Obama still ahead. So here is my fear.

[LuckyTheDog]

I have said all along that if Hillary Clinton were to pull ahead in elected delegates -- or were to develop a convincing lead in the popular vote and bring the elected delegate race to a virtual tie -- then she could make a case that she deserved the nomination.

Under those circumstances, the super delegates could justifiably make the case that she is the stronger candidate. And under those circumstances, a decision to hand her the nomination would seem fair, or at least understandable

But that is not likely to happen. Obama likely will maintain a sizable lead in elected delegates and remain ahead in the popular vote. He also maintains a lead over Hillary in national polls.

So, here is my fear: I fear that one of two things will happen:

-- That the super delegates will hand the nomination to Hillary in a decision that will be widely perceived as unfair. That could alienate the African-American electorate and young voters from the Democratic Party in a way that could take a generation or more to overcome.

-- That Hillary will cause a virtual riot at the Denver convention, leaving the party badly divided and damaged going into the fall campaign, even if Obama prevails. Whoever the nominee is, he or she needs to leave the convention on a positive note, secure that the party is behind him or her as the nominee. If the convention leaves the Democrats deeply divided, we have a problem. In that case, the Republicans could make a plausible case -- based on the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) that has served them well in the past -- that we are not fit to govern.

Whatever happens from here on out, it absolutely must be seen as fair and the party must unite behind the nominee. If not, the country will be damaged. Nobody -- from either side -- really wants McCain to be president. Even among Republicans, there is a "hold your nose" aspect to his candidacy. But if the American people see him as the only viable choice, then he will be elected by default. We cannot let that happen.

[goletian]

1. MAKE NO MISTAKE

the vast majority of obama supporters, myself included, will vote for hillary if shes our nominee. but if she does not win fairly, that is, if she wins because super delegates overturn the decision made by the delegates won via the voters, there will be a huge outcry and she will lose, guaranteed. that would be the case with obama as well, but because hes already got it in the bag, practically, its not as much of a concern.

there is no closing in just to enough to make the case to the supers for the voters to be disenfranchised, thats not gonna fly. shes gotta overcome the virtually impossible odds and seal the deal, or its game over for dems if she gets it. thats exactly how its gonnna go down.

[NJSecularist]

3. Obama has nothing in the bag yet.

He has not reached the 2024 delegate threshold yet.

[goletian]

4. doesnt matter. if he beats her in delegates, its his - nt

[NJSecularist]

5. False. Only when he reaches the 2024 threshold does he win the nomination.

Nothing is his until he reaches 2024 delegates.

The superdelegates are not entitled to give him the nomination just because he has a pledged delegate lead.

[still_one]

20. If they don't give the candidate leading in the popular vote and delegate count

their support we will lose the white house

[NJSecularist]

25. That is your own wishful thinking speaking.

We stand more of a chance of losing the White House by giving the nomination to the wrong candidate than to give it to the nominee who doesn't lead in the popular vote and delegate count, especially when the difference in the popular vote and delegate count are so small.

[still_one]

43. No way, if that doesn't occur, or if it goes undecided to the Convention

it is you who have wishful thinking, we will lose the white house

Incidently, your definition of the "wrong candidate" is different than mine, but if the popular vote and the delegate count have a nominee winning, that should be the nominee period

and even though I will vote for the Democratic nominee if they win that way in the general election, IT WILL BE MY LAST TIME VOTING AS A DEMOCRAT, because the Democratic party will have demonstrated that they are NOT DEMOCRATIC

[WillyToad]

90. I am curious how that magically translates into losing the whitehouse

All the Democrats have to do is hammer away on McCains "Iraq war forever" meme and "Bushes third term", thats it. The Democrats could run a pet rock against any republican and trounce them. 2/3 of Americans want out of Iraq and 3/4 are hate Bush and are sick of the Bush/GOP politics.

[sniffa]

122. I remember having that feeling in 2004

[Epiphany4z]

62. I disagree

Obama has a truck load of new voters who are only bothering to vote because Obama is who they plan to vote for I think they may not vote McCain but they will feel the election was stolen from them and they will sit home.

Add to that the very real damage she has done to rep by campaigning like a Republican. I can tell you nothing Obama has said have dropped my opinion of Hillary..but plenty she has said and done over the course of this election has dropped my opinion of her.

he has a lead with the pledge delegates, won more states, has the lead in the popular vote, brings in more new voters and makes butt loads more money than her...ya I can see all that getting over turned....sigh

[Shae]

73. If Obama

ends up leading in popular vote and pledged delegates, but Hillary Clinton is given the nomination by the superdelegates, African Americans will leave the Democratic party in droves.

And they will NEVER come back.

[polpilot]

82. Hillary will be dragged off the stage soon. It won't be pretty.

[Shae]

93. Hey,

Pretty is in the eyes of the beholder.

:toast:

[Cha]

125. Touche'

:toast:

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

95. Not just the African American.

Think of the effect that it will have on the new young voters as well. Alienating an entire generation of new voters is hardly something the party would risk.

[anigbrowl]

108. Yeah, San Francisco for example

where most of the progressive vote is likely to switch to the green party as a protest. Although I'm irritated with him for it, former Mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez (who ran an insurgent campaign very similar to Obama's in 2003) is running as Ralph Nader's VP candidate. I'm annoyed with him mainly because I think Nader lays on people's ignorance and just rails against, well, everything without offering pragmatic or concrete proposals that are worthy of serious debate. gonzalez is intelligent so he should know better than to tie himself to such a weak non-platform (though I'd campaign for him on his own).

Anyway, if Hillary pulls off an upset as suggested above, you can write off 50% of the votes in SF. Bill is popular here but she isn't.

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

116. I think that will be the case in many places

I just don't see how we can afford to alienate so many. And it would be for at least a generation.

[taught_me_patience]

104. Other minorities too

As an asian, if the scenario played out, then I will never call myself a democrat again.

[lojasmo]

96. By definition...Wrong candidate...

The candidate who loses the popular vote AND the most states, AND the pledged delegate count IS the wrong candidate

[goletian]

98. we stand more of a chance losing the whitehouse by giving the nomination to

the person with the most won from the elections? hahahaha. youre fucking high. hes in the lead for a reason, hes raising double what clinton can FOR A REASON. hes the one people want. unless hes caught worshiping satan and eating babies with bin laden, anything short of hillary taking over the lead in delegates is SUICIDE in november.

are your really a dem? youre fucking disgusting.

[roseBudd]

127. The wrong candidate is the one that the electorate is saytng is dishonest at 53%

"This is a real difficulty for her," said independent pollster John Zogby. "With Bill Clinton, there was always an honesty problem. But he always was able to overcome it through charm and brilliance ... It doesn't look like she is able to transcend those fundamental problems that she has with the truth."

Clinton's campaign didn't respond to repeated requests for comment.

A recent Gallup Poll found that 53 percent of Americans think Clinton isn't "honest and trustworthy." Just 29 percent said the same of her Democratic rival Barack Obama, and 27 percent said it of Republican John McCain.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/32711.html

[Tyler Durden]

39. If you don't count Michigan and Florida, then where's your "LEAD?"

You simply can't have both. And you do chance losing the Election without Michigan: Ohio decided two elections.

Reality check?

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. The bigger risk is if one candidate has a clear lead in popular votes

and the other has a clear lead in electoral votes.

... and yeah, I know that "neither Michigan nor Florida count". We probably should have had a system where the votes in every state count.

Every state should have a primary, and they should all be conducted within a one-month period.

[high density]

83. When the super delegates put him up above 2024, he wins

That's what everything is about. Neither candidate is going to win on pledged delegates alone.

[Hamlette]

119. for the candidate who complains because Florida and Michigan "don't count"

advocating the superdelegates should ignore the will of the voters who did play by the rules is dishonest.

[mrbluto]

63. Hey since you seem to make the rules now....

...can I have a pony?

and can you declare pi to be rounded off to 3?

ok thnx byebye ttyl

[DemVet]

124. No it's not...only if he gets to 2025

Pledged delegates are basically irrelevant if neither candidate attains 2025 delegates. Superdelegates then call the shots.

[still_one]

19. You are right, but after the primaries are over, the candidate leading

in the popular vote and the delegate count should be our nominee

If the SD go against that, or if their is a fight in the convention, we will lose the general election

Not because of me, I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, because the stakes are too high, but if you have read some of the thread here on DU, there are those on both sides who have said they will not vote if their candidate isn't the nominee, and that isn't even considering the OPs premise

[Eurobabe]

28. Why aren't you on my

ignore list yet???

I knew you were a wolf in sheep's clothing. Hillbot all along.

[LuckyTheDog]

58. WTF?

I am an Obama supporter. Always have been.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

61. I think the above poster's replying to

NJSecularist. :-) No worries, I've done the same thing plenty of times.

[datopbanana]

29. kind of like how jack nicholas had nothing in the bag up 5 strokes on the 18th tee on sunday?

its not over till its over. but its obvious how its gunna end.

[NJSecularist]

33. Apples and oranges.

Jack doesn't need to meet a certain threshold to win a tournament like our Democrat nominee does. For example, Jack doesn't need to hit -7 to win a tournament. He just needs to play one stroke better than the golfer in 2nd place to win the tournament. To win our tournament, you need to reach a certain threshold.

Yes, I realize there is a cut-off point in golf - but the leader doesn't set it.

[datopbanana]

38. 1. He does not need to reach a threshold.

The states will run out. BO will be in the lead. SDs will pick the winner. SDs will pick the leader.

Game Over.

Sorry.


2. There is no 2. This is straight forward stuff that HRC just can't accept.

[sandnsea]

40. No, kind of like being behind 20 strokes

and having one tee left. I mean, your opponent could take 21 strokes to get the ball in the hole, but not friggin likely unless he breaks his hand or has a stroke on the green.

[sandnsea]

37. She will need 67%

of the remaining vote to overtake him. I think I will post that every morning. Good Morning. Hillary still needs SIXTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the remaining vote to beat Obama.

[jackson_dem]

9. What if she wins the popular vote and loses the delegate scheme?

Do you realize some votes in PA yesterday were worth up to 3x more than others?

[guyanakoolaid]

10. Then she cries about the "delegate scheme" she agreed to some more.

[jackson_dem]

13. Wait. So does the will of the voters matter or does it not?

You can't claim the will of voters matter and then count a vote in Philadelphia 3x more than a vote in rural PA or a vote in Ohio 1/10 as much as a vote in Idaho. One person, one vote is the only way to assess the popular will.

[guyanakoolaid]

18. So do the rules Hillary agreed to matter or do they not?

:banghead:

[Tyler Durden]

44. So if Obama wins more votes but not Delegates, he wins....and...

...if he wins more Delegates but loses the popular vote, he wins.

Do I read you correctly? Sounds like the old kid's game, "Heads I win, Tails you lose."

[guyanakoolaid]

57. Of course you don't read me correctly.

Math and reading comprehension don't seem to be on some Clinton supporter's side.

I never said if he won the "popular" vote he would win, the "popular vote" in delegate selection is a meaningless phrase, a myth created by Clinton supporters unable to grasp the complexity of caucuses.

[Tyler Durden]

69. No, it's a "myth" that was created in February, when it was still a tossup.

Obama Supporters were all over "WELL, if he wins the 'popular vote' but gets screwed on DELEGATES..."

Personally, I'm done with ALL of it.

AND, newbie, you bought this 2001 vet's IGNORE: where I put all the rude people.

[InfiniteNether]

71. Newbie. Lol, tool. Yeah, you're such a salty dog old timer who has unlimited wisdom for us newbs.

[Tyler Durden]

72. Only if you're a rude asshole.

Gettin' close, new person.

Some of us have fought this war since 1968. Doesn't mean you have to kiss our ASS, just don't be an ASSHOLE.

[InfiniteNether]

74. I'm the rude asshole? And yes, you salty dogs do want us to kiss your ass

and agree to every thing you say and bask in your glowing experience and wisdom.

[Tyler Durden]

76. Another one for the IGNORE list.

By the way, that means I can't read your posts, so you'll be talking to yourself.

[InfiniteNether]

80. Lol. What a childish tool, and a hypocrite, too.

[guyanakoolaid]

75. LOL - I've been here well over a year. This "newb" calls you out as being the ruder, good sir

You've made up words and arguments and attempted to shove them in my mouth and the mouths of all Obama supporters. I've seen nobody but Clinton supporters talking about this mythical "popular vote".

I'd ask you for a link to prove your asinine assertions, but I'm being ignored... x(

[InfiniteNether]

85. Heh. The Wise One resorted to Ignore us both. He was blinded by our newbishness.

[Tyler Durden]

77. What part of "IGNORED" didn't you get?

I can't read your posts. I'm IGNORING you. Isn't this clear?

[guyanakoolaid]

78. "I'm IGNORING you. Isn't this clear?"

No, tell me again.

[Tyler Durden]

79. You really are clueless about IGNORE.

So you can reply all you want, but hey, your dime/your time.

[InfiniteNether]

81. Then why are you responding? Obviously you CAN read our posts.

[guyanakoolaid]

89. I thought you were ignoring me.

:eyes:

[Voltaire]

86. No, the will of the voters doesn't count

SATISFIED?

Its DELEGATES we are counting here.

[mrbluto]

107. Dead wrong.

You could do a good scientific poll and get a much more accurate read on "the will of the people". Weight the results with a competent census and you'd have a highly accurate idea of what the people want and what objectives to pursue.

