Post Reply
Page 1 of 20  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 20 Next
Switch to Forum Live View 3 myths on the democratic race
7 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 12:37PM #1
eadler
Posts: 4,449
I am in agreement with what David Brooks is saying about this situation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opini … ei=5087%0A
The Long Defeat...

Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.
...
For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.

When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

The better answer is that Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life. .."
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 2:58AM #2
Find1Answer
Posts: 7,292
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dao … 93089.html

This is how I see the democratic nomination process at this point.     For all that is said about both candidates I still see strong support for HC  that is discounted on every turn.    Maybe the people that voted  for HC just don't count.
Bush's "de-Bathification program" eliminated all vestiges of Sunni power in Iraqi society and set the stage for the Sunni insurrection against American occupation and the new Shiite-led government. Bush disbanded the entire Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army and bureaucracy. He didn't change it. He didn't make it more inclusive of Shiites and Kurds. He just disbanded it. It is no accident that two of the top commanders of today's ISIL are former commanders in the Saddam-era Iraqi military.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 2:58AM #3
Find1Answer
Posts: 7,292
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dao … 93089.html

This is how I see the democratic nomination process at this point.     For all that is said about both candidates I still see strong support for HC  that is discounted on every turn.    Maybe the people that voted  for HC just don't count.
Bush's "de-Bathification program" eliminated all vestiges of Sunni power in Iraqi society and set the stage for the Sunni insurrection against American occupation and the new Shiite-led government. Bush disbanded the entire Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army and bureaucracy. He didn't change it. He didn't make it more inclusive of Shiites and Kurds. He just disbanded it. It is no accident that two of the top commanders of today's ISIL are former commanders in the Saddam-era Iraqi military.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 9:33AM #4
johndavid23
Posts: 4,324
There were people who voted for HC, and people who voted for BO and many people who voted for other candidates.  Are those who voted for others "discounted"?  Obviously.  The process should have been an instant runoff.

But, BO has a lead over HC in the total popular vote, the total delegates, the number of states won, etc.  Given how the rules of the game stand, HC has little to no chance of winning the nomination.  Many before her knew when to step down, when they became a hindrance to the process of having a Democratic administration next year, rather than a continuation of BushCo.

It is her ambition, her poor judgement in the instance of knowing when to step down, which reveals her fatal flaw, the reason not to elect her.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 9:39AM #5
kcahenson
Posts: 1,441
[QUOTE=Find1Answer;381022]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dao … 93089.html

This is how I see the democratic nomination process at this point.     For all that is said about both candidates I still see strong support for HC  that is discounted on every turn.    Maybe the people that voted  for HC just don't count.[/QUOTE]

It's not that your votes don't count- it's just that there are fewer of them than there are for Obama.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 10:09AM #6
rabello
Posts: 21,692
Perhaps. Why should 11 states lose the right to participate in the selection of the next candidate just because it'll make it easier for Obama's now? I do wonder if the stats were the other way around, if Obama supporters would be urging their candidate to drop out before everyone got to exercise their right to vote because he already lost.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 10:45AM #7
hortonthrockmorton
Posts: 3,497
[QUOTE=rabello;381449]Why should 11 states lose the right to participate in the selection of the next candidate just because it'll make it easier for Obama's now? [/QUOTE]

But that's been s.o.p. for all the elections that I can remember.  (In fact, the Dems previously thought that a candidate would be decided upon by the end of Super Tuesday.)  Living in Texas, this is the first time I've ever voted in a presidential primary before there was a defacto nominee in place already.

It's not about 'making it easier for Obama.'  It's about the wisdom of continuing to divide the party after it has become impossible to win more pledged delegates, by running on the hope that enough mud will bring down the apparent nominee and create a turnabout in fortunes, all the while effectively strengthening the opposition by continually tearing into such frontrunner.

Right now, HRC is the Republican Party's best friend.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 11:00AM #8
acumen
Posts: 1,364
[QUOTE=hortonthrockmorton;381558]But that's been s.o.p. for all the elections that I can remember.  (In fact, the Dems previously thought that a candidate would be decided upon by the end of Super Tuesday.)  Living in Texas, this is the first time I've ever voted in a presidential primary before there was a defacto nominee in place already.

It's not about 'making it easier for Obama.'  It's about the wisdom of continuing to divide the party after it has become impossible to win more pledged delegates, by running on the hope that enough mud will bring down the apparent nominee and create a turnabout in fortunes, all the while effectively strengthening the opposition by continually tearing into such frontrunner.

Right now, HRC is the Republican Party's best friend.[/QUOTE]

Huckabee did the same thing.  There is always a chance she can make a come back.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 11:05AM #9
rabello
Posts: 21,692
Sorry, but Obama hasn't "closed the deal" yet, as they put it on the news.  He hasn't won the required number of delegate, yet, to have won the nomination and cause his only opponent to "drop out"

The "party" is only as divided as it allows itself to be.  If it so precarious that one person can
"destroy" it, I'd say some inner reflections are in order for the party faithful.

Personally, I think Rev Wright is the Republican Party's best friend, at this point.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 11:27AM #10
hortonthrockmorton
Posts: 3,497
[QUOTE=acumen;381609]Huckabee did the same thing.  [/QUOTE]


Not quite.  Even though he continued to campaign, I don't recall him expressly going negative against McCain.  But even so, he got a lot of criticism within the Repub party for continuing to run even after McCain's nomination became inevitable.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 20  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 20 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook