<p>I’m not convinced that Hillary will prevail yet. I think the Clinton machine may be getting tired and old, and may be replaced by a new and improved model. I am so sick of the rhetoric that both Clintons spewed out in their concession speeches. It made me nauseous. It just emphasizes that it really is time for change, and we won’t get change by nominating Bill’s wife Hillary. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>If you think that Obama being elected President will change how all the House and Senate members pursue their agendas, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Fwiw, Clinton is probably a far far less of a revenge-seeking warrior than I am. More’s the pity.</p>
<p>Btw…very fluid more than 9 months before the election but current polls show that Clinton beats McCain. And this with Clinton being beaten up and McCain hardly scratched. I love the idea of Clinton going after McCain in a campaign. She’d beat him around like a pinata.</p>
<p>^ We all know how the polls have been so accurate. </p>
<p>However, some current polls are actually saying that Obama could beat McCain with a much wider margin than Clinton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1SM, what do you know of the history of primary campaigns? Of the effects of primaries, whether they award delegates or not? Or the mechanisms by which conventions settle disputes? (Hint: it’s not for “the DNC to change their minds.”) </p>
<p>On of the few things that Ross Perot said that was right was that the devil is in the details. It helps to know the details before forming an opinion.</p>
<p>That’s right. I forgot that TheDad and tommybill are not only Hillary fanatics, but are the cc election “experts”. Hint: I probably know more than you think. ;)</p>
<p>Bill Clinton is an “expert” too. He made use of his Jessification skills this afternoon by noting that the young, exciting, African-American candidate (he left out “virile”) should be expected to do well, as Jesse Jackson had in 1984 and 1988. What he conveniently failed to say was the he - Bill Clinton - swamped the competition (a weak Paul Tsongas) in 1992.</p>
<p>What he will fail to say tomorrow is that the new Jesse’s percentage of the vote against his wife was not much lower than his own.</p>
<p>My fears, exactly:</p>
<p>NYT: <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html?ref=opinion[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html?ref=opinion</a></p>
<p>In a McCain vs. Billary race, the Democrats will sacrifice the most highly desired commodity by the entire electorate, change; the party will be mired in d</p>
<p>There is a difference in 2002, too. McCain voted for the War and the aggressive, hostile occupation having read the intelligence. Hillary didn’t even bother. So much for the “experienced” Democrat.</p>
<p>[Clinton</a> wants Michigan, Florida delegates to get convention seats - NewsFlash - mlive.com](<a href=“http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/politics-1/1201281691181690.xml&storylist=michigannews]Clinton”>http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/politics-1/1201281691181690.xml&storylist=michigannews)</p>
<p>‘"When Sen. Clinton was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, she made it clear that states like Michigan and Florida that wouldn’t produce any delegates `don’t count for anything.’ Now that Sen. Clinton’s worried about losing the first Southern primary, she’s using Florida for her own political gain by trying to assign meaning to a contest that awards zero delegates and where no campaigning has occurred."'</p>
<p>So I still believe a clock cleaning in Florida means squat! And Hillary has changed her opinion about something to suit her needs again. What a surprise…</p>
<p>“Hint: it’s not for “the DNC to change their minds.”)</p>
<p>Hint: Nothing 1SM stated was incorrect concerning the Florida delegates. Hillary, as usual, is whining again and attempting to change the rules to suit her ambitions.</p>
<p>[Campaign</a> notebook: Clinton wants to restore all of Florida’s delegates | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle](<a href=“http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5487294.html]Campaign”>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5487294.html)</p>
<p>Cross-posted</p>
<p>THEDAD: Your rant about white voters is fruitless. Obama won in Iowa by 8 percentage votes and well I was in Iowa, and let’s say you can’t get any more White than there. And if you look at whites under 60 he was able to get more of those voters than Clinton.</p>
<p>White voters over 60 in SOuth Carolina are irrelevant for Democrats, +which is t he only group Clinton did well in+ , primary or general election. These would be people who grew up during segregation and live in a state where the confederate flag is on state grounds. Those people can go to Hell for all I care.</p>
<p>Florida and Michigan will be and were irrelevant not because of delegate count or lack thereof. They will be irrelevant because it won’t be covered as a news story. Only Clinton’s people will talk about it. Those contests aren’t any kind of reliable gauge because noone campaigned there. Hillary Clinton will just win it based on name basis. </p>
<p>Nevada wasn’t really covered either. We have 3 primary/caucuses covered for the DEMS in actuality. Obama won Iowa and Nevada by 8 and 20+ points respectively. NH was only won by 2 points because the Hil-beast cried.</p>
<p>I am a liberal Democrat who plainly refuses to vote for her. She reminds of those old-school interest group/machine politicians that only appeal to deranged old, men. </p>
<p>And those Republican vermins that infest these Democratic primary threads and attack Hillary don’t help a bit. We don’t need help from the “SHEETS”. Republican attacks on Hillary during the primary just antagonizes Democrats into voting for her. And franky the right-wing paranoia with HRC is beyond rationality. She’s the most conservative Democrat running for the White House and also the one most likely to lose. You guys shoud be rooting for her . That’s why liberal Democrats like me are rooting for Mormon Mitt, Ayatalloah Huckabee, and Crookiani. The only Republican that is viable in a general will be McCain and he may not be able to last the primaries.</p>
