Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Further, I think the Obama and Edwards camps need to come to a consensus.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:02 PM
Original message
Further, I think the Obama and Edwards camps need to come to a consensus.
One of them is going to need to drop out and give its support to the other to finish off Clinton. Before Iowa.

The alternative, as supporters of both candidates should understand, is just really, really bad. We could actually lose the White House. Again. And we really shouldn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. I prefer Clinton drops out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I Prefer That Halle Berry Leave Her Husband And Marry Me But It Isn't Going To Happen
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 10:07 PM by DemocratSinceBirth
DSB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. that has more likelihood of happening, actually.
Hallie is not all the stable, apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I Think She's Beyond Perfect
DSB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I think you're idolizing an idealistic concept instead of the real person
you're setting up someone you don't know on a pristine pedestal and ascribing perfection to a mere mortal.

oh, and I think you're wrong about Hallie Berrie, too.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. I Just Have Exquisite Taste In Women
DSB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #17
44. so if I prefer a male candidate, is it okay to say I have exquisite taste in men?
just curious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Bingo


No one vote has been cast but Hillary's machine is selling us the fact
having good strong candidates is bad and will cost us the White House,
please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. well, that would be odd and unprecedented.
but interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. But who's going to be the noble one and drop out?
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 10:07 PM by Jim Sagle
Obama's camp, I'm guessing, see Edwards as a demagogue and a poser who conveniently changed his mind on all too many issues, while the Edwards contingent views Obama as an empty suit and a peddler of a suicidal brand of bipartisanship.

It's a tough sell to either side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well, I think your post is actually a compliment to Sen. Clinton.
What you are saying is that either Obama or Edwards (take your pick on which one) isn't strong enough to defeat Sen. Clinton on their own merits...that either Obama or Edwards is going to need the other's help, to defeat Sen. Clinton.

And that's very telling....That they cannot do it on their own, on the strength of their supposed merits.

Says a lot about just how weak and pathetic they are, and how strong Sen. Clinton is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Well, she is the frontrunner. How exactly does that make the others "weak and pathetic"?
Yours is a pitiful post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. No, I'm just looking at a three-way tie in Iowa, with two pretty decent
candidates who could both do the job of the President well, and one who should never have run in the first place. Doesn't belong there at all.

She's got a nice name that she's running on, but a name doesn't make a President. So, we're going to have to solve this problem to ENSURE that bad things don't happen. And I guess a lot of it is that I don't have that much faith in our primary voters, after last year.

No- let me put it another way. I just don't have that much faith in CNN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. how interesting.
you simply are a sexist. She's not my candidate, but the bullshit that she doesn't deserve to be there, and the insinuation that she's only there because she's married to Bill Clinton is sexist clap trap. No wonder you're so adamant in your denial that "hard and brittle" is a sexist comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. LOL. Alright, it's on, now.
You're saying that my opposition to Sen. Clinton's candidacy is due to my personal SEXISM, is that correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. No, and it's dim of you to think that's what I was saying.
Quite simply, asserting that she hasn't the qualifications to run, and insinuating that it's all about her marriage, is sexist crap. You can oppose her strongly on her positions and even on her personal characteristics, but saying she's not as qualified as Edwards or Obama is sexist filth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. No. You're simply wrong. Which I guess isn't that uncommon.
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 10:31 PM by BullGooseLoony
I'd be saying the same thing about anyone with the same frontrunner status and name recognition that she has who exhibited the same lack of leadership through possibly the worst years our country has ever seen.

She had the power, and she didn't use it. I hold her to a VERY high standard of leadership. She didn't even come close.

When folks like Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich have to come out of virtual anonymity to stand up for what is right, while those who already have the credibility to make a difference stand down in their cowardice, there is something wrong. She fucked up, for a long time, and badly. THAT IS WHAT *SHE* DID. Nothing to do with her gender. She isn't qualified because she, quite simply, is a fucking coward (or am I only allowed to use that term against men?).

And to top it all off, she STILL hasn't fixed the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. You are really pathetic. To assert that Sen. Clinton has no business running for President.
Just who do you think you are? Maybe you don't have any place being here on DU making such an idiotic post.

Sen. Clinton has just as much right as anyone else, running for President. And she actually has more right----because she's actually qualified!

You don't live in the reality-based community if you think she's running off of her name.

She wasn't asked to serve in the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, because she knew Bill Clinton.

She didn't work for Marian Wright Edelman at the Children's Defense Fund, b/c of her relationship w/ Bill Clinton.

She wasn't the first female to make partner at the Rose Law Firm, b/c of Bill Clinton.

She wasn't elected a United States Senator because of Bill Clinton.

How pathetic of you to assert otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. No, she doesn't, because- despite her NAME, which is what she is
now running on- she made NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER over the past four to six years to stand up to the Bush Administration and provide the leadership that the Democratic Party so desperately needed to protect our country from its President.

NOW she wants the Presidency. NOW she wants to be a leader. NOW she wants to be on TV and have everyone know that Sen. Hillary Clinton is out there and ready to do something.

