their minds about who they've pledged that vote to.

That's uncommon, and unexpected.

[Oversoul]

So a high ranking Clinton campaign official confirms that Hillary will go after Obama's pledged delegates if they have to. Note that pledged delegates are not superdelegates, who are independent; pledged delegates are "won" through the various primaries and caucuses and are apportioned by proportionality to the votes to each candidate. In essence, if she can't get the superdelegates to hand her the nomination, Hillary now takes a step further to try and overturn the will of the voters more directly by stealing pledged delegates voted on by people to support Obama.

Clinton targets pledged delegates - Roger Simon - Politico.com

[Dakar the Fourth]

Ah yes, remember it's not the will of the people that's important, it's winning...

I sincerely hope this revelation helps drive more voters from her.

[Big Mac]

I hope and pray she wrecks her whole party.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Yeah, thanks for stopping by.

[Big Mac]

I don't mean to offend, but I hate the Democratic party, Dakar. Despite many well intentioned members, the party has done only great harm to the interests of the United States in the modern era. The Democratic Party's platform planks are thoroughly anti-American and contrary to the foundational principles of the country. The core legislative agenda of that party violates both the the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. I'm merely being honest when I root for its downfall.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't mean to offend, but I hate the Democratic party, Dakar. Despite many well intentioned members, the party has done only great harm to the interests of the United States in the modern era. The Democratic Party's platform planks are thoroughly anti-American and contrary to the foundational principles of the country. The core legislative agenda of that party violates both the the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. I'm merely being honest when I root for its downfall.

I'm not offended by your hating the Democratic Party, I find this type of partisanship completely juvenile, and it adds nothing to the thread. I think we're all aware by now of your thoughts regarding the the DMC.

It's hard to respect someone's opinion when they have so much pent up bile on the subject. Makes me think of the Democrats in '04.

[Big Mac]

It's no more juvenile than rooting for the downfall of any other force of evil, from my perspective.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Evil. Like I said, it's hard to take seriously.

[Dork.]

You're getting the joke wrong. The Republicans are evil, and the Democrats are stupid. Whenever the government does something that's both evil and stupid, well, that's bipartianship!

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Oversoul 

You can parse it however you want, but this election cycle has me in complete disgust at the Clinton campaign and the hypocrisy and disregard the campaign or its surrogates have shown towards the rules of the game, and often rules those involved in her campaign have formulated themselves, whenever they no longer suit Clinton.

Take the comments made by Harold Ickes, one of Hillary's senior advisors, arguing that the delegates from Michigan and Florida should be counted.

Ignoring who this Ickes-fish guy is for the moment... I do think every state in the US should be represented, don't you?

ie. The rules of the game are insanely stupid.

This could have easily been accomplished by the parties having the nomination at the convention, without having these stupid pseudo-elections in every frickin' state over the course of months upon months. It's gotten to the point where I never turn on CNN anymore because all they ever have is US party nomination coverage.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Ignoring who this Ickes-fish guy is for the moment... I do think every state in the US should be represented, don't you?

ie. The rules of the game are insanely stupid.

This could have easily been accomplished by the parties having the nomination at the convention, without having these stupid pseudo-elections in every frickin' state over the course of months upon months. It's gotten to the point where I never turn on CNN anymore because all they ever have is US party nomination coverage.

Erm, technically, the parties do have the nomination at the convention. The primary process to assign delegates to the convention is designed to avoid smoke-and-mirrors backroom decision-making at the convention itself. The best way to have every state's vote "count" equally in the nomination process would be to have every state vote on the same day, say, a month or so before the conventions.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Erm, technically, the parties do have the nomination at the convention. The primary process to assign delegates to the convention is designed to avoid smoke-and-mirrors backroom decision-making at the convention itself. The best way to have every state's vote "count" equally in the nomination process would be to have every state vote on the same day, say, a month or so before the conventions.

I agree, but the heck with conventions, they are obsolete and just dog and pony shows. Have the national primary day 90 days before the election, the winner gets to name is veep candidate.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's no more juvenile than rooting for the downfall of any other force of evil, from my perspective.

I work 50 hours a week, take my son to his baseball games, am trying to scrape up the money to send my daughter to college, and I enjoy cooking on weekends (when I have time) getting outdoors to enjoy nature, photography, and music. I love music very much, in fact. I think it proves to me that god exists, at times. I occasionally jog, though I'm probably a bit out of shape because I get up early, and come home tired, so I don't exercise enough. I make a little extra money on the side helping people with their macs, and selling stuff on ebay and cragislist. I'm not rich, but my wife and I own our home in a very traditional neighborhood, built in the 1930's. I like all my neighbors quite a bit, and am glad to have a constable living across the street, because I think having a cop car parked there at night helps keep the neighborhood safe.

In other words, I'm pretty much your neighbor, except that I'm EVIL!

Thanks.

[Kerrigan]

Liberals are basically going to ensure that China becomes the world's top superpower. In which case we will have to start calling you riberars.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't mean to offend, but I hate the Democratic party, Dakar. Despite many well intentioned members, the party has done only great harm to the interests of the United States in the modern era. The Democratic Party's platform planks are thoroughly anti-American and contrary to the foundational principles of the country. The core legislative agenda of that party violates both the the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. I'm merely being honest when I root for its downfall.

Remember when I kept asking you why you hate the Democrats?

This was the answer I was looking for.

[chris v]

I don't know why (maybe it was the two-year absence) I could have expected reasoned discourse here.

Peace to you all, and God bless.

[vmarks]

Well, you could ask BigMac for specifics; You could ask him exactly which party plans are anti-American, and how specifically are they anti-American?
Which are contrary to the founding principles of the country, and how are they contrary?
What is the core legislative agenda of the party as he sees it, and how does it violate the letter of the Constitution? How does it violate the spirit of the Constitution?

Push him back on his contentions. That isn't evil, and it is furthering reasoned discourse.

[besson3c]

vmarks: did you ever run for public office or something? I was looking at your website the other day and just wondering since it seemed to suggest this.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Well, you could ask BigMac for specifics; You could ask him exactly which party plans are anti-American, and how specifically are they anti-American?
Which are contrary to the founding principles of the country, and how are they contrary?
What is the core legislative agenda of the party as he sees it, and how does it violate the letter of the Constitution? How does it violate the spirit of the Constitution?

Push him back on his contentions. That isn't evil, and it is furthering reasoned discourse.

It's tiresome having to coax good arguments out of people in general. Often times it takes much less effort to simply ignore and move on, especially when the responses that we eventually get are so often so filled with holes that there is more hole there than solid stuff... If I wanted holy arguments, I would just argue with a priest or something.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Oversoul 

Hillary as a third-party candidate? Not going to happen. A third-party run by her would literally split the Democratic base – more than it already is. There will be no post-Convention rapprochement and Hillary will siphon women, labor, and Hispanic votes from an Obama candidacy. If she is narcissistic enough to pursue a third-party run, she'll be more reviled by the Democrats than Ralph Nader.

Hence the hope by Republicans that she run as an independent. Republicans love Ralph Nader for the same reason. Unfortunately for many Republicans, Clinton running as an independent increases the odds that McCain will win the Presidency. I think they'd rather have Clinton as President to reinforce the Left vs. Right polarization than let Americans experience (and possibly prefer) a moderate Republican.

[besson3c]

This kind of thing really pisses me off:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama camp slams Clinton team on controversial photo � - Blogs from CNN.com

It's one thing to have a fight about whether or not you supported a policy or something, but to drag discourse down to such a dumb and corrosive level is unacceptable, whomever is responsible.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Push him back on his contentions. That isn't evil, and it is furthering reasoned discourse.

The problem isn't the contentions, it's the value judgments.

Contentions can be debated, value judgments usually can't.

[BRussell]

What I find interesting about Big Mac's comments is that he doesn't see politics and government as a debate. He believes the other side (the Democrats) should simply cease to exist. There should be a one-party state, I guess.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

What I find interesting about Big Mac's comments is that he doesn't see politics and government as a debate. He believes the other side (the Democrats) should simply cease to exist. There should be a one-party state, I guess.

And he's probably fervently against dictatorships too

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

What I find interesting about Big Mac's comments is that he doesn't see politics and government as a debate. He believes the other side (the Democrats) should simply cease to exist. There should be a one-party state, I guess.

Time for the Whigs to make a comeback!

[Big Mac]

I would like for the Democratic Party to end, and then its members can realign. It does happen - political parties can and do die.

Also, I didn't say that Democrats as individuals are evil in general. Some of them are, particularly the elites. But I said their party is evil. Members of the party are, in general (however), ignorant and misguided.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I would like for the Democratic Party to end, and then its members can realign. It does happen - political parties can and do die.

Also, I didn't say that Democrats as individuals are evil in general. I said their party is evil. Democrats are, in general (however), ignorant and misguided.

There should simply be three Republican parties. One on the left, one center, and one on the right. The whole Democratic/Hollywood/druggy/conspiracy-theorist/tree-hugger/excuse-maker/race-card gang should go away.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I would like for the Democratic Party to end, and then its members can realign. It does happen - political parties can and do die.

Also, I didn't say that Democrats as individuals are evil in general. Some of them are, particularly the elites. But I said their party is evil. Members of the party are, in general (however), ignorant and misguided.

Realign to what? Form a new liberal party that you would likely consider to be just as evil or infiltrate the Republican party with their ignorant and misguided ways (and ensuring more Republican candidates like McCain)?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

There should simply be three Republican parties. One on the left, one center, and one on the right. The whole Democratic/Hollywood/druggy/conspiracy-theorist/tree-hugger/excuse-maker/race-card gang should go away.

Democracies are terribly inconvenient when significant proportions of the voting population doesn't agree with you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I would like for the Democratic Party to end, and then its members can realign. It does happen - political parties can and do die.

Considering the Republicans have a monopoly on correctness, how come they nominated a douche twice in a row?

Clean your own house before you expect someone to move in with you.

P.S. I pretty much 100% agree with your criticisms of the Democrats.

[Kerrigan]

So, back on topic: since it seems like everyone is saying that Hillary is continuing her downward trend, do you think she is doing so with grace?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Democracies are terribly inconvenient when significant proportions of the voting population doesn't agree with you.

the US is a republic, democracy=mob rule

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Liberals are basically going to ensure that China becomes the world's top superpower. In which case we will have to start calling you riberars.

No, that’s Japanese. The Chinese have no problems saying l, though many of them (from the south) can’t say r, so they’d say something like ‘libolasu’ instead.

Originally Posted by besson3c

whomever is responsible.

Coming from you, this surprises me.

Edit: Oh, oops. There was a page three, too. Next you’ll be telling me this isn’t the 1990s anymore, either.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

So, back on topic: since it seems like everyone is saying that Hillary is continuing her downward trend, do you think she is doing so with grace?

nah


YouTube - Hillary Mocks Obama

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

nah

Agreed. I haven't been a big fan of her campaign from the beginning. I think she could have swept the primaries if it wasn't for her petty attempts to undermine Obama. As it stands right now, if Obama wins the primaries I think McCain has a good chance at the Presidency (especially if Clinton tries to run as an independent).

[Chongo]

Hillary’s Math Problem | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

BETWEEN THE LINES
Jonathan Alter
Hillary’s Math Problem

Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose.
Mar 4, 2008 | Updated: 11:23 a.m. ET Mar 4, 2008

[Big Mac]

She won Texas and Ohio. She still leads in Uber Delegates. Osama's momentum is slowing. That means they get to bloody each other some more.

[zerostar]

And bloddy it will get. At the very least Obama will see what the RW machine will hand him in the coming months... heck these are soft-balls compared to the swift crowd. No matter how many times McCain says they will not play dirty and how they will have a respectable race he will do nothing to stop the swifters.

Congrats to Hillary, she needed these wins!

Its funny to see how Rush had nothing to do with helping her get elected despite his plea, in fact almost 10% of Republicans in TX who voted actually turned Dem and voted for Obama. Talk about irrelevant, hahaha.

[Eug]

Can Obama lose with grace?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

Congrats to Hillary, she needed these wins!

Needed them for what? Her ego-driven ride to nowhere? There's no way she can win this nomination without undermining the legitimacy of the nominating process itself.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Needed them for what? Her ego-driven ride to nowhere? There's no way she can win this nomination without undermining the legitimacy of the nominating process itself.

A legitimate nomination process can give her a win. Likely? Maybe not. Possible? Most definitely.

[Wiskedjak]

Can the Democrat nomination process choose one candidate over another without letting the Republican candidate scream to a victory through the middle of their bickering?

The Democrats have 2 excellent candidates, neither of whom will be able to win the Presidential election if the mud slinging continues. Ironically, it will be a moderate Republican with minimal support from the Republican party who wins the election.