If you don't understand that then you're living in the 19th century, or have some superstitions about the magical properties of "votes".

There is one thing that votes provide that a good scientific poll cannot: consent.

Here's a thought for you:

Bush supposedly won in '00 and '04 - do you think what has happened has been the will of the people?

[undeterred]

16. Really, some peoples votes are worth more than others?

Now, that is fascinating. :sarcasm:

[mrbluto]

65. Yes - some votes are more valuable.

Do you really think either O or C is winning Nebraska or N. Dakota?

Winning there simply isn't worth as much as winning FL., or MI, or CA, or MA.

Does that fascinate you?

[jackson_dem]

97. You are apparently ignorant of how the delegate scheme works

But thanks for being bold enough to put it on display for all to see. :thumbsup:

[still_one]

17. If that happens, their won't be a problem. In PA, she didn't win by enough

at the end of the primaries, the candidate leading in both the popular vote, and the delegate count should be the nominee

[still_one]

15. I feel the same way you do. If the super delegates do not go with the person

leading in the delegate and popular count, we will lose. I will vote for the Democratic candidate, either way, but I will be pissed as hell

[sandnsea]

35. No doubt about it

There is no way Obama voters will accept the party poobas deciding this election.

[Tyler Durden]

36. THEN I'd suggest you find a way to FAIRLY include Michigan and Florida.

The Race is already too close to alienate ANYONE. If Clinton loses with Michigan and Florida included: fine. If Clinton wins with Michigan and Florida included: fine.

But if you exclude Michigan and Florida, you jeopardize the November election: no question.

[Duke Newcombe]

121. There was a way for FL and MI to be counted...

for their parties to FOLLOW. THE. F&^KING. RULES. OF. THE. DNC.

They didn't, and this is the result.

Duke

[SaveAmerica]

91. I have a neighbor who is ready to revolt (in a wheelchair if need be) if Obama

wins the delegate vote, the most states, the popular vote and the contest is given to Hillary by superdelegates or any other way.

[cali]

2. it's pretty clear that the SDs are in no rush to hand anything to hilly

and her win in PA yesterday won't change that.

[greguganus]

100. The SD's are hoping Hillary will eventually see the light and get the hell out.

That way, those up for reelection can save face in the eyes of any Hillbot constituents they may have.

[Laughlandia]

6. Not going to happen.

Unless Obama shows up on MSNBC Dateline's "To Catch a Predator", there is no way the Supers will overturn the primary results and essentially kill off the Democratic party for decades to come. Even though they may have concerns about Obama's ability to win over white working class Dems, there is no way the Supers will be willing to say goodbye to the large number new Democrats that Obama brings on board or say goodbye to Obama's superior ground game and fund raising abilities.

Howard Dean will take steps to make sure this doesn't go to the convention undecided.

[bluetrain]

7. I share your concerns and am, also, worried about the effect whatever the FL & MI

decisions are.

[Tyler Durden]

41. Excellent. SOMEONE has spotted the fly in the ointment.

Unless a certain Senator from Illinois wants another "Ohio" on his hands, he'd better act, and fast.

AFTER the decision is made won't work, by the way: we may be broke but we aren't stupid.

[bluetrain]

50. Those voters cannnot be disenfranchised. You cannot go into the GE without having let them make a

choice. But the conditions surrounding those votes were such that....I mean, really, Obama wasn't even on the MI ballot and FL was told beforehand that their votes didn't count. There has to be a revote before the convention can even be called or you're gonna have a serious clusterfuck which is going to emotionally alienate way too many people out of participating in this democracy. That was a bizarre thing to go down. And, even with a revote, it's gonna be analyzed to death in terms of how those states would have played had they been played in their original order. It's a fucking mess. I'm baffled as to why more wasn't made of it at the time, as to why the entire process was allowed to continue without them, etc. It's a big fucking snag and it's gonna get bigger. But with the way we're already imploding I'm, frankly, not very hopeful that we're going to come to an agreeable solution on the issue. This, also, puts Howard Dean in jeopardy and I think he's done a great job, otherwise, and it would be a real shame to lose him.

Come the end of May and first few days of June all we're going to be talking about is FL & MI. This is not going to go down easy.

[Tyler Durden]

70. He could have avoid this.

His lawyers from the National Campaign could have just told Mich. State Sen. Hudson (his local manager) to let the redo go through...but he wanted the voters that "gamed" the system to be able to switch sides, which would have allowed every Republican in the state to vote in the redo.

But he didn't. He torpedoed it.

How are you on the subject of Democrats voting in the Republican Primary and vice versa? Personally, I think it's LYING, and I don't lie as a matter of ethics.

[bluetrain]

103. Yeah, it is lying, but it's, also, tampering with the results and seems criminal to me.

On the other hand, if we had a larger group of viable parties, people wouldn't resort to these tactics because they'd have a pony in the race; those options will never become available with the party lines drawn as they are.

[CakeGrrl]

8. There's still no justification for giving it to her

She won a state she was always supposed to, but Obama cut WAY into her lead. Looks like she'll win by less than 10% when she once led by almost 30%. That proves he CAN make inroads. You're never going to do anything about the die-hard racists and "I just don't like him" crowd, but Democrats who have the party's interest at heart will get together and vote for him against McCain.

Do you really think he'll lose CA or NY?

After all the PA hubbub, he's still ahead by pledged delegates and popular vote, and he is steadily closing in on superdelegates.

Then he'll win NC and very possibly IN, with OR, MT and SD in the wings at least. He'll probably win 34 or 35 contests to her 19 or 20. What momentum are people trying to spin?

[TragedyandHope]

11. Not gonna happen.

Have no fear.

Michelle Obama: Be Not Afraid

[PetraPooh]

12. "That could alienate the African-American electorate and young voters "

Let me make this perfectly clear; I'm an aged, white woman and if the superdelegates give the nom to Hillary, I will feel alienated, I will give up hope that the Democratic Party means change, or intends on getting anything accomplished that we voted them in to accomplish back in 2006. I will feel abandoned and betrayed and too tired and depressed to care anymore.

[still_one]

21. and as an aged white man I would be pissed to, but I will still vote for our nominee

[PetraPooh]

22. Not me, I'll walk away. She's no better than the Bushes, never has been.

[still_one]

24. If you really believe that, then you don't believe in the right to privacy

or civil rights, or healthcare for everyone, because the Supreme Court does matter, and there is NO QUESTION WHERE mccain stands on those issues

ANYONE OF THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES IS BETTER THAN mccain ON THOSE ISSUES

and that is enough to vote for the Democratic nominee

[PetraPooh]

26. I don't agree, I don't think she will succeed at any of her "promises,"

she has proven to be a liar and a traitor; that negates everything that she vomits up to steal the nom.

[still_one]

30. I agree she is a liar, not sure what you mean by "traitor". How bad is it

when she questioned Obama's patriotism, implied he "might be a Muslim", or said she and mccain were qualified to be president, but he wasn't

I am outraged by the Clinton's, to the degree I can't even watch that PERSON, speak on TV, the same way I feel about bush, BUT

She will NOT nominate justices like scalia or thomas, mccain WILL

and for that alone, if she is the nominee, she will get my vote, but not my allegiance

[PetraPooh]

46. All of the above make her a traitor. I will never vote for her, ever.

I know that the exit polls show that Hillary supporters rate much higher on the "I'll vote for McCain before voting for Obama" scale, but I wonder what the polls would say if the question was simply, will you refuse to vote for ________; rather than asking if not your candidate will you vote for McCain. I for one will not vote for McCain or Hillary. Never, not happening. I think the superdelegates need to seriously consider how many of us will feel disenfranchised and betrayed before they give the nom to Hillary in complete disregard pledged delegates, and popular vote.

[still_one]

49. and that is your right. Of course I hope Obama wins the nomination

and it doesn't get to that

but as bad as clinton is, mccain is far worse, and with the Supreme Court and healthcare at stake, we are in big trouble if mccain gets in, even with a Democratic Congress

[lligrd]

14. I Thought I Would Be Fine No Matter Which Was The Nominee

but Clinton's obliterate Iran comment is making me doubt my ability to vote for her at all. Even McCain hasn't claimed a willingness to do that.

[still_one]

23. I felt that way when she said she and mccain were qualifed to be president, but not Obama

I felt that way when she said she would "take Obama's word for it that he isn't a Muslim"
I felt that way when she questioned Obama's patriotism, and so many other lies and distortion, but then I looked at the Supreme Court, and healthcare and a lot of other issues

and though I have come to detest the Clintons because of THIS campaign, I know for certain what a john mccain would do about those issues, and I would still vote for the Democratic nominee, but if it was Clinton, it would be a VERY reluctant vote for me

I suspect some won't vote, though I hope not

[bluetrain]

27. Many won't vote, whichever way it goes and that's just not acceptable. We need a Democrat in the

White House next term. The country cannot take this abuse any longer. We need either a totally different candidate to jump in at the last minute or for Clinton and Obama to join forces in order to ensure the election. They take way too many voters out of the pool without each other to predict a safe victory. We are self destructing with infighting.

