<p>Iraq isn’t the issue. According to most polls, only 27% consider Iraq to be the most pressing issue. Most people consider the economy, gas prices, energy, environment, etc… all more important that the Iraq war. Just goes to show that just because a particular group of people say something is significant and that they somehow “Represent” the American people, doesn’t in fact mean that they do represent anyone. There are many groups that when they speak, people believe they are speaking on behalf of the majority. They aren’t. The NAACP is a prime example.</p>
<p>P.S. If Nader or any other left leaning candidate jumps into the race, then neither Obama or Clinton have a chance.</p>
<p>Well, I hope that McCain continues his “there will be more wars” campaign, because that is the true McCain, and if people want to ignore it, they can’t say they haven’t been warned.</p>
<p>Also, many of us believe there is a direct correlation between the war and the economy, so his stance hurts him indirectly as well.</p>
<p>ASAP; I know that you and 1sokkermom believe it is impossible to actually be “Bi-Partisan” and see a candidate from a neutral position. Definitely a “Fan” position. A “Supporter” is open to ALL DELEGATES and issues. A “FAN” isn’t open.</p>
<p>If you were to look at the facts openly, you would see certain truths. Hillary has actually been able to tap into Obama’s base and supporters. Obama hasn’t been able to really get into her base. Also; Obama hasn’t really won a single state that democrats normally HAVE TO WIN in November. California, New York, Penn, Ohio, etc… </p>
<p>These and other things are facts. They aren’t opinions. They aren’t from someone who is quivering in his shoes because he’s afraid of Obama because he thinks he will slaughter McCain. I am giving you facts. If Obama was as strong as you believe, he would have had his 2025 votes long ago. Basically, Obama and Hillary are dead even. You can believe all you want that because he has 130 more delegates, that he is the undisputed king of the democrats. Others will believe the same thing. But those delegates will mean absolutely nothing come november. What matters in the general election is whether Obama can beat McCain. He can’t even win one significant democratic state. How in the world do you think he’s going to get all those democrat states as well as win over certain republican states.</p>
<p>And of course, none of the “FANS” what to accept the fact that if the democratic delegates and primaries were run the same way as the Republicans, she would have WON months ago but a very large margin. The fact that the primaries is ran differently is the democrats problem. No big deal. Play by the rules. I don’t care. But the truth is; Obama spends 3-4 times more money than Clinton and can’t win 1 significant state. Significant is defined as a state that a democrat normally wins and must win in November. </p>
<p>Anyway; believe what you want. Believe that if you aren’t an Obama “FAN” that you can’t look at an election objectively. Believe that all the republicans are so afraid of Obama. Both Obama and Clinton are going to have a difficult time beating McCain. They’ve both proven to care more about themselves and their campaign than the issues. The longer the 2 of them battle, the better McCain looks to the country. And most definitely, if a 3rd party jumps in on the left side, then neither can beat McCain. Head to head, Hillary has the best chance. She can pull the mandatory democrat states and can pull some independents. Obama attracts a large group of people, such as the younger supporters, many of whom will not even show up in November. That too is a fact proven for 50 years.</p>
<p>So why are you so worked up? You have nothing at stake if you believe what you are saying. McCain has it in the bag (Nader is on a few ballots, I believe) no matter who wins this nomination. Sleep well!</p>
<p>See, ASAP; the same belief you have that every republican wants Hillary selected because they are afraid of Obama; is the same attitude of appearing to feel threatened by these republicans because you think your Boy could lose.</p>
<p>My position is that there are things about McCain AND Clinton that I can support. If either were elected, I see good and bad. For Obama; there has no come to the point where he has absolutely nothing to offer me. My involvement is only to present facts and hopefully people will review both these candidates and choose what is best for them. The “Fans” are still going to vote for Obama. Even if he admitted next month to multiple crimes, indecent actions, lying, etc… It wouldn’t matter. They are “Fans” and will still vote for him. But the supporters and independence who actually look at both candidates openly on a day to day basis, can choose openly and decide what is best for them.</p>