<p>GUCLA, Obama had the luxury of spending months on the ground in Iowa and it’s a low-number contest that makes it fairly easy to win a turnout war. 22 states in 10 days isn’t the same thing, though some again are caucus states. And you have to go through all sorts of contortions to think that voters in Florida are deaf/dumb/blind and not know about Obama and Edwards. If turnout in Florida among Democrats is high and Hillary wins in double digits, I think you’ll be hearing about it.</p>
<p>And you can whine all you want about Florida and Michigan but their delegates will be seated eventually by the convention, which has the final say, not the DNC.</p>
<p>Momof2Incas: btw, since you find my outlook so harsh, I’m curious, during the past seven years, when speaking with your Republican family members and friends, did you ever tell them that they’d taken rabid partisanship too far and that a pushback was going to come hard someday? </p>
<p>I’ve met lots of people who are now suddenly decrying the tone and partisanship in politics. The overwhelming majority either cheered the Bush administration on or just shrugged.</p>
<p>But can Hillary Clinton win over WHITE voters?</p>
<p>She lost the white vote in Iowa.</p>
<p>She didn’t get close to a priority of white voters in New Hampshire.</p>
<p>She lost the white vote in Nevada.</p>
<p>She lost the white vote in South Carolina. Worse, approximately 65% of white voters voted against her.</p>
<p>White voters don’t like her. Perhaps if she could get more support among white leaders…</p>
<p>More on Florida from MSNBC: "*** The Florida exhibition game: But what about Florida? Last night, in her concession statement, Clinton said, “We now turn our attention to the millions of Americans who will make their voices heard in Florida and the 22 states as well as American Samoa who will vote on February 5th.” Yet because Florida moved up its primary before February 5, the DNC stripped the state of all of its delegates, rendering the contest nothing more than a beauty contest or an exhibition game. So as we now head into the playoffs, Team Clinton believes that an upcoming exhibition game should matter. As the Obama campaign shot back in a statement yesterday afternoon, “It should not be surprising given recent events that the Clinton campaign would in one breath say the election is about winning delegates and then tout their success in states that don’t award any delegates in the next breath… If the Clinton campaign’s southern strength rests on the outcome in a state where they’re the only ones competing, that should give Democrats deep pause.”</p>
<p>I also read that all Democratic candidates made a pledge not to campaign in Florida. It is really astounding that Clinton doesn’t have to keep her pledge and she gets another free pass from all the Billary obsessed! (or is it possessed?) 
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TheDad, fortunately, politics did not come up all that often (polite company and all) and when it did, my Republican friends and family members were chagrined mostly at the loser President/VP they had helped to vote into office. They were mostly quietly embarrassed and seemed betrayed by their party. The Republicans that I know never pushed for this kind of blood sport and certainly never took glee in it, and so I never had to threaten them with a “pushback” at some later date. I guess I don’t hang out with enough of the fringe element on either side. Nobody I know on the Democratic side seems hungry for extreme political revenge (okay, my H and a community activist friend are exceptions to that when they get to drinking); most of us just long for a good old fashioned enema to the Executive Office (Congress seems to have gotten theirs on the last round) and to insist that the legislative branch operate by the people and for the people. But the people have to wake up first, which is why Obama is exciting. His message is waking people up. </p>
<p>But don’t mistake my distaste for eye-for-eye revenge as a lack of passion for righting the wrongs of the past 8 years. I am passionate about ending the war, helping the low/middle income, fixing our pathetic healthcare system, finding a solution to illegal immigration, repairing our reputation abroad, ending special interest influence, ending torture, solving our reliance on oil through green technology and investment and checking the new powers of the Executive Office. And yeah, I’m angry about what has happened. I just think fixing things through a combination of intelligent legislation and partisanship is a long-term solution and better for us as a country. Karl Rove’s politics disgust me to the core, no matter what side of the aisle they occur because they take advantage of people and manipulate people to vote against their own overall well-being. If the Dems start doing this, too, then I will lose all hope and move to Canada or Belize or where ever. If that makes me a pollyanna, I can live with it. If Obama gets into office and somehow can’t make the changes we need because he’s too “nice” or Congress is too “mean” then I will admit we squandered our only chance in Hillary. But at this point, I’m not convinced that a roll-back to the 90s with the Clintons and their machine is our only hope. </p>
<p>Now let me ask you, do you have any Republican friends or family (in real life, not on the Internet), and if so, do your conversations with them end up in shouting matches or is it possible to find common ground with them?</p>
<p>Bipartisanship gave us NAFTA, WTO, global warming and global pollution, export of American jobs, genocide in Iraq and a half a million dead children, failure to act against genocide in Rwanda, 14% of Black male voters disenfranchised (because of Clinton’s “drug law reform”), war and aggressive, hostile occupation in Iraq, Patriot Act, tax loopholes for oil companies, and tax giveways to the rich. Bipartisanship is a sham.</p>
<p>(Clinton lost among elderly voters.)</p>
<p>I think there are a few Billion people out there who are enjoying the opportunity for trade and development now coming to their long backward countries.</p>
<p>Yes barrons, and also a few billion mourning the effects of continued US (and EU) protectionism - especially in the agricultural markets.</p>
<p>And millions mourning the growing dearth of US manufacturing jobs, and even service industry jobs to South Asia.</p>