I don't get how people can say Clinton should be the nominee when

1. Obama has raised SO much more money than she OR McCain! Do you really think these million or more
small donors are going to cough up donations for Hillary? I won't.

2. All the new voters/activists that Obama has brought into the process. Will she be able to keep these people inspired
and involved? I have trouble envisioning that.

3. His excellent operation/ground game. What a waste of a great team and army of volunteers that would be.
Again, I seriously doubt that these folks would be as excited/dedicated to her as they are to Barack. I know I won't be.

Even if you are willing to disregard the math, I don't understand how you can deny that he is the better nominee or
at LEAST that his is the better run campaign. Shouldn't that matter? :shrug:

"Well....well...Bush ran a good campaign!" No, seriously. They will. I've had this conversation about 10 times here before, that is the defense line.

He won, didn't he? ;-)

Don't they want to win?

A successful campaign doesn't mean good. Dirty campaigns typically are winning campaigns. Or at least can get you close enough to steal.

Not this time.

because that makes perfect sense. Not.

but she's the stronger candidate. Ridiculous, isn't it? :eyes:

Her deal is this - the offer I make to you, the Democratic Party, is "You make me nominee, or I will destroy you all....I give you until Denver to choose."

Obama could do the same thing, obviously, but so far only the losing side is taking us hostage and putting a gun to our head. We CAN get out of this, but it involves risk and courage and patient resolve in the face of what is sure to be an escalating series of maniacal threats.

blow it all up? :silly:

"You give me the power alone, or I will make your having the power useless and a misery to you. I'll harass you every step of your way, defund the application of every law you've passed, I'll send you worse bills or nominees in response to your rejecting earlier ones as too extreme. I'll never compromise unless I've arranged a way to sabotage your purposes, and I don't care how crazy I'll look doing it. You may as well give in."

It is well known that the facts have an anti-Hillary bias.

those.

steal this nomination, she will never win the GE.... Like the OP said, he/she will not donate to Clinton and neither will I and I am sure many others feel the same way.

in place like his, no donor base since her big donors are maxed out.


:wtf:

And a bunch of apathetic, disappointed Obama fans who won't work for or donate to her. Sure, I'll vote for her...
but I'd do much more for him.

such as the fact that she's been "vetted" as they say.

experience or gravitas, and people haven't bought it.

The Wright scandal and the Rezko thing were thrown at him and didn't stick - at least not well enough to stop him...

Seems like he's BEEN vetted during this primary to me.

she's endured smears for years.

But yes, Obama has been toughened up a bit.

Dubai connections and stuff? I'm sure they'll drag out the old stuff too. It seems to me
it's not just what they throw at you, but how you deal with it. Obama has done just as well
as she ever did, at least from my perspective.

the arguments for Hillary and for Obama are all arguable. No way to "prove" that one is better than the other. Gotta go through the nomination process.

understand...all the arguments about FL and MI are bogus - that was agreed to by ALL of the candidates prior to their voting.
The popular vote count is in Obama's favor at this point. The SD's are in his favor. Hillary is in debt, and her fundraising is
not as productive.
What's her argument? (legitimate one, NOT the FL/MI BS)

Obama doesn't. My right wing whacko brother doesn't much care for either Obama or McCain, but will make sure to vote against Clinton if she were to be the nominee.

her..and I think 1000 on Obama...or something like that...

past the expiration date!

and has been found to be a shameless loser who throws tantrums when her subjects (voters) refuse to acknowledge her awesomeness.

:eyes:

like, for example, this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6064537

or this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6062087

or maybe this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6057592

I particularly like this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6057182

...her negative ratings were higher than 50% before she even went into this.

NGU.

does. We'll get our asses kicked if she's the nom. At least, that's the way it seems in my part of the world.

I'm just SO tired of this shit. ;(

At least not by most people at DU and other liberal sites. You may remember that I supported Edwards and my worry is of the high risk Obama brings as our nominee. I don't particularly care for either of our choices, and neither one matches against McCain as well as Edwards did/would. The risk of a significant negative revelation about Obama is quite high. There appear to be several of at least the magnitude of Rev. Wright that are already being worked by the RW. Rumors abound of something much worse; maybe it is this alleged video of Michelle or maybe something else.

The potential damage to Obama would be greater because people are still forming their opinions of him. With Clinton, nearly everyone has a firm opinion of her that would barely be affected by new revelations.

I will try to remember to PM you with more when I get some time. I am in Chapel Hill.

that someone would have found these supposed "dirty laundry" things by now. There is so much
digging into people's lives now in politics.

I find it kind of depressing in some ways. Who can run these days that has ANY negative history in their lives?
A divorce, an illness, family problems, recovery from addiction? Yet, GW got a pass on a LOT of things because the GOP
doesn't let those things stand in their candidates way - only the Dems let this type of LCD politics skewer a good candidate.
(not that Bush was a good candidate - hell the GOP defends even the most heinous of its own, like Delay...)

Part of it has to do with all the stretch of the truth that Obama has done all, for example with Dreams which is as much fiction as it is autobiography. Too many people here and elsewhere, when confronted with some claim about Obama and his life, respond "Read his book." The RW has been factchecking his book and everything else about him and are well along on vetting him; their version is not pretty and neither is a relatively balanced one.

Problem is, it's NEGATIVE or various degrees of it. And though we all pulled through and got past the failed RW coup against WJC, even people who don't have a negative of HRC will blanche at the thought of reliving that all over again.

Yes, the Radical RW have their scripts in place, and there's very little the Clintons can do to fight them anymore. They're part of the national consciousness. Obama, on the other hand, just needs to keep knocking down the feces flings as they happen -- like he's been doing.

NGU.

---namely that if the REpukes don't have something, they just make up their "facts," like the swiftboaters did.

Agree they will make up things if they need to. But that does not mean there is no risk of a negative revelation; everything points to them having some things, although not necessarily anything candidacy-ending.