I believe that Obama will likely win the nomination, but

[cali]

by the time this is over, it won't matter. Having lost three contests last night, Obama will almost certainly go on the attack against Clinton. He'll start throwing out all her negatives the way she's been throwing his. Expect to hear more about Hsu, Gupta and Giustra. Expect to hear more about secrecy and papers and unreleased phone logs. And Clinton will continue it from her side; more Rezco and dangerously inexperienced, etc. He will be damaged to the point of inviability. And if, by some chance, it's Clinton, same goes for her.

It really doesn't matter anymore who gets it. Our chances of winning in November go down every day this goes on. It's no one's fault. It's not Hillary's fault and it's not Obama's fault. It's just dumb, bad luck that it's playing out this way.

Over the next weeks and months, McCain will be making his case to the American people. He won't be attacking Hillary or Obama to any great extent- he won't have to. They'll be doing McCain's work for him. He'll be solidifying his support, while we fracture. Everyday that the dem contest continues is a bonus day for McCain. He'll consolidate his support with repukes and pick up independents and dem white males.

Here's why Obama will likely win: The math again: There are only about 530 pledged delegates left to win. Hillary is still about 145 pledged delegates behind Obama. Obama will win big in MS and WY. Even if Hillary wins PA by 20 pts, she still can't pick up enough delegates. That goes for states like WV and KY, too. Obama will go into the Convention with over 100 more pledged delegates than she has. I don't see the SDs overturning that for several reasons. That delegate gap gives them cover. They don't have that if they go for Clinton. Saying she's won the biggest dem states, just doesn't provide it. But it would by a Pyhrric victory for Obama. He'd likely lose a lot of those who support her. And if she gets it, she'd lose a lot of the AA vote and a lot of young people.

Anything could happen in the coming months, but at this point I don't care that much who wins the nomination. The odds of the dem candidate winning have diminished so markedly that a dem winning the White House is now a slim possibility if things continue on the same path. I'd rather see Hillary lose to McCain than Barack. I see McCain as a one term President, and Obama could run again in 2012.

No, this isn't sour grapes. I haven't felt that Hillary has done anything truly over the line in terms of campaigning. I don't buy all the nefarious charges, and Obama has brought some stuff down on his own head. You can't blame the NAFTA kerfuffle on Hillary. You can't blame Rezco on Hillary. I've said for the last 6 weeks that a long acrimonious primary battle, leading to a brokered convention, gives us a mortally wounded candidate. I don't see how anyone could argue that.

I think the only ways we could emerge from this cluster fuck with a good chance to win the White House are the following: They sit down, talk it out and emerge as a unity ticket with Clinton heading it up, or one of them drops out in the next couple of weeks. Hillary has the better argument for heading a unity ticket. Her coalition is a stronger democratic demographic than his, and she does have the better experience argument. But that's it. Those are the only two scenarios that might leave us with a viable nominee. Because if it goes on until August, we've lost. And the thought of losing this year to John McCain is a horrible one.

[peacebird]

1. i agree that going negative is only doing McCains work for him, and making it easier for him to win

i disagree with a Clinton/Obama ticket however. EVERY poll I have seen shows Obama beats McCain. Every poll I have seen show McCain beats Clinton.

In a debate I would prefer Obama's cool, unflappable demeaner going up against McCain. Not Hillary because if she is on a good night, fine, but if she isn't - whining won't win.

If it MUST be a unity ticket - make it Obama/Clinton

[Phillycat]

92. Uh huh...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4906406&mesg_id=4906406

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. I don't understand you, really. What are you so afraid of in this active primary?

I LIKE a candidate that is ready for a FIGHT in the general election. My GOD, we've had TWO CANDIDATES IN THE PAST THAT DID NOTHING!!! What is this frikkin' fear of fighting tooth and nail for a position? What on EARTH is going on with this wimpiness? Let these two fight it out! It will only make them stronger fighters against McCain, and PLEASE let's stop the wimpiness! The last thing we need is another noodle of a candidate that slides slowly away without fighting it out with all his/her might!!!! Sheesh! NO WIMPS NEEDED HERE!

[cali]

9. What is so difficult to understand. It's hardly a revelation

that a long acrimonious battle and brokered convention are bad for the eventual nominee. It's not even fucking debatable. It has nothing to do with wimpiness. It has to do with reality. Try it. You seem to know zip about the realities of the scenario I laid out.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

81. Look, I want Hillary out of the race too, particularly after complimenting McCain by

alluding to him as somehow superior to another Democrat, but she wants the nomination bad enough to do anything. The only thing that scares me about Hillary is what she'll do once she finally realizes she's lost the nomination. Now THAT scares me a lot more than these two fighting to the last moment. Look, I think people in Ohio are desperate for jobs but not educated enough to realize that it's the trade agreements that took away their jobs. IF they knew that, and they knew that the Clintons were strong trade agreement advocates, they wouldn't have voted for Hillary. And by the way, WHY did Obama not focus on that? Did he start to and then suddenly Hillary's team got defensive and attacked him back on NAFTA and Canada and all?

In any case, I'm thinking he can use against Hillary her very own comment complimenting McCain. There has to be a way Obama can use that. It's ripe, juicy, and it begs asking the question, "How the F are you going to fight McCain on anything, if you think he's so great?"

[Tellurian]

11. Obama really thought he had this election locked up... surprise!

He spent a boodle of money on advertising and it did absolutely -0- good buying him votes. People will turn against him from here on in, now that people realize the Resko Trial is surfacing and will be problematic for him. No one is interested in having a presidential candidate who is embroiled in sleazy, shady, dealings with a Chicago slum landlord. Not after, Obama's credibility of telling the Truth has been challenged and found less than trustworthy with the NAFTA/Canadian flap. Obama is finished. Hillary proved it last night. She will only become stronger from here on in!

[cali]

17. Are you incapable of anything but the most simplistic thinking?

Your post is riddled with the holes of a shallow thinker. You can't discuss with any acumen what I posted. In fact, you can't discuss what I posted at all. It's straight out pathetic.

[Lyric]

23. From a Hillary supporter...STFU. Good grief. n/t

[Tellurian]

24. Oh my, now take your medicine and STFU yourself!

[Voltaire]

Do you really want to bring up shady dealing??

FOOL!

[cali]

32. self-delete

[RoadRage]

60. The money he spend did ZERO good?? Are you kidding?

The guy was behind in OH by 30.. he lost by 10. He was behind by Texas by huge margins as well, and seems to have lost only the primary by 3. With the Caucus left to go - he could still actually come out of that one ahead by a bit.

And you actually have the "audacity" to say that Clinton is the candidate of fairness & honesty? Wow.. the Hillary glasses that they're sending out to supporters must have pretty thick lenses.

Congrats to your candidate taking in a big win last night - but please try to be a bit more balanced when viewing "your" candidate.

[sonias]

64. He is going to take the most delegates out of Texas

Obama won Texas in the delegate sense of the word.

Sonia

[Sarah Ibarruri]

82. You Hillary's negative comments about Obama is paying off? nt

[Mass]

45. Because it means that our eventual nominee will be beaten on by his/her opponent AND McCain for 2

months or more, while McCain will have nobody to attack him. Each time there was such a divisive race, we lost the General election and it will be the same.

How is it a good thing?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

83. She was a Republican when she met Bill Clinton, wasn't she? nt

[blm]

77. BULL - Kerry fought Bush and WON. McAuliffe's DNC let the RNC steal that election for Bush

again.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

84. Kerry did not fight back anything. The swiftboaters came out and suddenly, Kerry had vanished

I remember. I campaigned for him. Many of those who campaigned for him were on the phone all night wondering what the HELL he was thinking by not attacking back.

[blm]

88. There is a research forum here at DU that has the entire chronology and proves you WRONG.

Had Terry McAuliffe's DNC secured the election process Kerry would have won in a landslide.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

91. Okay all right whatever. I must've been tripping on drugs then. They fought back a lot...........

NOT! Jesus H. Christ, how many times am I going to have to hear the same bullshit? If he'd come back INSTANTLY and said, "There are advertisements out there telling lies, and I'm going to set the record straight right now so we can put this bullshit to rest...." he'd have been president and this economy would be in a MILLION times better shape. Fact is, he did NOT do that. He was paralyzed as to what to do.

[blm]

94. There is a research forum here at DU with the facts. You are wrong.

Have you ever even accessed that thread in the forum to see if your view is correct?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

96. I can't help but think there's a reason you want to gloss over Kerry's failure to respond to the

swiftboaters asap.

[blm]

97. I can't help but think you are averse to FACTS as they EXIST. Here is the Research Forum

for you...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

[Sarah Ibarruri]

103. This conversation

Which is like you telling me the sky is a striped yellow and green dog, and I saying it isn't, is over. The End.

[blm]

105. Heheh - Facts have a way of doing that to those who can't handle facing the idea that

they have let themselves be wrong for so long.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

106. Your lies are facts? Holy crap. I'm putting you on ignore. nt

[blm]

108. I directed you to the Research Forum here at DU. You are pretending the research is a lie, though

it is all documented and cites are provided.


That you consider documented research a lie is a reflection on YOUR judgment and analysis skills - no one else's.

[joshcryer]

3. He has to have more than 100-150 delegates to show a marginal "mandate."

Because MI and FL give Hillary a good portion it can become a consideration at the DNC.

Neither candidate looks like they're going to have a mandate going into the DNC, I think both sides need to accept that.

[lapfog_1]

5. Bullshit.

I know you WANT to believe that crap... but it doesn't sell here.

There WAS NO Florida or Michigan primaries. Period. They never happened.

Obama is going to have at least 150 more pledged delegates than Hillary.

The Super Delegates will NOT overturn the will of the people. No matter how much your side whines and moans about it.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Nope

they happened.

And if you think the party is going to disenfranchise two big, important states at the convention just to uphold Howard Dean's ego, you're wrong. Even Howard Dean won't do that.

[NDambi]

12. They should have a redo...or some other form of voting..or split the delegates..it shouldnt stand

as is..or get seated as is...

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Florida certainly should

a record 1.7 million democrats voted - more than twice as many as 2004.

[NDambi]

18. We disagree. The rules are the rules...follow them or come up with a fair scenario

[MonkeyFunk]

20. When the rules are harmful

we need to abandon them.

What was the POINT of these rules, anyway? To protect Iowa and New Hampshire's early role. Well, guess what? They got to go first this year, too.

And a year ago, I'd say just about 99.9% of DUers said it was STUPID to let Iowa and New Hampshire go first every year. Now you're all defending that situation, just because it helps your candidate to do so.

Florida republicans in 2000 focused on a strict adherence to "The Rules", too. No, you can't count votes an extra day - those are the rules! No, we can't do a statewide recount - those are the rules!

Back then, many of us thought that a blind adherence to arbitrary rules at the expense of fairness and enfranchisement was wrong. You guys sure have turned around 180 degrees.

[Voltaire]

27. Everybody knew the rules going in

If the Clinton campaign had no foresight because they were hung up on their own inevitability, that's too damned bad.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. That's what the Republicans said in 2000

The fact is, the rule was stupid to begin with, it's meaningless now - Iowa and New Hampshire got what they wanted anyway.

The party just simply isn't going to give up Florida and Michigan in order to preserve some arbitrary, meaningless rule.

[stillcool]

76. arbitrary, meaningless rule..

aren't they all? Why can't you wait for the lawsuits to determine the selection?

[lapfog_1]

31. Then go to the convention and have the rules changed.

lobby for a national primary or a rotating order or whatever you think is fair.

But you can't go back and say "we didn't follow the rules and we don't want to be punished for not following the rules because we think the rules are unfair" Waaaaaaa, waaaaaaa.

And many of us, make that most of us... well, make that pretty much ALL of us wonder if you would feel the same way about seating the Florida delegates IF someone other than Hillary had won?

[NDambi]

36. Again, the rules are the rules...and the candidates accepted them

Many of those who support Clinton cry about the Caucuses...well guess what...that's the way it is... don't like it..lobby for change later, but you don't get to change the rules in the middle of the game!

Come up with a fair scenario...or FL and MI don't count.

[kmsarvis]

114. then lets do away with superdelgates

You know this logic completely contradicts the superdelegate argument.If you think it is unfair for the voters of Florida not to have their voices heard then how do you feel about a handful of party insiders potentialy overriding the popular vote and pledged delegate results?

It is unlikely even if the florida delegates are counted that it will be enough for Clinton to catch up in pledged delegates.If they are counted the Obama campaign would then have an even stronger argument against the super delegates overriding the will of the people.If the rules are changed in Florida and Michigan the undemocratic superdelegate rule should also be changed.

As for Michigan,there is no way anyone can justify those delegates being counted. Obamas name was not even on the ballot.

A do over in these states seems like a fair solution ,however a primary would cost upwards of 25 million in Florida and another several million in Michigan.This is money that the DNC will need in to fight the republicans in summer and fall.A caucus in both states would be a cheaper solution but this idea would most likely be rejected by the Clinton campaign because Obama does so much better in these.

[lapfog_1]

28. Why... because you SAY so...

and just who the fuck are you???

If they hadn't moved their primaries at all, they would have a HUGE role in picking the candidate (which was their reason for moving!) and all would be right with the world (except Hillary would NOT have won by the margin she did).

But the party officials in Florida screwed it up.

So sad, too bad.

[MonkeyFunk]

35. tsk tsk... so angry!

I say so because I believe the leaders of the party are smart enough not to throw away the general election in order to enforce a silly, arbitrary and now meaningless rule.

Howard Dean is smarter than you.

[lapfog_1]

47. I have no idea if Howard is smarter than me.

Florida is still winner take all in the GE, right?

Do YOU believe that either Hillary or Obama will win Florida this go round?

On what data do you hang your assertion? All of the polling data I have shows McCain beating both of them.

And given the way this campaign is going now, I expect those numbers to get much much worse for either of our candidates.

Also, you assert something else that I've never ever seen any evidence for... and that is the assertion that IF the Florida delegates from the non-sanctioned primary are NOT seated, the Democratic voters in Florida will NOT vote in the General Election.

