Serious questions for Clinton supporters

I'm not writing this as flame bait. Please keep your answers civil -- both Clinton and Obama supporters.

But after last night, it is flat-out impossible for Clinton to win this nomination. She could take it all the way to the convention and she will not win. The supers will not break for her. She has no money and will not get much more after last night's disaster, so she'll be lucky if she even MAKES it to the convention. We could include her "wins" in Florida and Michigan, as is, and she still could not clinch either the popular vote or the necessary delegate count.

I understand that you admire her and want her to be President. But in light of that impossibility at this point, why do you insist that she continue this race? Don't you feel, for the good of the party -- the party we all support and want to prevail in November -- that Hillary should step aside and allow Obama to start campaigning against McCain so that we (WE, not just Obama) actually CAN win the GE?

Again, I'd like civil answers. Hopefully reasoned ones, as well. Think about it a moment, then give me an answer that makes logical sense.

And please, no arguing that she can still win the nomination. That's an emotional argument, not a logical one.

So long as I have a choice between someone who promises universal healthcare and someone who doesn't, I choose the former.

She does not and has never proposed universal "healthcare". What she has proposed is universal health "insurance". Everybody will be paying premiums to Hillary's supporters in the insurance bidness with no guarantee as to whether or not we will get any kind of "care" out of it.

Do you have health insurance now? Does it suck? More of that is what Hillary is advocating.

I'm self employed with two kids in college and two others, I pay out of pocket for everything and it's killing me. I am a building contractor, my best earning days are behind me.

I would love to see Hillary's plan be law.

Too bad we're stuck with the choices we are left with

bill from ct

In reality, tens of millions of people do not have access to healthcare. The emergency care they do have is inadequate, expensive and passed off onto those who can pay.

Under the Obama plan, tens of millions of people will still not have insurance. The difference is, once they get sick they can opt into an insurance pool which will then absorb the costs of illnesses that may have been preventable had the individual participated. In this paradigm, it makes no rational sense to opt for insurance before getting catastrophically sick - because you're not bearing the risk, society is.

No matter how much insurance sucks, not having insurance sucks worse.

bill from ct

It is arguable which path to universal healthcare is better. I like his. Have you looked at it?

(out of a kilometer) to what I'd like.

a Clinton canvasser stopped to talk to me at my local coffee shop. This WAS NOT a typical campaign worker. It was Rep Schwartz from PA (I think she represents Philadelphia.) I asked her about this. Is the Clinton Health Care Plan meant to be a first step towards real Universal Health Care, or a be all, end all in itself. She told me that it was meant as a solution. Not a step towards a better solution(such as true Universal Health Care). My feeling is that Obama's proposals would be actually easier to modify (eventually) to a Universal Health Care system.

In reality, until everyone participates, it won't be cheap. It's a dead end that will prove to the naysayers, once again, that public healthcare solutions are failures.

Hillary's plan allows people to choose public insurance as one of the options. If administered conscientiously, public insurance will most likely become the insurer of choice.

I don't.

I wouldn't dare "insist" upon anything from Sen. Clinton. Not that she stay in. Not that she drop out.

But, she is the policy wonk. And that's what I support.

...is a great candidate but a lousy nominee. After Tuesday, however, I don't think that argument holds water. Whose mind is left to change, anyway?

Plea for time! Not a reason, just a request. You are certainly free to ask, but we are asking WHY you ask us?

It's information. I don't have to request anything of you, nor does Hillary. She'll end this when she's ready. The OP asked why Hillary would continue with the race, and I offered an explanation.

I asked for logical arguments from Clinton SUPPORTERS. Hillary will do her own thing no matter what any of us think.

that points to a logical argument for Hillary to stay in the race. If your suggestion were true, people like Wesley Clark and McGovern would not be calling for her to step down. If Clinton drops out now, nobody will be paying even the slightest attention to the remaining primaries. Well, some of us will, certainly, but most won't.

The argument just doesn't hold water.

Now, I might agree that Clinton is trying to work a backroom deal to get something out of this whole thing (VP? Senate Majority), and that's expected, but that still doesn't point to dragging this thing out for another month. The longer she continues, the worse it is for the Democratic party.

Mine.

or I'll write-in her name, haven't made up my mind yet.

and nobody can deny that. I remember emailing the secretary of the Green Party to politely ask if they could support Gore, should he look like he needs it.
The fricking asshole threatened to sue me for even suggesting it!!!

To me the Green Party is the New Red party because I see red everytime I even think about that moment.