[still_one]

32. I don't think either will happen, but I don't disagree with your premise /nt

[lligrd]

31. I Weathered The Rest But This One Is Really Eating At Me

She might even be worse than McCain if what she says is true.

[still_one]

34. She won't as far as the Supreme Court is concerned

mccain has clearly stated what he want in the supreme court

Most likely we will have a clear majority in Congress. This is the last opportunity for so it isn't completely lost

[lligrd]

45. That Is A Good Consideration But What About

the fact that she will undoubtedly get the blame for the economic failures and show (probably for good reason) no inclination to investigate any of the wrong doings that would shed light on the truth? Without investigations the next admin will no doubt take the blame for the failed economy and lose the next election. In that case, wouldn't it be better to allow McCain the next 4 years. I feel like we are doomed either way.

[still_one]

48. I know, and really hope that the SD have some sense, and vote for

the candidate that has the most delegates, and I really hope that candidate is Obama, because I this election has opened my eyes as to what the clintons are all about, and I detest them.

If she unfortunately wins the nomination, she will get my vote, but not my loyalty

We would be more doomed with mccain I believe

[lligrd]

51. Dup

[lligrd]

52. I Thought The Same Until The Last Comment

about obliterating Iran. Has Mccain ever suggested such a possibility? It seems to me a real stupid, undiplomatic and unhelpful thing to ever even suggest. And a friggen scary possibility.

Allow me to say that I am now far more scared of what our nation may do than anything Bin Laden, Al Queda or any other "terrorist" might do. And now, thanks to Hillary, I don't just have to worry about right wing warmongers, I have to worry that I might actually vote for the one who would do this. How can I vote for that possibility?

[bluetrain]

42. If you really believe that, perhaps, its time you changed your party affiliation.

[lligrd]

47. I've Always Been A Democrat, Hillary Hasn't

But if you are willing to allow pseudo Democrats to take office, maybe I should just forget the entire American dream, face reality and fore-go wasting my time voting at all!

[bluetrain]

54. You do realize Clinton and Obama have a 97% identical voting record, excluding the

"controversial" votes which he didn't bother to show up to work for, right?

[lligrd]

55. Obama Hasn't Threatened To Obliterate Anyone!

And I'll take the other 3% as well. How can you excuse her threat? Doesn't it bother you? What if she means it?

[bluetrain]

56. First of all, even she admits she's a pathogical liar and will do anything to win.

Second of all, Obama used more gentle language to express the same intention.

Third of all, Iran isn't suicidal enough to risk the doing anything like that.

And, fourth, yes, I thought it was an insane thing to say. There was no need. She could have phrased it better; Obama and McCain are on the same page. I don't understand the coddling of Israel at all. I do not support action before diplomacy except in the most exceptional of instances. But I still think she's the better candidate. The candidate who can win. Who can enact the change we all want to see. Who really will have what it takes to turn this country around. I wish I could, I have tried, but I really do not see that in Obama. He evaporates.

[lligrd]

59. So You Think McInsane Or A Pathological Liar Are What Americans

should accept as choices? How is a pathological liar better than Obama? What makes you think she can enact change since the only time she attempted, she failed? What changes do you think she will enact given that you acknowledge she is a pathological liar?

[bluetrain]

101. I don't find Obama terribly truthful, either. What she provides which he certainly lacks

are specifics. He is incredibly vague. I can't get behind his plans because he won't tell me what they are. The only plan he's shared is his heath care plan and I think it sucks compared to her plan.

[terrell9584]

53. I hate to say it like this but

If she wins IN and can hold it within 5 in N.C, then she can probably pull ahead in the popular vote with KY and WV, because those are states where more voters are registered Democratic, if just because at the county level, politics is controlled within the Democratic Primary, and because Obama's name has (sadly, in many ways) has become poison in this two states.

If Clinton pulls 80% with high turnout in both states, and that is actually something that seems possible, especially in W. Virginia, it is probably enough to put her within striking distance. And I think the Clinton people may end up winning the argument that Florida should count, and the punishment will probably be that their delegates are slashed by a quarter or half, but, the popular vote becomes the guide for the superdelegates.

Then again, if it deadlocks on the first ballot, all delegates are free to pick a new nominee, and this is why I think some of the former candidates like Edwards and Biden have been remarkably silent, because they are probably some of the alternate choices should the convention deadlock, and that is certainly possible. If both have 2022, then by default, you just deadlocked.