I asked madfloridian about this and she told me that, as a Florida resident active in the Democratic party, this isn't the case as far as she knew... so I'm wondering what data you have in your possession that allows you to make such an assertion?

[MonkeyFunk]

53. Madfloridian is not exactly objective on this issue

She'll do anything to defend the honor of St. Howard of Burlington.

[lapfog_1]

55. But she does back up her assertions with data... lots and lots

of data.

Whereas you just make assertions.

Again, what polling data do you have that says Florida will go to either Obama or Clinton over McCain?

The last such heads up comparison I saw showed McCain beating OBama by 2 or 3 points and McCain beating Hillary by 7.

And what data do you have that says Democrats in Florida won't vote if their delegates are not seated? It's an assertion I seen you and other make a number of times now. What do you base it on?

[Tektonik]

21. Whatever happened to Democrats wanting to count every vote?

Fuck bullshit technicalities. That crap 'won' the election in FL 8 years ago.

Now Obama supporters want to disenfranchise millions, and they always boast when their candidate wins more delegates in a state than Clinton even when they lost the popular vote.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Yep

it's exactly the same mindset the republicans used in Florida - a mindset I found reprehensible.

They used the rules at every turn, no matter how petty, no matter how unimportant, to gain an advantage. They cared not a whit about fairness, about democracy, about doing the right thing - they just wanted to ensure their candidate won. It's sad to see that same exact mentality being demonstrated here.

[Tektonik]

29. mhmm

And Hillary is the Republican? I think not.

[lapfog_1]

41. The only mindset you have is one of "Hillary must win"

by any and all means.

Why not have a do-over primary... or a caucus?

Perfectly acceptable to the DNC. I think to Obama's campaign. Certainly acceptable to me.

What's the issue you have with that. Give Florida's voter a REAL campaign compete with a debate and speeches and TV adds and the whole shebang... great fun for everyone.

Somehow I don't think you are in favor of that.

[lapfog_1]

37. No, we do NOT want to disenfranchise millions of voters.

we want a level playing field. Same rules apply to everyone.

Look, I don't know about YOU, but I know that if Obama had won those delegates and not Hillary, I still wouldn't want them seated. You may not believe that, but I know that's how I feel.

I don't care if you now have a do-over primary. Give everyone the opportunity to campaign, vote and be counted. And if you are certain that Hillary would win again, you shouldn't mind doing that either. Are you afraid she won't win again... or will win but by a much smaller margin?

Why not have a second primary (and it the law is in the way, change it OR hold a caucus).

If money is the issue, hold a caucus.

What's the harm in that?

Unless you are afraid...

[Cha]

86. It's rather obvious you don't

know what you're talking about..all you've seen are soundbites and haven't studied on what really went down in Florida and Michigan.

Florida and Michigan wanted to make a power play and it came back to bite them thanks to their over bloviated officials.

[lapfog_1]

26. He already DID...

he told them that they couldn't move to date before Super Tuesday.

He told them what would happen if they did.

They went ahead and did it.

He sent them the notice that the delegates elected would not be seated.

No matter how you spin it, those are the facts.

What is going on NOW is a desperate attempt by Hillary and her supporters to have those delegates seated, including filing a lawsuit. However, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the parties can pretty much do anything they like within their own primaries... just like the judge in the Nevada Teachers Union lawsuit. Should the plaintiffs get this case to the Supreme Court again, the same ruling will happen again (there isn't anything NEW in this lawsuit that merits the attention of the Supreme Court). It's what they call "settled law".

And I hope Howard has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the HillShills and tell them to take a flying fuck at the moon.

They didn't want to follow the rules, they are being punished appropriately AND they are being punished just the way they were told they would be.

[lapfog_1]

4. The unity ticket is out...

The ugly little hit jobs from Hillary this week just killed that possibility off.

the "He isn't a Muslim, as far as I know"...

The "I will bring experience to the White House, John McCain will bring his experience, Obama will bring a speech he made in 2002"...

Those were not campaign attacks, those were personal. And very ugly.

They might have gotten her a slim victory yesterday, but they won't allow the unity ticket.

I don't think there is a solution.

Maybe the much rumored now 50 Super delegate defection will happen... but I doubt that now, too... I think that was only going to happen if Obama lost by 5 or 6 in Ohio and won by 3 in Texas.

Sad to say, I think we are really screwed this time.

[Texas Hill Country]

107. no, those statements are absolutely true.

In addition, you guys read way to much into crap like that. she only said that "as far as I know" after the interviewer pressed her 3 or 4 times on the same question. It's not like it was planned.

Plus, she is not Obama. Only he can know for 100% sure about his religious beliefs.

