The REAL reason Clinton "suspended"

[B_VinylBoy]

Obama won, so move on and get yours. Why try to belittle your opponent? If you are secure enough in your victory then you should move on and not even acknowledge the flaws in your defeated foe. Real athletes and real competitors have respect for their opponents and don't rub shit in like little snobby 5 year olds.

QTF!

 

[Industrialsize]

This is why it is getting harder for me to actually vote for barack, his supporters are the biggest bunch of bragging ass clowns on the planet. Obama won, so move on and get yours. Why try to belittle your opponent? If you are secure enough in your victory then you should move on and not even acknowledge the flaws in your defeated foe. Real athletes and real competitors have respect for their opponents and don't rub shit in like little snobby 5 year olds.

I'm sure that was directed at me. I'll stop providing documented information as soon as Trinity drops the subtext to EVERY one of her posts that Obama somehow stole the election, cheated and that the world won't be right until her candidate is the winner.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

QTF!

Quoted Though False?:biggrin1:

 

[Trinity]

Obama Gains Among Women After Clinton Exit

Obama Gains Among Women After Clinton Exit
Daily Kos: GALLUP: Women Moving FAST To Obama

I'm sure that was directed at me. I'll stop providing documented information as soon as Trinity drops the subtext to EVERY one of her posts that Obama somehow stole the election, cheated and that the world won't be right until her candidate is the winner.

That isn't documented information that supports Democratic Party Unity that you initially stated. After you posted your numbers I reviewed the polls and found those polls on the "Women Bump" as well...since Hillary conceded the race.

That does not demonstrate party unity. Also, Obama has major issues with Working Class Voters and Women. As the Rasmussen poll shows...it is tight between Obama and McCain and currently there is no shift to solid Party Unity.

Polls are not something to stake everything on, Polls showed Obama winning South Dakota.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Quoted Though False?:biggrin1:

OMG... typo!!!! Such embarrassment!!! :redface:
Someone just cane me to death right now, please!!!!!

 

[Industrialsize]

That isn't documented information that supports Democratic Party Unity that you initially stated. After you posted your numbers I reviewed the polls and found those polls on the "Women Bump" as well...since Hillary conceded the race.

That does not demonstrate party unity. Also, Obama has major issues with Working Class Voters and Women. As the Rasmussen poll shows...it is tight between Obama and McCain and currently there is no shift to solid Party Unity.

Polls are not something to stake everything on, Polls showed Obama winning South Dakota.

Now I'm confused or you're looking at different polling, Obama LEADS McCain with women 51% to 38%......where is this problem with women that you speak of?

 

[Notaguru2]

I loved that Video by the New York Times. I didn't agree with every single thing in it, but on a whole - a strong piece of journalism. I thought it was great.

I'm so proud of you for stepping up and coming to the realization that Hillary was a victim of her own demise. There wasn't one argument in that piece that pointed a sexist or racist finger at Obama. They basically said that Obama stayed consistent throughout, and out-gamed her.

Much of her set backs were attributed to her, Bill and the campaign. There was a reference that the media was tough on her and may have been sexist, but it wasn't deemed widespread. As far as the sexist media goes, I never saw any of the reference footage until now. So the media did not shape my opinion of who to vote for.

The bottom line is, if you don't want to vote for Obama, I'm cool with that. What I am not alright with is that you have contrived in your mind that Obama was the one playing gutter politics; it just didn't happen.

Go vote for McCain, or better yet, write-in Hillary. Keep in mind that Ron Paul is running independent and the votes he takes from McCain at best would be offset by Billary Nobamatons.

In other words, your protest vote will be about as affective and recognized as Rush Limbaugh's operation chaos.

If you'd rather sacrifice your ideology and vote for more wars, more economic despair, no universal healthcare, and sending more Americans off to die for ridiculous foreign policy... vote McCain. If your scorn is worth losing the chance to appoint 3 new supreme court justices that stand up for your ideals and all that women have achieved, then vote McCain. You are so blinded by your scorn, your judgment has become more clouded than the Clinton's in their last days on the campaign trail.

I'm keeping faith that in time, you'll heal from this and do the right thing in November. I don't like Hillary, but as I said all along, had she won, she'd have gotten my vote. Why is that so hard for you?

 

[HazelGod]

Keep in mind that Ron Paul is running independent

I don't think so. GOP Congressman Paul has stated that he has no intention of running independently in this election.

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

I still don't get some of you people. He is not the official candidate until the convention meets, and he's voted in as candidate. At any time, the super delegates could flop over to hillary and torpedo him. It's highly unlikely but still doable. How can someone steal an election when such a large number of delegates aren't even elected by the public? Don't you see the leaders of the party have the final say, and you don't?

 

[Bbucko]

I still don't get some of you people. He is not the official candidate until the convention meets, and he's voted in as candidate. At any time, the super delegates could flop over to hillary and torpedo him. It's highly unlikely but still doable. How can someone steal an election when such a large number of delegates aren't even elected by the public? Don't you see the leaders of the party have the final say, and you don't?

The Dems are the official Death-Wish party (in terms of open displays of disunity), but the suggestion that the primary/caucus system was so flawed that the will of the majority of voters was nullified is wrong.

And nothing short of revolution will prevent Obama from being the Dem nominee.

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

The Dems are the official Death-Wish party (in terms of open displays of disunity), but the suggestion that the primary/caucus system was so flawed that the will of the majority of voters was nullified is wrong.

And nothing short of revolution will prevent Obama from being the Dem nominee.

You can believe that all you want but stranger things have happened.
All it would take is one nasty scandal, and he'd be toast.