[mrbluto]

64. Edwards/Webb 2008 - the Unity ticket.

More and more it looks like there might be a brokered convention.

I think that would be great!

Karl rove and Co. are all geared-up and have been positioning for a run vs. O or C - they'll have to waste a lot of time re-gearing for E!

This time let's be Lucy with the football and let them be Charlie Brown for a change.

[RBInMaine]

68. Nope, won't happen. Please, no more pipe dreaming. It will be Obama or Clinton.

[mrbluto]

105. Gee. If you're such an authority can you declare some other things too?

Calling what I say a pipe dream. Heh.

You know what they say - first they laugh a you.

I love how you can't even allow yourself to think about the prospect of a brokered convention.

It's actually heartening in it's way.

[high density]

87. So with Edwards both Clinton and Obama supporters are demoralized

Not gunna happen. Obama has the fund raising machine and he has the pledged delegates. Clinton has the media on her side as the perpetual underdog, and that is all she has going for her.

[mrbluto]

106. I love the tone of denial.

"Not gonna happen" you say.

I call this the anti-tinkerbell defense.

If all good zealots close their eyes and wish real hard then the possibility their favored candidate might not get the nomination will go away.

I'm willing to admit it's a long shot, but the possibility of a brokered convention is far less than zero.

I don't happen to think a brokered candidate would demoralize O or C supporters, at least not a net 20% of the party like we're cruising toward now.

A brokered candidate will have a better chance in the GE.

An Edwards/Webb ticket would totally kick ass!

It would draw off so many republican voters (and for good liberal, populist reasons) that the republicans might never recover. They'll have to go reconstitute their astro turf and call themselves something else.

[mmonk]

60. It will be virtually impossible for her to be ahead in pledged delegates

when this is over. So its going to take some arm twisting and more dishonesty over the Florida and Michigam situation for her to get the nomination. To be fair, she must not be allowed to do it that way. I don't believe unity will be there for us in 08. We have to hope Barr makes enroads into the republican support in the general election.

[Stuart G]

66. Lucky is right of course..I was there...

I was there before the 1972 convention, in Illinois, when the fight really became ugly..
..... When the McGovern people took on the establishment and set the stage for the Democratic defeat in l972. We were sitting at a meeting where a number of people voted to take on the Illinois delegation at the convention and unseat the regular Democrats. We were sure we were right, of course. And we did. So, what was the end result.

..the biggest loss in our history...with a candidate that stood on the right side of saving lives and stopping the war. please..
..................think about what Lucky has posted...being right is not enough. We must win. So much is at stake..

[CTyankee]

84. God, do I remember that election! I couldn't believe the loss we took.

But I don't think we have an analogous situation. we are on a different cusp with this election. The Republicans have so screwed up the country that people are reeling. The Republicans were just getting started hammering ordinary folks back then. they've done a lot more damage now and I think it is the end of the line for them for a few generations. In 72 people were leaving the Dem party in droves. This year people are flooding into the Dem party in droves. Big difference IMHO.

[EFerrari]

88. And McGovern said that the party Democrats kept hammering him

AFTER he got the nomination. I don't remember that. Does anyone else?

[CTyankee]

92. I don't, but we may not have been privy to that information back then.

You should get a copy of Theodore H. White's "The Making of the PResident 1972." In the next to last chapter, White writes that it was the "competency" issue that drove people away from McGovern. The Eagleton affair had done incalculable damage to his campaign. McGovern was percieved as weak, foolish and not practical as opposed to Nixon. He didn't even win on the issue of honesty over Nixon!

While the book is depressing to a Democrat, it certainly opens your eyes as to why voters impressions of the candidate really count. It is too bad. McGovern's personal valor, his integrity and his intelligence didn't save him. In a way, we could say he was too good for us at that moment in time...how sad...

[EFerrari]

94. I was a teen but I remember the Eagleton fiasco

because I was helping my mom with her precinct. It just kept getting worse and worse. And election night was horrible, too, like being present at an execution. In a way it was, the party started heading to the right after that.

[RBInMaine]

67. Don't be fearful. Just WORK for Obama: donate, call, canvass.

[greguganus]

99. Everyone should remember to bring tazers to the convention to get Hillary out of there. n/t

[LWolf]

102. I prefer a 3rd option:

we go to a brokered convention, and delegates "see the light:" that neither of these two divisive candidates can unify the party and win in November.

They nominate someone who CAN.

Someone who is neither of the current two.