[Meshuga]

6. I thought his campaign was about changing this kind of politics

So if he goes this negative his message is lost. But I think that enough damage has been done and another few weeks of this will make it even worse. We are toast in November.

[MadBadger]

7. With Hillary throwing the ktichen sink, I think Obama has cover now to go after her hard.

[NDambi]

10. He won't do it...I don't see it.. He's too classy and honorable and she is neither

He should fight back but not go nasty and dirty, that's what the Clinton's know and do...let it comeback to bite them.

Anyway...Obama is still winning and will continue to do so..she can't catch him and I don't see the super delegates over ruling the pledged delegates.

[MadBadger]

14. he needs to attack first. Go after her experience and polarization

Talk about her electablility as well as her experience argument. Stress judgement, but also question how she has been tested. Question her legislative accomplishments. Throw her experience argument right back in her face.

[NDambi]

19. And I think he can do that by contrast without the nasty angle and dirty angle..let the Clinton's

have the low road..its their thing and where they dwell..

[Meshuga]

30. He can go after her record and polarization

without the theatrics and false outrage and not trying to paint a picture that doesn't really exist. But we are toast as a party because she is going to go for more nauseating tactics that even McCain himself won't be able to match but at least McCain will be thankful to Hillary.

He should take the high road even if the nomination is at risk.

[NDambi]

34. Agree completely

[Tellurian]

72. The fact that Hillary won three out of four states dismisses the "polarization" claim

out of hand. Do you actually know what you are talking about?

[pampango]

44. Agree with you 1000%. If he gets "nasty and dirty" now, he loses.

He cannot beat her by becoming "Hillary-lite" and getting involved in a street brawl. A significant part of his support comes from people who do not want to see that. He has to fight back against charges that are leveled at him (and they will come fast and furious now), but do so in a way that does not throw the "kitchen sink" back at her.

On a practical level, the nomination will obviously come down to the superdelegates. In all likelihood he will have a 100+ pledged delegate lead going into the convention - not a prohibitive lead, but better than being behind by 100+. If he can maintain the "high ground" and such a pledged delegate lead, the odds that the superdelegates would then give the nomination to Hillary would, IMHO, be very small (certainly possible, but small).

There is a risk and a reward to the continuing nomination battle. To the extent that we are building the party, registering voters and discussing issues that highlight the differences with the Republicans we benefit from the continued exposure. To the extent that our candidates tear each other down with negative ads and campaigning, I think we damage whoever our eventual nominee is. There are going to be many disappointed supporters at the end of this. The more negative the campaign is from here on out the more disaffected the supporters of the losing candidate will be.

[onehandle]

13. McCain = Up to 3 right-wing SCOTUS appointees. nt

[Apollo11]

16. Thanks cali, for this very thoughtful post.

It's not every day on DU that you will see an Obama supporter putting forward the idea of a unity ticket with Hillary heading it up! ;-)

I already started a thread that is kind of going in the same direction.

How can we resolve this situation and come together to win in November?

I came across this interesting idea that someone posted over at FreeRepublic.com

"My theory is that if this isn’t sewed up by the convention, she will be allowed by the superdelegates to run for one term, with Barack as VP and anointed successor."

This idea was posted by LibertarianInExile, who must be OK because his/her signature line is "McCain is W with a DD-214 and a flash temper. Another 4 years of this mess--or worse? Hell, no!"

If you don't believe me, here's the link: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980569/posts

So what so folks here think about this idea?

Do you think it's even possible?

Does anyone else have a better idea? :eyes:



Here's the link to my thread (including more photos!):
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4899922

[Tarc]

39. It is a ridiculous idea

How about we just proceed onward and see what happens? That two of DU's chief Obamaniacs are now floating deals, hedging the future, threatening that Obama will "go negative" is a sign that their man is in trouble.

PS - I bookmarked one of cali's election predictor topics;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4856707#4856737

Take a look and see the lulz.

[cali]

49. Why if it's not the poster

who attacks other posters' parents and calls them senile, the hillydroid, who falsely charges that others are racists when his own vile comments show exactly what he is. Completely incapable of addressing anything with any intelligence at all and only able to smear shit all over- including himself.

[Tarc]

58. Hey there Miss Cali-Cleo! So what happened last night?

RI upset? (she won by 18)
TX for Obama? (he lost by 3)
Ohio by 5 for Hillary? (she doubled that)
You called Vermont, which is about as easy as calling Illinois for Obama.

I think the stock in your political acumen just dipped a few notches around here. Enjoy the slide, and watch out for that abrupt landing.

[cali]

40. I don't think it's possible to limit her to one term or even fair

to try and impose it, but I do think if we don't solve this mess quickly, we can't win. That's why I think a unity ticket with Hillary heading it is the best solution. The more I think about it, the more I see that as the answer to a bad situation.

[kmsarvis]

110. Dream Team ?

Do you honestly believe that a Clinton/Obama ticket is an electable one?I mean,in a perfect world maybe,but there is still alot of latent sexism and racism in this country.The so called "DREAM TEAM" would be up against a double whammy of bigotry.Either one of the candidates would, without a doubt, fair better with a white male as a running mate.

[mattclearing]

22. Wanna bet on Obama going negative?

If he goes all out negative, he forfeits the core of his appeal. It's a bad move, and since he is still in the driver's seat, it's also one he doesn't have to make.

[WDIM]

48. Is going truthful...

going negative?
Face it the Clinton regime was nothing but corrupt. Why not point that out?
Lets go with Clinton's main argument she can keep us safe.
What did the Clinton's do to keep us safe?
Did they catch Bin Laden after the first WTC bombing?... No
Did they do anything to stop 911 a year before it happened?... No
Did they go after terrorist that were threatening us?... Oh yeah they did but blew up a pharmaceutical factory instead to help their corporate backers.
Did they do anything to fix the situation with Iraq?... No they just ignored it and bombed it and killed and starved thousands of Iraqi civilians.

[Vinca]

I don't think Obama will go negative - although I wish he would.

Hillary might have won a few races, but she lost the respect of many people for what she's done over the past week or so.

[LWolf]

38. Do you feel that the Democrats

whose primaries fall after March 4th do not deserve an equal voice in the process?

My primary, for example, is May 20th, and it's not the last one in the nation, by any means.

Are our votes and voices valued equally, or are we supposed to just shut up and get in the line formed by others?

[cali]

42. I don't think in those terms. I believe it's much more important

to have a strong candidate. Sorry. And as someone who's vote in a primary counted for the first time yesterday, and who was never troubled by that vote being irrelevant in the past, I think I'm being consistent. Most of the dems in this country have already voted, and life, if you needed a reminder, is not fair.

[LWolf]

57. How strong is a process

that disenfranchises voters?

How does support of that process help to change it?

I'm not talking about "fair," lol. I'm talking about integrity.

[cali]

disenfranchisement is the wrong word

and integrity has nothing to do with it. There is no perfect way to choose a nominee. There never will be in our system.

[LWolf]

109. I think it's the right word, and integrity has everything to do with it. n/t

[davidpdx]

43. No unity ticket

There's no way I'd vote for a ticket with Clinton anywhere on it, no matter whether she was top of the ticket or second.

He'd essentially be giving up after winning a majority of the primaries and a large lead in the delegate count.

That's the quickest way to see supporters abandon him is to give up.

[Apollo11]

50. You would rather have McCain than Hillary?

Even if Hillary wins the nomination (with a little help from Florida and maybe a do-over in Michigan)?

The rules are very clear that Superdelegates are expected to use their judgement.

Otherwise what is the point in having Superdelegates?

Now is not the time to change the rules of the game.

[cali]

52. If it's not the time for changing the rules of the game, than

I hardly see how you can count FL. Either you believe in sticking to the rules of the game, or you don't.

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. You must not be on his email list

He is going after McCain.

[cali]

51. Yes, dear I'm on his email list

and I know he's going after McCain. Try basic logic: Just because he's going after McCain does not preclude his also going after Clinton. There are 6 weeks until PA. Odds are good that he's going to strengthen his attacks against Clinton.

[proud2BlibKansan]

56. Well why don't we wait and see what he does, dear,

instead of speculating?

[cali]

66. because speculation is a big part of politics

and in case it escaped your notice, dear, my OP deals far more with other issues and only touches on negative campaigning tangentially. Unable to respond to my points?

[bigtree]

54. Cali post , March 3rd . . . OK, I'm ready to predict: TX for Obama-- Cali post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4856707

[Tarc]

59. I know, I bookmarked that too. :)

Obama's DU Agitator-in-Chief just dropped a few rungs on the ladder.

[chascarrillo]

63. You two are so classy.

Keep hate alive!

[bigtree]

68. all these predictions made . . .

why not expect some accountability?

[cali]

gee, I was wrong. What does that have to do with the analysis

I posted? Nothing whatsoever of course. Petty digs don't particularly bother me, nor does being wrong about a prediction. Now, can you address the substantive issues I brought up or do you need to stick with petty crap?

[bigtree]

67. 'll stick with petty crap

. . . not very pressed this morning.

[cali]

69. as you so frequently do. Why should you change

when you have such an affinity for petty crap?

[bigtree]

70. aww, you noticed

(you're full of shit by the way.)

[KoKo]

78. It's amazing how many Obama Supporters are so afraid of McCain that

they make up a conflict between Barack and Hillary, that just doesn't exist. Not just you, Cali but so many in the Liberal Punditocracy who ran away from Clinton's, didn't support either Edwards or Kucinich...but hauled ass to Obama before they figured out that the whole country wasn't gonna fall in love with "Hope & Change" because they'd heard it all before from every Dem Candidate whose run in the last 50 years.