This is kind of like 1960. JFK was the media darling to bring about change. The press created his image for him. The press has created an image for Obama. Shoot the newspaper in Chicago did a huge mud sling on the Senator he defeated to get Obama elected to Senate. It's an advantage being the dark horse candidate. Nobody knows enough about you to do you harm.

Personally, I liked none of the choices we had.

 

[Bbucko]

Barack Obama was and has been thoroughly vetted. Anyone still unclear on any of policies need only spend some time on his website.

As to not liking the remaining options...I can sympathize. The two-party system excludes many entirely and makes many others feel less than fully enfranchised.

Although I've been an Obama supporter since last fall, I can really understand feeling as though your choice is between lobster or pork, and you keep kosher.

 

[Notaguru2]

All it would take is one nasty scandal, and he'd be toast.

You mean like, RFK? Yeah, Billary Nobamaton has already made that point, numerous times. Yes, anything could happen... the smart money (yours not included) is on Obama though. LOL

 

[playainda336]

I am not sure what your point is either. The Real World is not black and white.

Some voters are facing a rock-versus-hard-place dilemma and may be lured by the sirens of a purple life form.

Weren't you a McCain courtisan yourself only weeks ago? Surely you can agree the man is no bigot and no orthodox conservative. He may present some appealing traits to people who supported the Clinton bid.

Only weeks ago?

Do me a favor and just check my post history. I don't post very often at LPSG, so you should be able to see how long ago, I've stopped supporting John McCain. Try before the Pennsylvania primary.

I didn't say John McCain was a bad man. I have said that. And don't misconstrue what I am asking Trinity.

I asked what her reasoning is. What was her point?

I understand that she is for Hillary Clinton, but what I don't understand is that if she is for Hillary Clinton and for the ideals and goals that Hillary attempted to promote, why then would she side with someone who was not on the same wavelength as Hillary Clinton. Why would she try to stop someone from getting in office who would be attempting to do some of the same things Hillary Clinton is trying to do? At this point, I'd think if Obama even chose Hillary as his running mate, Trinity would come up with some crazy reason to not vote for Hillary Clinton all in the interest of "supporting Hillary Clinton"...

 

[deleted213967]

If Obama, Clinton and McCain are the best the US has to offer as presidential material, then I want to cry. :rant::crying: They're all monster dicks in my opinion. They make Bush look good.

I wouldn't go that far but you raise a good point.

You'd think that after 2 terms of W voters would welcome anyone, but instead W may have vastly elevated our collective expectations, perhaps because we have to offset 8 years of absolute regression.

 

[deleted213967]

Only weeks ago?

Do me a favor and just check my post history. I don't post very often at LPSG, so you should be able to see how long ago, I've stopped supporting John McCain. Try before the Pennsylvania primary.

I didn't say John McCain was a bad man. I have said that. And don't misconstrue what I am asking Trinity.

I asked what her reasoning is. What was her point?

Granted, you liked McCain months ago and then changed you mind.

(Sorry, I don't post here as much as some core members either).

I am not Trinity's campaign surrogate but I still can't agree with your notion that because HRC faked a statement about supporting BHO on Saturday, all of her supporters are ipso facto duty-bound to vote for him.

You don't need to be a top-flight pollster to figure out that a majority of her supporters will have little choice but vote for BHO.

What counts is what happens at the margin. Will 10% of HRC supporters (some of which did not vote in the primaries) defect to McCain and 15% stay home? Could the November numbers be less? more?

McCain has his own problems with the Dark Ages Bigots Club on the right.

I cannot believe how self-assured some of those pundits sound. Didn't Americans make W POTUS twice? Who are we to predict the outcome?

 

[Trinity]

Now I'm confused or you're looking at different polling, Obama LEADS McCain with women 51% to 38%......where is this problem with women that you speak of?

You made a statement on party unity. Your polls are on Women. Obama leads McCain on women because Hillary Clinton conceded.

I'm so proud of you for stepping up and coming to the realization that Hillary was a victim of her own demise. There wasn't one argument in that piece that pointed a sexist or racist finger at Obama. They basically said that Obama stayed consistent throughout, and out-gamed her.

You should save your insincere, condescending "pride" because I don't share your views. The video examined errors in the campaign and circumstances of the campaign. Obama had just as many set backs and errors that were given a pass. As I stated before, Obama is not the better candidate and he did not run a better campaign. I also do not agree the video presented the argument that Obama "outgamed" Hillary Clinton in any positive fashion.

There will be more to come in the future to reexamine the primary and the entire campaign and Obama will be revealed.

 

[D_Thoraxis_Biggulp]

I wouldn't go that far but you raise a good point.

You'd think that after 2 terms of W voters would welcome anyone, but instead W may have vastly elevated our collective expectations, perhaps because we have to offset 8 years of absolute regression.

Absolutely, and thank goodness for that. Worst case scenario, it could have lowered our expectations of a President, and we would've put any tool belt in the Oval Office.

 

[Trinity]

The Dems are the official Death-Wish party (in terms of open displays of disunity), but the suggestion that the primary/caucus system was so flawed that the will of the majority of voters was nullified is wrong.

And nothing short of revolution will prevent Obama from being the Dem nominee.

You need to read the Primary vs. Caucus Report.

http://www.talkleft.com/media/caucusjune2rev.pdf

 

[Industrialsize]

You need to read the Primary vs. Caucus Report.

http://www.talkleft.com/media/caucusjune2rev.pdf

We get it........you don't like the caucus system.......personally I think they have their place and show a candidate's ability to "organize", an essential skill in winning elections......work to change the system if that's how you feel.......and if you are a democrat.....work to make sure a democrat wins the GE in November.