<p>Another person here who thought the thread was about running, but anyway, now that I am here…</p>
<p>I can totally see how Senator Clinton feels regarding her decision to stay in the race. This race has been so close throughout - gee, if the state primaries were in a different order than they were, Senator Obama may have well been in the same situation as far as the delegate count is concerned and people telling him to drop out…I would hate to be in a state that, by the time they had their primary, the race was pretty much over, and I would not have the opportunity to voice my preferred candidate (which would have been the case if I were not an independent in NY, since I think Edwards was already out by then)</p>
<p>On This Week with George Stephanopoulos Sunday, David Axelrod, the senior strategist for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, denied that his campaign was “trying to stir the issue up” over Sen. Hillary Clinton’s controversial remarks about Bobby Kennedy’s assassination.</p>
<p>But, as George pointed out, the Obama campaign had sent to reporters the transcript of Keith Olbermann’s commentary from Friday night’s Countdown on MSNBC (Watch that HERE) which eviscerates Clinton.</p>
<p>So? He’s not the one who made the comments, either Clinton’s or Olbermann’s. But he’s not a doormat, either. Would we want a c-in-c who kept turning the other cheek? I thought we wanted a president who is tough and not cry “I’ve been victimized!” every time things don’t go his or her way.</p>
<p>$213,000 out of well over $100 millions? Gimme a break. It just shows he doesn’t walk on water.</p>
<p>Practically all the women I know under 70 are supporting Obama, the ones over 70 prefer Clinton, though my impression is that most of them will vote for Obama if he’s the nominee. I think if you are a Democrat you’d be nuts to vote for McCain, as much as I respect him personally.</p>
<p>Oh, and I’m fine with Clinton staying in the race through all the primaries.</p>
<p>pratically EVERY woman I know over the age of 50 (who voted for Hillary in the primary) will not vote for Obama, they are all either sitting it out or voting for McCain. this is not what the Democrats want.</p>
<p>Thats their choice certainly, but it just makes them seem stubborn- my way or the highway types.
A quality that I don’t think is valuable in a president which is why this 50 yr old- blue collar woman- only briefly considered Clinton.</p>
<p>They’ll come around. As this piece from yesterday’s LA Times makes clear, whether it’s conservative Republicans who don’t like McCain, women who are bummed at Obama for “stealing” the nomination from their gal who for some reason thought she already owned it, or African Americans who are sore at the Clintons for playing the race card, the record shows that they will all very likely fall in line and vote their normal party affiliation come November:</p>
<p>“Both parties can rest easy. Despite ugly battles and policy differences that sometimes seem intractable, the reality is that presidential campaigns tend to unify each party behind its nominee. Political scientists call this phenomenon the “reinforcement effect.” It was described in 1940 in the first major study of a presidential campaign. The study’s authors – Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson and Hazel Gaudet – noted that voters tended to “join the fold to which they belong,” with Democrats gravitating to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Republicans to Wendell Willkie. These voters were not blindly following whichever shepherds their parties nominated, the study concluded. Rather, their partisan loyalties reflected their underlying values, and the parties’ nominees solidified their support by emphasizing these same values as the campaign unfolded.”</p>
<p>Yeah - it’s easy to pout in May, but I’d prefer to think that not all of Sueinphilly’s friends are as shallow as she makes them sound. For what it’s worth, my in-laws are basically “Reagan Democrats” but my 80 year old MIL voted for Obama in the primary - mostly because she loathes Bill Clinton.</p>
New politics of DC= NOT the Clintons
Change= Obama
Enough said.</p>
<p>You are not going to change my opinion Simba and I won’t change yours either. You can continue to spin for HRC and I respect your devotion, but I’m not buying.</p>
<p>“$213,000 out of well over $100 millions? Gimme a break. It just shows he doesn’t walk on water.”</p>
<p>In case you missed a sentence…</p>
<p>Clinton’s donations from both individual lobbyists (past and present) and from PACs account for just 1.1 percent of all the funds she has raised. That makes Obama’s claim that lobbyists are funding Clinton’s attacks about 98.9 percent false.</p>
<p>Simba, seriously, have you ever stepped back to look at the possibility that people, myself included, just don’t like the Clintons and how they operate? Have you ever thought that people don’t want a return to scandal after scandal, boat loads of baggage, and the fact that we want to look forward, not backward? Again, I admire your tenacity for your candidate of choice, however, there’s no need to denigrate those of us who choose a candidate with a fresh perspective, and a bright vision. Let’s just hope we are all on the same page come November.</p>
<p>fwiw, my unscientific survey isn’t based on my friends. One is my neighbor (70’s), a lady sharing the same van service home from the airport the other day (70’s), several coworkers (50’s), just random people I come across.</p>