There's much to like about Obama and the energy he's providing to get young Dems involved...but the Dem Party as a whole is more complicated.

[Tellurian]

71. The one eyed seer is binded by lopsided logic..

the inabilty for objectivity takes it's toll on the many wishful thinking predictions. The only thing worse than 'hope' is "false hope" and that is what is promoted by that rabid Obama supporter. Inviting crash landing disappointments are inevitable if readers follow irrational predictions based on faulty logic much like the candidate they support.

[kmsarvis]

112. THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN HOPE????

THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN HOPE?????WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?????
INSANE!!!!!!!!

[IsItJustMe]

61. Getting down in the mud with Hillary is Obama's only option at this point. HRC was the first to go

there and now Obama is obliged to join her there. I think that HRC has already made Obama damaged goods going into the gemeral with her fear tactic commercials. By doing so, she has also burnt the bridge from under herself.

[ruggerson]

62. How can Obama go negative?

It destroys the entire pretext of his campaign.

I think, much as we all aren't wild about it, the only way out of this is for the two to join together.

He's likely to come into the convention with a slight pledged delegate majority.

She's likely to come into the convention with a slight popular vote majority.

Superdelegates have ammunition to go either way.

[Drifter]

65. Obama should ignore Clinton ...

and concentrate on McCain. That is where the focus needs to be if we are to have any chance at winning the Whitehouse in November. Clinton is dragging us down and keeping the Democrats divided. Do you think for a second that Clinton is going to have a uniting effect on the country by doing this? NOT A CHANCE. Half the country will not vote for her simply because her name is Clinton, and nothing she says or does is going to change that.

The longer Clinton drags out the inevitable, the less chance we have of winning the prize (and it may already be too late).

Cheers
Drifter

[awaysidetraveler]

73. It's unfortunate but true: McCain took the lead last night, while the dems bickered.

The media played up the HRC win, stirring us up like a nest of bees.

Meanwhile, the comic back and forth is tearing up the party. It's a shame.

In a party this deeply divided, it seems likely that only a combination ticket will suffice.

Still, it's unlikely to think that one will surface, given the fact that they'll each have
better chances in 4 years against McCain's successor.

It's tragic.

[NC_Nurse]

74. I think Hillary will lose the GE. Even with Obama on the ticket.

I think our best chance is if Obama does NOT get ugly, and manages to pull away
and win the nom.

She may have hurt Obama with all the fear-mongering and dirty tricks, but she's hurt herself too.
McCain will kick her ass.

[KoKo]

79. Why do you think that? Would you go for a Hillary/Obama ticket?

Talk about Party Unity...we would steamroll the Repugs! All that energy would blow them away! And, give Obama a leg up to be the President for two terms after that.... Just saying...

[NC_Nurse]

80. I think we could pull a lot of Independents with Obama, not so with

Hillary. Also, all the Repubs who might sit out the election because they are not big McCain fans will turn out
just to vote against her. She is REVILED by most Repukes and many indies too.

I'll vote for the Dem ticket, but I don't think she'll win.

[Phillycat]

93. Hmm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4906406&mesg_id=4906406

[Emit]

75. Obama yesterday "I don't want to change the tone of our campaign because that's how ..."

"I don't want to change the tone of our campaign because that's how I ultimately think we're going to able to govern"

'We do things differently' 3:13
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama says he wants to stay focused on the issues.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?iref=videoglobal

[Phoonzang]

85. K&Red. I agree. We've lost.....again.

Unless...both of them put their egos aside and think of the party and the future of the country first. Another 3 months of fighting will destroy both candidates.

We need a unity ticket NOW. I'm an Obama supporter but hell, let Hillary have the top slot. She won't accept VP and I frankly, I think she has Obama over a barrel. If this goes on and he starts going after her, she'll go ballistic and rip him to shreds. He'll still probably win, but his image will be, to put it mildly, tarnished. If she does win she'll have alienated half the Democratic party and will still have the "OMG it's the return of the CLENIS" crowd against her.

It's better to have Clinton covering Obama than attacking him. Let her turn her wrath on McCain and have Obama back her up with his message of hope and change. God cop, bad cop...so to speak. Alot of Obama supporters won't be happy, but I'm having doubts that the people who voted for Clinton in states like Ohio and Florida will vote for Obama.

[557188]

87. I disagree with you on many things but

We both agree the best way possible to beat the Republicans now is a Clinton/Obama ticket.

It just makes the most sense any way you look at it now.

[JimGinPA]

89. Normally I Agree With Most Of What You Post Here...

I don't agree with much of this. I too believe Obama will win the nomination, but I disagree many of your other points.

As long as the primaries are going on McSame is not going to get much attention, and whenever he is shown uttering Obama's name it will be quickly & deftly be boomeranged on him.

Hillary, in my opinion, has gone way over line with her negativity and her camp's "misuse" of the truth.

She would only only be an anchor on the ticket with him, dragging him to defeat, and there's no way he should ever agree to be a vice president to her.

He reduced her lesd in Ohio from 24 points to 10, and from double digits in Texas to a near loss, and without the lies and the negative ads it would have been even worse for her.

If you think him dropping out wouldn't cripple the party, you couldn't be more mistaken.

[JackORoses]

90. I beg to differ. This is Hillary's fault. She knows she has lost, yet stubbornly continues.

She is the one causing the damage.

If she had a smidgen of grace, she would have removed herself from the contest and we would already be uniting around our nominee.
Instead, she has taken the low road. She is a very selfish person.

[jlake]

95. It's time for Obama to drop out for the good of the party.

[rainman99]

99. Ha ha!

[depakid]

98. The far right will have plenty of time to attack

and what "case" do they have to make? Not bloody much, based on the record.

All they can do is tear Obama down- and make no mistake, they will. And it'll be effective- how =effective depends on whether Obama hits back even harder.

If the campaign tries to stay kumbaya in the face of it- the election will end up with a losing margin greater than we've seen since 1984.

[opihimoimoi]

100. The Common Enemy is the GOP/Bush/McCain...both Obama and Clinton must be friends for the sake of the

Nation....

In order to have best odds for victory, and its our very FREEDOM at stake, them two had better start negotiations/discussions/etc to reconcile differences and: get with the program....How to win General Elections 101.02

Party/Nation above EGO/Pride.....

We can do it....

[depakid]

101. How to win General Elections 101.02

Doesn't get any truer than that, bra.

[BootinUp]

102. A little too pessimistic for my taste.

I don't agree we will have a mortally wounded candidate from a long drawn out primary. The reason this is not true is because both candidates are being quite careful about their policy positions and the dirt being thrown is really pretty mild compared to anything that will come in the GE. I don't know who will be the nominee, but they both still have a shot at it.

[fedupwithbush]

104. Most experience, how is that?

Obama has more government experience on paper than her. When is being the wife of an executive more experience than actually holding office? If that were so, I'd have 18 years of being an electronic design engineer. I've been with my husband through all his schooling and work, for longer than the 18 years of marriage. But I can't put that on a resume. Why can she? I don't doubt that she talked with President Clinton about decisions. Sheesh, I found the last 2 great jobs my husband has had and vetted his resume for him too. But that DOESN'T MEAN I HAVE HIS SKILLS! This experience schtick is preposterous and really is a bunch of bull ****. That's just one more reason I don't like the campaign Hillary is running. Experience, hey I can basically lie on my resume too. Isn't that what she's doing?

[txaslftist]

111. It's both of their goddamn faults.

There isn't much I like about Mike Huckabee. He'd be a horrible president, he's not really funny, and he eats squirrels.

That said, his approach to McCain was always respectful, even though they were rivals. Sure, Huckabee might have gotten a few more delegates by going negative. But he didn't, not really. The GOP candidates hardly went after each other at all.

Then take a look at our side and see the negative and unfair attacks by and against Edwards, Clinton and Obama. They've all decided to take a walk in the mud together, and the one least muddy at the end wins?

Not likely. The one least muddy at the end will still be covered in mud, and the Obama folks won't vote for Hillary after what she's done to their hope; the Hillary people won't vote for Obama after what he's done to their girl, either.

But John McCain's people will vote for John McCain, and so will Huckleberry's, and Romney's, and both of Giuliani's people, and most of Ron Paul's people, etc etc.

And what do we get out of it? A bitterly divided party, a government run on a credit card, and 100 more years of war, wherever our adventurous lunatic deems it appropriate.

It is increasingly plain that neither Obama nor Hillary give a good goddamn about the party, about us, about the war, about the deficits or about anything other than themselves.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

113. It is our own fault

The proportional delegate set-up mandates that the system is incapable of deciding between two closely matched candidates.

This would have been obvious if anyone had really thought it through, but the allure of "fairness" suckered us into a silly system.

If Dean and Kerry had run neck and neck in 2004 the same thing could have happened, with many of the same passions. (Except without the race stuff)

Or maybe this was too hard to anticipate. Black voters have always settled the party's chronic egg-head idealist vs. blue-collar division on the blue-collar side. The wrinkle of a black egg-head idealist may have been to hard to envision.

I would propose that in future, one third of a states delegates go to the winner, even if by one vote, with the other two thirds being proportional.

That would reduce the chance of anything like the current situation by about 90%.