Neither candidate can reach the 2025 "pledged" delegates needed to clinch without the SDs. So when you say "it's flat-out impossible for Clinton to win this nomination" you're being disingenous by failing to also say "it's flat-out impossible for Obama to win this nomination."

And the SDs aren't bound by any plurality statistics: they are only sworn to vote their conscience about who they believe will make the best President, and who they believe has the best chance of winning in November. With the SDs, either candidate can (and one of them will) win.

They will go to Obama. There's no question about it at this point. To do otherwise is political suicide.

Do you imagine you're psychic? You know what every SD is thinking and can predict how each will vote come the Convention?

Wow. That must be quite a burden to bear.

I think what you're really saying without admitting to it is that as an Obama supporter, if the Super Delegates decide this race in favor of Clinton because enough of them truly believe she is the more "electable" candidate vs. McCainus, you'll be hopping mad and screaming all kinds of obscenities about their supposedly "overturning the will of the people".

All candidates got into this race knowing how the system worked, and what the rules are. Now that the Super Delegate rules pose a realistic threat to Obama's candidacy, his supporters want to change/break the rules, or merely project their bias and dreams onto the collective wills of the Super Delegates.

Unless you really think that Clinton will win ALL of the unpledged superdelegates, when they've been breaking 2 to 1 for Obama and are likely to make it even more lopsided soon.

This magical thinking that everything is even because Obama won't hit 2025 with only pledged delegates is simple fantasy. It's like saying that a baseball team can come back from being down 25 runs in the bottom of the 9th inning with two outs, two strikes, and nobody on base. One candidate has clearly won.

Neither candidate can reach the magic number by PD's alone by August. But, there is absolutely no way that Sen Clinton can be in the lead going into Denver. If the SD's don't respect that lead, the result would smack of smoke-filled back-room politics. I don't think that is the image the supposed Party of the people would want to project. I can't imagine anything else that would show that individual voter's don't matter! Is that what we want? The record turn-outs that have been enjoyed during this primary season would disappear like the smoke from those back-rooms.

Florida and Michigan?

Do those "individual voters" matter?

familiar with the concept of following the rules? What do you suggest be the consequence for breaking the rules?

and the hypocrisy of Obama's "people powered" campaign.

I mean, if Obama's folks can make up "rules" about how superdelegates are supposed to follow the "will of the voters" - where, then, do Florida and Michigan fit in? Oh, that's right - those 2.7 million voters who expressed their will are outside of those "rules" because they broke another set of "rules".

Yes, the SD's can vote anyway they damn well want to. They might even be able to vote for Richard Nixon if they really believe that that is the best course for the party. My point has been, and I really believe that the SD's will also see it this way, that to reverse the PD vote is not a good idea.(and incredibly unlikely) To the best of my knowledge, the Democratic Party is not an Oligarchy.

Do you really think that folks will roll over and support the candidate chosen by the few SD's in a smoky back room in flagrant disregard of the primary process? The Republicans would have a field day, and rightly so!


As for MI/FL, they knew they would be punished. They called a bluff that wasn't a bluff. That's their fault. I'm sorry. Put better leadership in place so it won't happen again. And, by the way, this should have been an issue before the Primaries began. Not after it was determined that Senator Clinton would benefit!

how is that a "flagrent disregard of the primary process". Super delegates are part of the process. Those are the "rules".

really think it's a good idea to promote the idea that average Joe's vote doesn't count? And how will you justify the waste of millions of dollars on the primaries and caucuses.

chance of winning in the general election. An argument can be made that the process itself, particularly the caucuses, can overstate a candidate's strength. The Democratic Party's primary process has a history of putting forth weak general election candidates - and that's why the super delegate system was started, to possibly override -

That's a decision the SD's have to make, and no, I don't think they should be influenced by the pledged delegate count, especially when there is such a close race.


ed for sp.

Apparently.

And give them some mourning time to get over it?

Up to and until I hear that, the fight goes on.

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

If they raise the white flag, this is all over.

We're not "crushing" anyone. She's out on the campaign trail as we speak.

Believe me, I've been there myself enough times over the last decade. But I'm simply asking Clinton supporters to set the emotion aside for a moment, think carefully, and give us a logical reason why Clinton should continue. I haven't heard one yet.

Why stir this pot? Just because you say you aren't posting a flamebait OP is no guarantee...

This whining needs to stop. Time to move on and let each candidate do what they feel is right. That is their business. No one is tearing the party apart except the whiners.

All the die hard supporters who are whining in both camps are undermining the chance for Democratic success. Who wants to vote for someone with a bunch of whiners in their camp? Why not focus that energy where it really matters? Two campaigns against McCain are better than one! The time is now.