No, I don't fucking think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Bill Clinton Wasn't Up There Thursday Night When She Ripped Johnny Boy A New Face
DSB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Thank you! You hit the nail on the head there!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. I Was Going To Use Another Part Of The Anatomy But I Didn't Want To Be Vulgar
What galls me is that the Edwards apologists want to blame the crowd... Hillary Clinton had Johnny Boy's scalp before the crowd even had a chance to become engaged...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Also...they seem to forget that Sen. Clinton has been booed before...
There was another debate where there was audience reaction and participation, and I recall her getting some boos....

They also seem to forget that Sen. Clinton is polling WAY ahead of her rivals in Nevada right now....Her message is resonating with a large majority of Democrats in Nevada...and THAT'S why she was received so well the other night...beause her message is resonating in Nevada.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. What did she say? That we should invade Iran?
What do you expect with the ridiculous positions she is taking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Don't be such an ass....you know she's never called for invading Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Why not try to comment without calling fellow DUers childish names?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Well, when a DUer ACTS LIKE A CHILD by implying Sen. Clinton has called for invading Iran...
then I treat them like the child they are acting like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. I didn't imply that. I was making the point that it's not surprising that she
would get boos- because she takes positions, especially with regard to foreign policy, that aren't well in line with the views of strong Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. So now you think you speak for ALL Democrats? What a stupid statement on your part
"She takes positions.......that aren't well in line with the views of strong Democrats."

WTF? Newsflash, you don't speak for the Democratic Party. So who are you, to define what a "strong Democrat" is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. So....you think strong Democrats are in favor of invading Iran? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Don't put words in my mouth.....YOU are the one pretending to speak for ALL Democrats...
which is mighty arrogant and stupid on your part.

Who do you think you are? Who annointed you the head of the Democratic Party?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. What particular issue do you think I *don't* speak for strong Democrats on?
I'm pretty much a populist. Very practical. I'm somewhere in between Clinton and Kucinich.

There really are three sects within our party- the centrist/corporatists, the moderate liberals, and the hardcore leftists. The centrist/corporatists would include Sen. Clinton, Lieberman, Biden, etc. The moderate liberals would be Dean, Gore, Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Kennedy etc. Then the left wing would be composed mainly of Kucinich, but also a number of others in the House (really none in the Senate).

I'm a moderate liberal. A populist. I think it would be a massive clusterfuck to invade Iran. I think, and have thought since well before we did so, that invading Iraq was an unbelievably bad idea. But I did support invading Afghanistan. That's basically the moderate liberal position on foreign policy.

Do you see anything in particular wrong with that? Anything out of the ordinary as to what the strongest of Democrats would believe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. The problem is I'm sick of labels........
I'm sick of all the talk of DLC Democrats...etc...

How is that going to help anyone put food on their table?

We've got to get away from labels in our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. I'm not just using labels, though. I'm giving you positions
to justify some categorization.

Totally agreed on the label issue. Which is partly why I split the party up into three groups, as opposed to just "mainstream" vs. "far left."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. No, but she hasn't ruled it out, certainly, AND she gave the Bush Administration an excuse
to do it by voting for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Yeah, well when Howard Dean and Al Gore- lesser names than hers, arguably-
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 10:26 PM by BullGooseLoony
were ripping the Bush Administration a "new face," and taking heat for it, as well, where was Sen. Clinton?


THAT is the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. how ridiculous can you possibly get?
Both candidates have worked their butts off. Neither is going to drop out, and neither camp is going to come to an agreement on such a silly proposal. Just work for your candidate and stop whinging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
38. I don't really "have" a candidate. I think any of them will
win except for Sen. Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. I Don't Think Edwards And Obama Are Electable
They have proven themselves to be weak and callow...They are candidates waiting to be McGovernized...And it is the height of folly to think Johnny Boy's southern accent will save him from that fate...Rudy Ghouliani stared down mob bosses and corrupt Wall Street traders as a federal prosecutor...I shudder what he would do to Johnny in a debate...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Any of them will be fine if they take solid positions.
The question then becomes only who can actually take solid positions. Sorry, Sen. Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. Forget It
Edited on Sun Nov-18-07 07:38 AM by DemocratSinceBirth
I'm not going to waste a perfectly fine Sunday morning arguing about something that has no chance of resolution...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seriousstan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
16. Gee, I haven't heard that since.....2003.
Rerun the retread. Same song different names.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 07:12 AM
Response to Original message
41. What are the assumptions you're making, BGL?
What's the scenario? That Obama and Edwards voters will go where they are told. But do voters really do that? The latest Iowa data says, for example, that half of Obama's voters and half of Edwards's voters choose Clinton as their second option. Would they change that choice in order to "finish off Clinton"? It seems a bit doubtful to me since they must have their reasons for not choosing one or the other, Edwards or Obama, as their second choices to begin with. Elsewhere in the country, including New Hampshire coming up after Iowa, it's even worse, both Edwards and Clinton voters choose Clinton 2 to 1 as their second choice. I realize there is a stop Clinton sentiment online, but it hasn't evidenced itself on the ground in any significant way that I have seen. Edwards and Obama are opponents, not some sort of anti-Hillary once in combination. I'm not getting the sense of this proposal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 07:12 AM
Response to Original message
42. How about if all 3 drop out?
Then people would have to choose from the pack that the media has sidelined.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 23rd 2014, 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC