<p>I love it. Obama overwhelmingly beat Clinton In SC. Yet, the Clinton fans are stating that SC was not important because Obama was “expected” to win. He only won because he is the black candidate. Wasn’t it just a few years ago that Bill Clinton was the first black president? :eek:</p>
<p>Unbelievable. Hillary squeeked by in NH and Nevada and it was a major victory for her! Obama won in Iowa and it was a fluke.</p>
<p>I can’t wait for the post SC spin from the “machine”… :rolleyes:</p>
<p>bulletandpima: Oh, I definitely hear what you’re saying, but I predict the media (and the Obama campaign) will not let that go (long after everybody has forgotten about who the NYTimes endorsed). I just think it will be hugely positive for him. But, you know, I could be wrong. ;)</p>
<p>So I am trying to understand how all this works. I think I have about figured out the delegate/superdelegate thing. Superdelegates are individuals like elected politicians who can choose who to support without anyone else telling them which way to vote - is that correct? For regular delegates some States are win all lose all. Others the delegates can be divided between the candidates? Is that right. Why the difference? Each State’s choice?</p>
<p>And what happens to the votes of delegates won by someone who drops out of the race? Can they choose who to vote for, do they lose their right to vote? For instance if Edwards were to drop out what would his ‘delegates’ do?</p>
<p>NearL, I am sure your Cuba comment is tongue in cheek, so I will let that part go. But get used to choosing among two candidates you dislike when you go to the polls. I have choked back bile for the last several elections as I cast a vote for a candidate I did not like … because he was the less distasteful choice. It is what it is. You either have to make a choice or —as bulletandpima points out — you don’t get to complain. Well, actually, you DO get to complain (thanks to freedom of speech). Remember, though, if you go to Cuba, you won’t have that right anymore!!!</p>
<p>Clinton’s concession speech tonight was 2/3rds of one sentence long. MSNBC stopped showing it because she’s just doing a stump speech now. Machine is right.</p>
<p>momof2inca,</p>
<p>To quote Hillary, “that hurts my feelings”. 
</p>
<p>Please don’t get me wrong. I too feel that Barack is a very charismatic man, and I find his visions and words inpsriring. But after 2000, to quote the Who, I won’t get fooled again. I voted based on how the candidate felt, and so did a large part of this nation. We voted for GW becuase he was the candidate we felt we could share a beer with, whom we felt was one of us, a folksy guy next door. His opponent? Smart, energetic, but cold. Sort of likethe college professor we always admired, but made us feel he was thinking he was smarter than us. No, I will look beyond emotions this time and vote with my head. The last 8 years demand I do so.</p>
<p>A best leaders knows enough to know what his/her weaknesses are. He/she need not be an expert on everything. It is impossible to do that. He/she knows that in order to be an effective leader, surrounding yourself with knowledgeable, trustworthy people who can advise you is key. That’s the whole point in having a cabinet and advisers. A leader makes informed decisions that benefit the country (or company if they are a CEO). </p>
<p>The worst leaders are the ones who think they know it all</p>
<p>momof2inca: That was amazing, wasn’t it? She almost acted like SC didn’t even exist.</p>
<p>bulletandpima,
Well, I see your point. If you voted for W based on emotions, then you probably can’t trust yours. ;)</p>
<p>Bill Clinton was in Independence, MO giving a stump speech about himself. He was actually talking about what “he” has done recently, and how “he” could change the country if “we” win. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. He then proceeded to minimize the SC rout by Obama by saying that “we” will now hear from millions of people on super Tuesday.</p>
<p>I really think the guy has lost it. Did he forget that he is not running for president. Or is he??? 
</p>
<p>Well, at least Hillary will stand by her man, no matter what. Again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, that would be you, maybe, not “we.” I never voted for him (didn’t vote for his daddy, either.)</p>
<p>That is “we” as the United States of America</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, sorry. Gee, I thought we voted for Gore. But that’s a whole other topic . . .</p>
<p>what happens to the votes of delegates won by a candidate who drops out of the race?</p>
<p>Mo2Inca’s, I listened to Obama’s victory speech and wound up with the same sense of annoyance and the same renewed commitment to Hillary that is present every time I do listen to him. It’s political junk food, the equivalent of cotton candy. Vision is necessary but not sufficient. Indeed, the vision of the current occupant of the Oval Office is a small, crabbed, distorted thing that’s more horrifying than that of a fun house mirror.</p>
<p>But it’s one thing to talk of “hope” and “change” and “unity,” another to find the concrete path to secure cooperation on a broad range of policies from both sides of the aisle. Republicans aren’t going to suddenly give up on protecting the wealthy with tax cuts, pursuing a unilateralist and aggressive foreign policy, implementing religious-based views on policies of science, environment, and reproductive rights, etc. for a long long list, just because Barack Obama sings “Kumbayah.” As Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, there’s no “there” there.</p>
<p>jb: SC effectively won’t exist. Obama’s demographic formula from South Carolina–[(.8 x African American vote) + (.25 x White vote)]–is the formula for a stunning string of defeats on Super Tuesday. I stick my neck out and say that he wins 4-6 states and all the headlines and the lion’s share of the delegates are Hillary’s and after that she never looks back as Obama fades in a war of attrition.</p>
<p>Moreover, while no delegates are currently at stake, and despite his violating the pledge against campaigning in Florida (he’s airing cable TV ads), he’s going to get his clock cleaned in Florida. The primary may be an old-fashioned “beauty contest” but all the names are on the ballot. If I were Clinton, I’d fly into Florida Tuesday night for a victory party <em>after</em> the polls have closed.</p>
<p>Swimcatsmom: delegates are generally released by a candidate to vote for whomever they wish. Some candidates “suspend their campaigns” instead of “dropping out” so as to retain control over whatever delegates they have as a bargaining chip.</p>
<p>Edwards, barely clearing 15 percent in his second “home” state, is in deep trouble, even with respect to accumulating delegates.</p>
<p>^ The Clinton spin begins…</p>
<p>Seems to me Florida and Michigan have no delegates. Unless of course the Clinton machine <em>convinces</em> the DNC to change their minds. A clock cleaning in Florida means nothing.</p>
<p>Has anyone who questions Obama read “Audacity of Hope?” I recommend it.</p>
<p>TD: Well, Edwards is going to stick it out, and for that, I’m really glad. In my opinion, he is still the best candidate. And the more debates they have, the more votes and delegates he’ll pick up. He did much better in SC than what was predicted before that debate. So, get used to him, because he’s not going away any time soon. ;)</p>
<p>I know you love Hillary, and it is a remarkable and successful campaign she’s running, but there’s no doubt she and Bill did themselves some amount damage in the last couple of weeks. Maybe it ultimately won’t matter, but I look forward to upcoming debates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TheDad, respectfully, I think you are missing the point. If the people say they are fed up with the above (and if they empower a candidate like Obama by voting for him, then I think they are saying that) then it will end. I don’t demonize Republicans the way you do, perhaps because they are well represented among my friends and family, and so the idea of a Clinton-as-warrior-seeking-revenge is not palatable to me or to many of my moderate friends on both sides of the aisle. That is simply a recipe for this kind of crappy partisanship and blood politics to continue. </p>
<p>By the way, if the past 7 years have not proven how ill-conceived and irrational the “unilateralist and aggressive foreign policy” of the far right is then I doubt anything Clinton can do, say or legislate will matter. All we have to do is look around. </p>
<p>As for your prognostication, I unfortunately think you are right. She’s the machine and she will likely take the prize. I don’t know how the hell she will beat McCain though, so we could be in for a lot worse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, that’s my fear, too (and then we’ll never get out of this war).</p>