<p>Actually, the black vote in national elections is fairly small. Its importance is artificially increased in primaries because the DNC rules award extra delegates to districts that voted Democratic in the last Presidential cycle. With a dreadful Dukakis-like candiate like Kerry, the only Democratic districts were urban districts with large black populations – the same five districts Obama won in Missouri, the same few districts he won in Ohio, in Penn, etc.</p>
<p>To win national elections Democrats have to make inroads in suburban and rural districts in key swing states like Ohio and Florida. The brain-dead delegate system penalizes candidates who do that. The entire Democratic nominating system is designed to ensure the Party gets Dukakis like candidates. Then, for the DNC to turn around and disenfranchise Florida and Michigan to steal an election like a third-world bananna republic? </p>
<p>This is why Democrats have only elected one President in 36 years. If they are this inept at politics, is it any wonder that the American voters think they are too out of touch to run the country? McCain is going to win handily. Having blown this election, the Democratic Party as we know it is basically done.</p>
<p>I completely agree with CelticClan. She only wants to debate because it’s free air time. They can’t possibly have anything left to argue about. I used to watch them all, but now I just cringe.</p>
<p>I agree that there seems to be something fundamentally and fatally flawed in the way the Democrats select candidates for the Presidential election. They ultimately seem intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Whenever you see the Republican spokespersons on the talking heads show, they smirk and openly admit that they are loveing the way the Democrats seem to be self destructing—again:rolleyes: They’re reclining with a bowl of popcorn to watch yet another Democratic circular firing squad. </p>
<p>This year, all the Democrats who seemed most logically qualified failed to achieve traction in light of the glare created by the “superstar” and the “heir apparent”. As far as being painted as, “out of touch”, the “heir apparent” has done a spectacular job of hanging her Democratic opponent with this label. All the Repubs have to do later is raise their hands and shout, “Ditto!—What she just said…” If she manages to win the nomination, the Republicans probably already have their searing attacks all lined up and ready to fire (seeing as the Dems have given them an eternity to prepare such ammo), starting with her biggest liability, Bill Clinton. Wait until the electorate gets reminded of just how much baggage the Clintons still have:rolleyes: One thing the Clintons are correct about, is their insistence that “the black guy” is simply not electable. Truth is, he could be Jesus, and still not able to get over the racial hump—we’ve just not come that far, and I think everybody here knows that. So the Dems have painted themselves into a corner—yet again, and deserve what they have coming to them. </p>
<p>Bill Clinton is the biggest asset the Democratic Party has. Those outside of the latte-shops in Cambridge will note that the rest of the country is suffering incredible economic hardship. Guess what? The last Democratic Party President led the country to eight years of rapidly increasing employment, wage gains, and balanced budgets? Any smart Party would ride that horse to an election win…</p>
<p>So what do the Democrats do? Throw a coordinated attack, complete with racially-charged Spike Jones/Malcolm X language at him to false paint the only Democratic Party President in 36 years as a racist. This, despite the fact, that his offices are in Harlem and his foundation provides low cost AIDS drugs to tens of millions of people of color around the globe.</p>
<p>How brain dead can the Democratic Party be? Would Republicans do this to Ronald Reagan?</p>
<p>Democrats lose because the deserve to lose. They are inept. And, don’t even get me started on governing. Anybody want to sing the praises of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?</p>
<p>Nobody who’s only experience before running for President is in a state legislature is electable. The Amercian public expects Presidential candidates to have experience at the highest levels of state or federal government and to have done things like…oh, I dunno…visited Europe.</p>
<p>Actually, it’s the just opposite. The only reason on earth a state senator would even be considered for the nomination is because he is an attractive black candidate. If Obama were white, he’d still be a part-time state senator.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t matter how much U.S. Congressional experience “the black guy” had. At the end of the day, not enough people can see a black President. That day has not yet come.</p>
<p>BTW, What “Spike Jones/Malcolm X language” would that be? And nobody does “coordinated attack” like the Clintons. Obama’s an amateur in comparison.</p>
<p>In fairness interesteddad, Obama has been legislating for a longer duration than HRC. So I give him the win for experience <'97-'04> and now, the U.S. senate. She has only been an elected legislator <by way=“” of=“” husbands=“” coat=“” tails,=“” but=“” i=“” digress=“”> since 2000. By my count, Obama blows by HRC with actual legislative experience. I’m confident this will not change your opinion, nor you mine, but I think this is a fair part of the debate. HRC does not have the monopoly on ‘experience’ and she should not pretend to.</by></p>
<p>Let’s just see what happens. None of us has a crytal ball, and McCain hasn’t had a chance yet to show the public who he is ( who he is this year, anyway ;))
McCain and the democratic candidates are very different in their approach to our nation’s problems, and we need a few debates about those differences. If I were McCain, I’d be worried that the Dems are as close to him as they are in the polls, given that all they’ve done is rip at each other for the last couple of months.</p>
<p>I think that if Hillary had not been married to an ex-President, she would never even have been a Senator. I think that this country is ready for a woman President, just NOT this one! This woman is a known liar with an ambition to win at all cost. Those are the only attributes that have propelled her thus far.</p>
<p>Out of touch and empty may indeed be a breath of fresh air after all. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>1sokkermom: Do you think her ambition would be a detriment in office? I happen to think it would make her very effective, vs. what I think would happen to Obama, namely being cut apart after the realization that preaching words of hope doesn’t get controversial bills passed.</p>
<p>I will take a small quote from a recent editorial by a Mr. Wattree, that answers your question about Hillary’s “ambition”. Many see it as a huge detriment.</p>
<p>…"And therein lies the problem–if the Clinton campaign hasn’t shown anything else, it has clearly demonstrated that Hillary’s needs, wants, and desires come first–before friends, before party, before country–and that’s an exceedingly ugly trait, even to us little people.</p>
<p>Previously, Clinton supporters viewed Hillary’s single-mindedness as a sign of focus and determination, but the mean-spirited scratching, clawing, and lying that she’s done during these primaries have betrayed a serious flaw in her character–a desperate, even, pathological need for power, and at any cost.</p>
<p>So, yes, Clinton supporters are beginning to jump ship in unprecedented numbers. Many remember the early years, so they’re leaving with deep regret. But Hillary’s extreme behavior has awakened their sense of responsibility, so they must leave, as a simple matter of conscience." …</p>