Hillary going to stop dishing against Obama "only one speech" "I wouldn't stay in that church" etc etc etc.

Will it be today?

Mom! Make him stop!

Who the fuck cares what she does and when she does it? What does that have to do with the rest of us doing the right thing?

Honestly! WTF????!???!!

It is HILLARY AND MCCAIN against Obama now.

How does that help the Democratic Party?

It's time to rise above, instead of wallowing in the gutter. Who cares who makes the first step? Why not be a leader and IGNORE what others are doing while you are doing the right thing.

You HAVE to play defense.

This is keeping the focus away from the GE. The only candidate benefitting from all this is McCain. and that is very much the business of every Democrat out there!

There is no law saying we all have to have that focus. It's time to shift our focus and stop this nonsense.

if your agreeing with me or not.:shrug:

Obama can't do it, period. He's relied on bamboozling Dem voters by winning a bunch of caucus states and drawing attention away from the fact that he can't win regular elections in key battleground states.

Its a disaster, and we should all be focusing on winning the GE.

Maybe your gut tells you that Obama can't win, but what real evidence do you have of this? No matter WHO the Dem candidate is the blue states will continue to be blue. And after the Bush mess, I'd argue that many of the red states will turn blue. Obama may lose to a certain demographic in SOME states when he's going against another DEMOCRAT, but once he's up against a REPUBLICAN, especially one who vows to continue Bush's foreign and economic policies, Obama will have no trouble at all beating him.

The "Obama can't win the GE" argument is false.

Facts are elitist.

:eyes:

He's winning on every single level. And the breakdown of yesterday's demographics show that he does have solid appeal across the board, so please stop with the "he can't win" bullshit.

It's NOT a disaster. I'm an Edwards supporter, but I'm fully confident that Obama will beat McCain (who is a weak, weak, weak candidate).

He crushed in NC last night.

HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.
HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.
HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.
HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.
HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.
HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.
HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.
HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.
HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.
HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.
HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.
HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.
HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.
HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.
HRC cant close the deal. HRC cant close the deal.

NC is a battleground state, and Obama won it decisively.

Next!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Until then, you have no proof, just your continued ranting about how horrible Obama is.

may be the single most divisive person in US politics of the last fifty years (Bush comes in a very close second.) The Republicans HATE her. Many Democrats, including many, like myself, who used to respect her, have no use for her.

McCain is very beatable. 100 years in Iraq? "I don't understand the economy" during one of the most difficult economic times we've encountered since the seventies? The man's age and health?

Obama's message reasonates with many Republicans and Independents. It's anecdotal, I know, but most Republicans I know will or are supporting Obama, but would vote McCain over Clinton.

Should have been out simply because of the 24/7 rehash about a reverend and things that he said that were pasted and re-formatted to make Obama seem only slightly less odious than Fidel Castro, than I don't think you as a Clinton supporter have any bragging rights about Hillary winning the GE.

One part of what is happening is that those on the internet - who no longer listen to or trust the TV talking heads, are now deciding major elections.

We bloggers didn't like Hilary's YouTube moments. Saying one thing in Albany and another at the AIPAC meetings.

And we who are blog oriented no longer care about the trumped up, Dean screamed, media created hysterias.

So Obama knew Rev Wright? So F&c*ing What!

Usually you use the term "sham caucus" - which are the same caucuses that Hillary's husband had no problem winning!

Are the caucuses okay when a Clinton wins them, but a "sham" when anyone else wins them?

Btw, I'm a real Obama supporter.

If she ends up his running mate, the caterwauling in here will be AWESOME. :popcorn:

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

And beer!

:toast:

and also I think your premises are false. It's not impossible for her to win.

But her chances of winning a legitimate nomination are slim as best. So slim that the word "impossible" fits fairly well.

Let's face it. If Obama were in her shoes, if his fortunes were reversed, he would have dropped out long ago.

It will be Dean in Iowa all over again.

I listened this morning to their speeches on NPR, and I heard Obama supporters booing when he mentioned Hillary. I didn't hear her supporters booing him. Now, this could have been a function of how they did the feed - I don't know.

Along with that, add the way Obama's supporters have marginalized anyone over, say, 40, which I think will not play well in the GE. It reminds me of the workplace, where good loyal employees are shoved out of the way for a bunch of 20-somethings, who truly believe they know better how a workplace functions, then take off for new jobs, leaving a wake of hard feelings and half-assed new systems.