<p>“so should we not also call Hillary “our girl”?”</p>
<p>Well, have men historically addressed fully-grown white women they didn’t know as “Girl” in order to insult and demean them?</p>
<p>If not, then maybe it isn’t the same as calling a fully-grown black man “Boy.”</p>
<p>People do (unfortunately) refer to Hillary in various sexist ways that are close parallels to calling Obama “Boy.” “Girl” just isn’t on the list of loaded terms.</p>
<p>Sorry; but I will not make a conscious effort to be politically correct. I don’t believe in it and I WON’T go out of my way to do it.</p>
<p>I will however qualify my post and say that using the word Boy and Girl are not meant in a sexist, racist, or in an insulting or demeaning way. Where I live, and even where I grew up, it is NOTHING to say; “Hey girl” or “Boy, what’s up”.</p>
<p>Now that I’ve explained that there was nothing derogatory intended, that’s that. If you have to get over it, then I’m sure you will. I won’t however change my vocabulary. And trust me; if i was going to demean or insult Obama, Clinton, or McCain, it would not be subtle. It would be totally in the open. But I will not use Boy again in reference to Obama. I will say however that McCain is my boy.</p>
<p>We need to stop this about boy/girl. I am known to say to my girlfriend, hey girlfiriend, does that make me a lesbian? I also say to male friends hi sweetheart, am I having an affair. My girlfriend calls her husband boy. He is 47 yrs old. They also call their son boy. </p>
<p>I have also heard many people saying McCain is their boy, how is that anything different? It is only different if you make it different!
My father-in-law says Bill CLinton is his boy and Hillary is his girl! It has nothing to do with anything but a team player as far as he is concerned. If we become a nation that must worry about the selection of our words for fear that it may be misconstrued than we have hit the bottom, since it means we do not trust anyone and expect everyone to be against our stances and that we are not worthy to be respected.</p>
<p>Democrats won’t vote for him. He ticked off way too many people by acting as a spoiler in 2000 to have any kind of a shot. Most Democrats think of him as the crazy uncle in the attic…we’re not about to give him the keys to the Caddy, let alone the Keys to the Kingdom.</p>
<p>I hope you’re right novelisto. I didn’t like him spoiling 2000. I didn’t like Perot spoiling 1992. I believe that all parties; independent, libertarian, democrats, republican, etc… should all have to declare no later than 12 months prior to the general election.</p>
<p>I’d also like to see primaries finish by 1 May. That’s 6 months. (8 states a month). Each month a super-tuesday. Then, have debates between the different parties. Dems, Rep, Libertarians, independents, communist, etc… Allow them all to debate together. Then the people would have a true choice.</p>
<p>^^^Obama at one point was down 30 points to Hillary, he then campaigned and obtained so many more votes that he only lost by 9, contrary to the faulty rounding of the media (9.2 does not equal 10). In every state he has shown that the longer he campaign the more he improves, and improving 21 points in a state that was MADE for Hillary Clinton is impressive in itself. </p>
<p>And simba, why do you keep touting this “big state theory”. NO EXPERT SUPPORTS THAT THEORY. Do you really think the democrats are going to lose New York or California in November?? As soon as there are some substantive differences in the presidential election you will watch those states vote for Obama because they will vote DEMOCRATIC. </p>
<p>I’m guessing you buy into Clinton’s Magic Math theory in which somehow in her own little world she is ahead in the popular vote. Of course, that is only if you count Florida and Michigan, which she already agreed did not count, AND if you give Obama 0 votes from Michigan because his name wasn’t on the ballot…</p>
<p>The Democrats are not going to lose New York or (probably) California, but they could easily lose Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, without which there’s not much chance of victory. It’s true that a lot of the states where Obama has won are states that the Dems have NO chance of winning in November. South Carolina? Yeah, right.</p>
