<p>If Hillary would have been the nominee i would have voted for her in an instant not so much for Obama.</p>
<p>New Polls out Today: McCain’s lead in Alabama increased by 5 points to +20. McCain up in Arizona by 10, from +9 to +19. He is now up by +6 pts in Florida. </p>
<p>Obama has gone from +23 to +9 in Masschusetts, losing 14 points. And McCain is now ahead in the Daily Rasmussen Poll and Tied in the Gallup Poll.</p>
<p>And you guys have no doubt that Obama is gonna win?</p>
<p>Look - I want a Democrat in the WH as much as anyone, but I did not want someone who has NO experience, can’t speak without a teleprompter, and is running on nothing but hype and speeches. </p>
<p>Hillary would be winning easily right now, there’s so many states she was polling ahead of McCain in:</p>
<p>Ohio
Florida
West Virginia
Kentucky
North Carolina
Arkansas
Missouri</p>
<p>Those are 7 states Obama cannot win now - but Hillary was polling ahead of McCain. We could have a CAPABLE democrat in the whitehouse, but idiots fell for the media pushing Obama on us. Ever realized most of the media is OWNED by Republicans? Really think they wanna face Hillary?</p>
<p>As I’ve said many times, I’m voting for Obama because he’s the next best thing to Hillary. However, I do think it’s interesting that so many people were blinded by Obama’s wins in the primary season in Republican states. Winning Alabama to a Democrat in a primary is a much different animal than taking on a Republican in Alabama in a Presidential race. Hillary was clearly the stronger candidate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh man more affirmative action. I have to respond. We’re talking averages. One outlier or several outliers do not change the concept of an average student. Clearly, you’re qualified for Cornell and I’m sure you’ll be able to do well because you most likely have the tools. But so many black students are not.</p>
<p>I’m getting this from the Cornell American and they don’t cite their source, but I’ve heard similiar numbers from other schools.</p>
<p>“The average SAT score of a black Cornell student is 162 points LOWER than the average white student. And 183 points LOWER than the average Asian student.”</p>
<p>Seriously, I’m so done with AA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re forgetting accusing anyone who disagrees with him of racism and the fawning of gullible yuppies.</p>
<p>I will say this, Soccer_guy: be cautious of polls. They are often flawed, and as such a big Hillary follower, you should know that after the primary season.</p>
<p>I love how people cite that Hillary has more experience than Obama. Hillary has 4 more years in the Senate than Obama. In that time she voted for the war in Iraq, among other things. Sure, she was the first lady, but I don’t see other first ladies doing that much. She was assigned the task of dealing with health care 10 years ago. She failed. Her experience in the white house is failing at passing policy. That and getting shot at in Bosnia. Obama was in the Illinios State Senate and has done some other stuff. </p>
<p>Had Hillary come from behind and won the nomination, Dems would have a better backing from blue collar whites, but would lose a ton of support from blacks who would probably feel like their chance at having a president was stolen after Obama essentially wrapped up the nomination. Both Hillary and Obama pale in comparison to McCain in terms of experience.</p>
<p>Soccerguy, do you think Hillary would take NC away from Republicans? I think Obama has just as good of a chance at wining as Hillary would. If I were a real Democrat I would strongly consider disbanding the party if they lose the election in November. Everything is set up for Democrats to win, yet they still might not. How bad of a party do you have to be to not win an election in this atmosphere?</p>
<p>venkat89…there are more women than blacks…and there are black women too…</p>
<p>GO HILLARY! <3</p>
<p>Venkat, Hillary’s experience as First Lady certainly counts for experience - she was one of the President’s top advisers for 8 years, and she had a very active role in his administration - much more so than any other First Lady in her husband’s respective administration. And as far as health care goes, it’s true that Hillary wasn’t able to get it passed. But that’s not so much a testament to her ability to be effective as it is to the insurance companies’ ability to spread misinformation. Insurance companies and other groups that opposed universal health care spent more than 300 million dollars to defeat the legislation by misleading the public about the health care reform.</p>
<p>That said, experience doesn’t necessarily equate to a better president. John McCain, who doesn’t understand the economy (those are his words), is IMO much less qualified for the job than Hillary (even though he has more experience).</p>
<p>It would be sad for the Democratic Party to lose this election, but it wouldn’t be surprising. We have a history of losing elections we should have won.</p>
<p>Coolman, I do know how bad polls are in regards to Obama. In the primary, Obama usually over-polled. So I’m sure he’s doing the same now. If anything, I’d be even more worried if I was an Obama supporter.</p>
<p>And yeah, Venkat, I think Hillary has a lot more experience than Obama. Being first lady to the Gov. of Arkansas and First Lady to the president, as well as being Senator for 8 years. She took an active role as first lady, she had her own office.</p>
<p>And as for her health plan “failing” - it makes me sick when people say that. Her Health care plan was almost identical to the one she offered in the primaries, and offered reduced healthcare for the poor, etc. The insurance companies, afraid of losing money (as usual, money is all people care about in this country), ran an ad campaign against her to make it fail. I’m sure they bought of congressmen and Senators too - thus her plan never passed. The plan itself was not flawed.</p>
<p>Plus, in regards to her healthcare plan, you need to realize that this whole thing happened in Bill Clinton’s first term. Every Republican in Congress (except for one who later changed his position because of pressure) opposed the plan because they knew it wold make Clinton a shoo in for a second term. The whole thing was very political, and that really hurt its chances of success.</p>