I wish I could get his appeal. I listened carefully as he talked, last night, about bringing everyone together - and never mentioned women.

He just makes me feel so pushed aside. And his supporters, even more so.

That's another falsehood that has been drummed up by the Clinton campaign. And if you look at a typical Obama rally, there are many, many over-40s in the crowd. Why on earth do you feel marginalized? If nothing else, Obama has been inclusive. His supporters are a diverse mix.

where I answered the question you posited in your OP. I can only surmise that you didn't post this thread to receive an honest answer, but rather to continue to alienate Clinton supporters.

I responded to your first post.

Unless you have a sockpuppet named DMorgan, you did not respond to my post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5864955&mesg_id=5865109

and some of the ageism I've seen from his supporters (one of them called me "a (sic) old harpy", for example. I'll also refer to a New York Times article where he was dismissive of baby boomers, even though he is one himself.

I'm just a couple of years older than Obama, BTW. But all the supporters of his that I've met seem much younger than I.

You base your assumption that over 40s are marginalized on a Tom Hayden supporter dissing you and the fact that most of the Obama supporters YOU know are younger than you? That makes no sense at all.

As I said above, LOOK at the massive crowds at an Obama rally. Young and old alike. Do you think they feel marginalized?

And it continued with many comments I've seen and heard about Hillary and her age, and what I witnessed at my caucus.

Yes, there are older people in Obama's crowd. And there are younger ones in Clinton's crowd. It's a visceral feeling.

Everyone is young once. It's not the purview of those who are young now. What about women Hillary's age who feel they've waited their turn, only to be told their day is over?

Is it only ageism when something is directed against older people?

I see THOUSANDS of people (WOMEN, and men) with grey hair or baldness, people in their sixties seventies, people of all colors, as well as the youth at these speeches. TRUE there maybe be more people under 45 than over, but it's a real mix.

So he's excluding "women" now?

He got to where he is all on MEN's votes?

I think this kind of gender and race divisiveness is PRECISELY why Hillary is having problems.

and continuing to bash someone in your own party. THAT'S divisive.

And by the way, it seriously benefits Obama that Hill is still in it. If, for example, the rev wright issue came up when it was hill vs. mccain, voters could defect directly to McSame. At least now there's hill to vote for and they don't have to jump the party lines. Perhaps as it blows over hill supporters will vote for barack. I will.

By the way, What some are SUGGESTING is that Hillary drop out and stop campaigning against Obama. They are not suggesting you be denied the right to vote in your state primary.

is that she has fully exhausted the Rev. Wright matter. Will it be brought up in the general -- of course. But I think it has been fairly well proven at this point that Wright may have a temporary affect on Obama, but in the end his numbers continued to rise.

And let's not forgot that McCain has some MAJOR issues with his own reverends -- issues that will surely be pointed out should he go the Wright route. They haven't been touched much now because this isn't the GE. But if Wright surfaces again, you can be sure we'll be hearing about Hagee, et al.

And emotions are valid. That's my logical answer.

I with her till she's out. How I see it, we should let the rest of the states finish out it's not that long. I don't see the problem as long as she doesn't go negative anymore. I'd be pissed if I live in WV and it went this far and then it ended lol

what's there to answer?

you have already determined what is logical, emotional and allowed. Why not just go have a conversation with yourself in the mirror?

You were never asking a question you were using a passive aggressive means to get Hillary Supporters to argue with you. What was your real intent? Trying get someone to flame out?

But sorry, I'm not taking your bait.

What's the rush? As for Hillary, the minute she drops out I'm stepping aside and watching the show from the sidelines. Couldn't care less who wins in November. McShame or the Empty suit, whatever......

Terms like "Empty suit" should get you tombstoned.

Whatever.

As long as the contest is going, people are engaged. But she should start campaining for the party, and not for herself. I'm a Clinton supporter, but I see no way she can get the nomination. I hope she will use the next few races constructively.

which seems reasonable to me. If she doesn't win any of these states, Obama wins by a landslide, that only strengthens his campaign. Engage those new voters - YES! Also, they will donate $$ to the Democrats in senatorial, congressional races if they can still support them all with their votes.

Why can't people see the logic in this? The Democratic party heads WANT the votes to continue from what I've heard.

two months between the convention and the GE. The candidate is going to need more time than that to effectively fight off the GOP slime machine. McCain IS vulnerable. But, this delay of infighting eats away at necessary time and aids McCain.

well it's over for her now and she knows it but the last Dem. primary is in Puerto Rico on June 14th. I think that this will all be wrapped up by then.
Also, judging from her speech this am in Va., she was playing nice and I got the distinct impression that she's knows by now that a VP slot is better than no slot at all.
If the Supers come down on her before then, we will know that it won't be worth the wait. If not, then they figure it still engages our bases, continues to invigorate Democrats, keeps McCain off the news as well. That is a biggy for now because Democrats have been front and center in the media - first time ever as I recall.