[anigbrowl]

110. Much as I hate to say this, it won't be Kucinich

I campaigned for him 2004. He's a sweet and genuinely nice guy. I like him personally (met him twice). But he is also Too Weird.

[LWolf]

113. I wouldn't expect it to be DK.

I'm thinking Gore, or Edwards, or both.

The best position for DK at this point is Speaker of the House. Essential business of all kinds would be "on the table" then.

I don't think there is anything weird about Dennis Kucinich. He's probably the most normal of any democrat we could run. He's only "weird" if we believe the media machine propaganda, and I know better than that.

My current avatar did not appear until a few days AFTER DK dropped out to defend his seat in the House. It's there as a protest against the appalling platforms and campaigns of the current two forced upon me by other Democrats, not because I'm campaigning for him to get the nominee at this point, lol.

[LuckyTheDog]

112. That would be a disaster

That strategy would be a sure loser.

[LWolf]

114. That strategy is the only winner.

There are two many DEMOCRATS who won't vote for either of the current two candidates in November, let alone the rest of the nation.

[LuckyTheDog]

115. Two things

-- Saying "oh, never mind" to millions of primary voters is not a winning strategy.

-- Any Democrat who would sit by and watch this country be handed over to John McCain is an idiot.

[LWolf]

117. "Oh, never mind...."

If the process had been clean from the beginning, this argument would have merit, and I'd support it.

It wasn't, so it doesn't, and I don't.

First of all, front-loading the primaries the way it was done in '08 guarantees an artificial narrowing of the field. That's not exactly democratic. That's why we had the fiasco with Florida and Michigan, and states jockeying to put their primaries earlier. There's nothing democratic about allowing 2 small states to narrow the field before the rest of the nation weighs in.

There were only 2 primaries and 2 caucuses before everyone else dropped out. Even before Super Tuesday. Who knows how many of the millions of votes cast after that would have gone to either of the current two, and how many people just held their nose to vote for their version of "the lesser of two evils?"

The fact is that those four early states' votes count more than the rest. Those are the votes that decided for the rest of us who would be on our ballot, regardless of whether we wanted to cast votes for them or not. That is not a democratic process.

I haven't even voted YET. My primary is not until May 20th, and I've listened to two months of my fellow democrats whining because it isn't "over" before I ever got to vote. I don't get to vote for the candidate of my choice, and many voters would like to make my vote completely irrelevant. How is this less objectionable than discounting the votes they already cast? Because their votes are more valuable?

Of course, there's Michigan and Florida to consider, as well. Two whole states of disenfranchised voters, and there is no clean way to accomodate them at this point.

Not a single one of those "millions of votes" is more worthy than another; unless every vote carries equal weight, the process is corrupt. With these realities, I don't have any problem throwing the whole damned primary out the window.

[LuckyTheDog]

118. I am from Michigan

And I know full well that our idiotic state party knew what it was doing. It was warned of the consequences. And it went ahead and screwed things up anyway. I don't blame the DNC and I don't blame the candidates.

Well, I kind of blame the candidates... all of them should have kept their names on the ballot and campaigned in Michigan. Had they done that, then the DNC would have had to count the primary. But one really can't be too mad at Obama, Edwards, etc. for following the rules. And given the way it all went down, I don't see how the DNC can give those delegates to Hillary.

Jennifer Granholm gambled and lost. It's on her.

[LWolf]

123. In the end,

it disenfranchises your whole state, and I'm sorry about that.

There really is no way to make it right in this primary. I do not blame the DNC or any of the candidates for that.

I also think your votes are of equal value to the process. So is mine, and I don't cast it until May 20th. If we want votes treated with respect, that's the place to start.

I'd like to see all states do vote-by-mail (I'm partial to it, since all voting in my state is done this way), with no ballots opened or counted until every primary vote in every state has been cast, on a national vote-counting day.

Then it wouldn't matter what order people voted in.

[Cha]

126. Thank you for explaining that so

succinctly, Lucky from Michigan!

[FlyingSquirrel]

109. 2 more Supers endorsed him today to her 1, right after PA

She'd need 70+ % of them to overturn the results. It's not gonna happen.

[depakid]

120. A more rational fear would be that Obama gets the nomination and loses badly in the fall

Racism (rather than a slim resume) gets the blame, and the US doesn't see another serious African American for a generation.

[Buzz Clik]

128. If Hillary pulls ahead in the elected delegates, she should win.

Obama, being a man of honor, will withdraw with dignity.

As it should be.

And Hillary? Will she drop out when it is clear she has no chance of winning the majority of the elected delegates?