<p>I really dont understand those who supported Hillary, but are now voting for McCain. It just doesnt make sense to me. If all of you guys supported Hillary for her views on political issues and policies then wouldnt it make more sense to vote for someone who has very similar views than someone whos views are basically the complete opposite of who you supported. Even if Obama’s campaign did cheat and his speeches arent filled with real information most of the time(btw idk why you guys are complaining about Obama’s speeches have you guys heard McCain’s? I dont know how i dont fall asleep while hearing him give speeches. He has absolutely no feeling in his speeches.) shouldnt you guys vote for obama because hes views on issues are similiar to Hillary’s. If it was the other way around and Hillary won the nomination and supposedly cheated on her campaign, i would still want Hillary to win because her views were similiar to Obama’s instead of McCain whos views are pretty much the opposite of Obama’s.</p>
<p>mccain has been known to be a moderate compared to obama…</p>
<p>hillary was moderate as well…</p>
<p>Lightzout - I’m sure you’d love us to just say “oh well…Obama’s closer to Hillary…let’s vote for him!” but it isn’t that easy.</p>
<p>First off - it’s not all about policies. I don’t trust him. Think of it this way - if your plumber said he had all of Obama’s policies, would you support him for President? No. Policy does not make a president.</p>
<p>I like Hillary because I trusted her. I trusted her to work hard, to do what’s right, and fix our country. I see Obama as an idiot that will screw everything - I don’t care if he has the same skeleton of a policy as Hillary - he ISN’T Hillary.</p>
<p>Lastly - Obama can only go two ways. Either he is in there for 8 years, or he’s in there for 4 then a Republican takes over. Either way - it sucks for 8 years minimum. With McCain - he’s old, he may not run a second term, and he will most likely not win a second term if he did. Hillary can come back and win in 4 years.</p>
<p>God, Soccer Guy, you really hold a grudge.</p>
<p>You keep accusing Obama of just being this empty talker. Have you tried listening to him at all since the early part of the campaign? Last night he gave an incredibly detailed energy proposal in Michigan. </p>
<p>The choice is someone who is committed to ending any need for Middle East oil in 10 years while launching an entirely new economy to drive global sustainability or someone who has realized that talking about drilling for oil makes his polls go up (even though he was staunchly opposed to it before).</p>
<p>I don’t know why you think Obama’s an idiot (even his most ardent detractors acknowledge he is extremely intelligent), but he has the potential to really redefine the United States and turn the corner. Perhaps Hillary would have done it better, perhaps not. Either way, this is where we are. I think you need to get over this grudge, accept that politics is really dirty no matter who’s playing, and make a mature decision for the betterment of all of society based on the options that have emerged. </p>
<p>Regarding the possibility of caucus cheating, you should make sure that if it happened it was orchestrated by the Obama campaign. Any group of fanatical supporters could have rented a bus and done that without any knowledge from or support by Obama.</p>
<p>And even if it was the Obama campaign, I would implore you to find a campaign that has never done something unethical. Obviously Bush rigged the 2000 and 2004 elections based on overwhelming evidence. There’s pretty ample evidence that even the much lauded JFK rigged the election. </p>
<p>I, too, would have been more comfortable with Hillary. But she didn’t find her voice until well past the midpoint of the campaign. She didn’t become the “blue collar hero” until it was too late. She would have taken on any number of personalities to secure votes. Her demographic used to be Obama’s. But the primary’s over. Let’s move on.</p>
<p>Obama? Idiot?</p>
<p>Say what you want about Obama, but he is not an idiot as both his first book and the recent New Yorker expose reveal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dontno -
No, I got the analogy. It’s the most played out analogy ever used. It’s been used for many decades now. You’re simply missing the larger point of where success truly lies. You’re not alone - it’s pretty much how our entire society views it, so I don’t blame you. Just don’t attack what you don’t understand.</p>
<p>And as for your “New Age” attack (didn’t see that obvious one coming), I will simply say that I come to my understanding of science from firsthand experience on the frontiers of human consciousness. I come to it from the realm of technologies derived from those frontiers and from experiences that shatter the perceived boundary between the reality perceived by science and the reality perceived by spirituality. It’s far from an “archaic view on faith”, but thanks.</p>
<p>woah, that was long-winded dude.</p>
<p>anyway, it’s pretty clear that obama’s celebrity, which everyone seems to be ridiculing, actually has significant merits that are going to show themselves in international relations. the world image of america is going to change.</p>
<p>[How</a> they see us: What a black president would mean for Europe - THE WEEK](<a href=“http://www.theweekdaily.com/article/index/43026/3/3/How_they_see_us_What_a_black_president_would_mean_for_Europe]How”>http://www.theweekdaily.com/article/index/43026/3/3/How_they_see_us_What_a_black_president_would_mean_for_Europe)</p>
<p>McCain is polling ahead because of some timely smear tactics (+ a poor response by Obama) and a ‘favorable’ offshore drilling stance, which he fails to mention won’t have a significant effect on oil prices at all. Obama’s swagger will show in the debates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who else saw the energy proposal? I was actually pretty impressed. It looks like Obama is actually starting to shape up- he is starting to have tangible policies now rather than just a blanket “change” policy.</p>
<p>Mccain keeps on saying we have to drill in Alaska, but I read somewhere that the logistics of that only work out for the long-term. By the time we get a drop of oil out of Alaska, I read somewhere that 9 years would have passed since we started the process of drilling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hate Bush, but what “overwhelming evidence” is there to suggest this? Just out of curiosity? (maybe I’m just being ignorant)</p>