For now, the Pubbies don't know who to attack yet and that might be a good thing. We have so much ammo, it won't take too long to bring out our big guns and win in November. Esp. with the economy tanking so quickly.

Note to Obama: speak to the economy in explicit terms!

1.) Historically, there have been several leaders who lost last minute bids by unusual circumstances. Look it up. A single scandal or whatever.

2.) Next, the large turnouts and registrations are good for the Democratic party; at least we're not talking about Nader or Perot or something.

3.) Also, there is still the open question of VP? Hmmmm.....Kennedy and Johnson?

4.) There could still be a court case involving Florida and Michigan that hasn't been resolved. It's not about the numbers. When the courts are involved, throw out the numbers.

5.) It is not the logic of who is ahead among who has voted, but the bigger question of who will win the independents, cross-overs, and new registrations that have NOT voted in a primary. It's still early and unclear.

6.) Things could change in Iraq, Iran, or the economy that could refocus the last five primaries and also change the entire convention.

7.) We haven't heard from Edwards, and that could influence a large number of super delegates including some who have "committed".

You get the idea...the emotional argument is for someone in a close election to quit. I'm sooo disappointed that Gore and Kerry quit. I hope our candidates never quit.

I'm still gonna take up for her on this board when some of the nasty Obama supporters diss her.

I don't know that anyone is "insisting that she continue this race" and I can't see that it makes any difference whether they were or not.

Some are resisting the calls here from Obama supporters telling Clinton supporters they should stop supporting their candidate. They should resist that, in my opinion.

Candidates who had much less chance of winning in the past stayed in the race until the convention.

This is not really about Clinton staying in the race, it is an excuse to pester and harass Clinton supporters from what I can see, and then blame them for the uproar around here.

is to urge her to drop out before she becomes a laughing stock. And based on the media coverage she seems to be heading quickly in that direction. Maybe it'll change, but I doubt it. The sooner she bows out gracefully, the more viable she'll be as a senatorial candidate or even VP, in the unlikely event that that happens. And I would think her supporters would want what's best for her and the democratic party.

They don't agree with that. That fits the agenda of the Obama supporters, and is being forced onto the Clinton supporters. Clinton supporters have every right to disagree with that, and express their disagreement with that, without being badgered or being pressured to justify themselves.

There are a number of things wrong with what you are saying. First, it is not really about Clinton dropping out since no one here has any control over that. It is an excuse to harangue Clinton supporters. People get to taunt them with "your candidate sucks" in a devious way and then make up stuff about how it is hurting the party, etc. That is just an opportunity to use them as target practice to vent hatred toward. Secondly, candidates much farther behind then Clinton is now have stayed in the race in the past right until the convention. Kucinich did last time, and if I recall correctly Jerry Brown, Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson are among the many candidates who have stayed until the end when they had little or no chance of winning. Next, there is no evidence for the various claims that she is ruining her political career, or becoming a laughing stock, or any of the rest of the "reasons" that Obama supporters are using as a rational for pressing this "drop out!!" mantra, which as I said is just an excuse for bashing of Clinton supporters.

the above. I'm taunting no one. I'm simply saying that Clinton supporters would do the party and their candidate a service if they encouraged her to drop out. Obviously, they have the choice not to do that, as does Clinton. That, however, doesn't change the basic facts. Clinton is damaging the party and her career by continuing.

And I don't get my marching orders from Obama or any other of his supporters, thank you. I'm quite capable of thinking for myself.

I didn't say that you were taunting anyone, I said that argument is commonly used for taunting. I didn't say you get marching orders from any candidate, either.

I don't think that Clinton supporters here can influence Clinton to drop out, nor should they be expected to, and as I said I don't think that is the intention of the argument. I can't know that, of course, but as I said that is what it looks like to me.

My guess is that a plan is being worked out for an end to the Clinton campaign. It would probably not be a good idea to just quit, and wouldn't make much difference exactly when it happens. The last primaries need to be worked out so that Obama doesn't lose to "nobody" and some gesture and statements encouraging unity would be good, as well. I would also guess that unlike many of the candidate supporters here, both Clinton and Obama know that they will need to work together in the future. They don't seek to crush or destroy each other.