The Brand New Respectful Presidential Campaign Thread

Beesie--with respect to your last paragraph, there's another telling point one could make.  It wasn't Clinton who said she's more electable because her voters wouldn't vote for Obama.  Obama said that, very clearly.

And it might actually be true.  On just about every political blog that I read, large numbers of Obama supporters are saying they won't vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, which certainly shows what they're voting for--a man not a principle. Is it that they only dislike war when their candidate is against it! 

Someone on the other thread said that African Americans wouldn't vote for Clinton if Obama lost the nomination.  That certainly denigrates a people, who don't need further denigration, and it's not true.  The African-Americans who come out every year and vote for the Democrats, even when the Democrats give them nothing in return (much like senior citizens, the women in particular) will vote for whichever person is the nominee.  They know their duty. Those who only register to vote because of a personality, probably won't vote, but the Democrats will win without them.   

Amy, I didn't say that there isn't anything that Clinton has said that can't be used by the Republicans.  It's campaign; it would be impossible to complete avoid it.  Obama certainly hasn't, with regard to what his campaign has put out about Clinton.  What I said is that Clinton has tried to word things as carefully as she can, and she has done this at her own expense. For example, in a couple of the debates she was directly asked if she felt that Obama was ready to be president.  She should have said "No, not yet.  Not with only 2 years of national experience and no experience running a government (i.e. as a governor)".  Instead, she evaded it.  To the frustration of the press, who criticized her for it, she wouldn't answer the question and say the words.  That's an example of what I'm talking about. 

As for saying that Obama had no role in Florida and Michigan, are you kidding me?   I'm incredulous that you would believe this.  Yes, it's what Obama says (of course!), but it's completely contrary to what everyone in the media has been saying, even the heavily pro-Obama media.  The consensus opinion is that the Obama campaign have been against a revote and have dragged their feet and continually put up roadblocks during the negotiations. Here are just a few examples of what the press has said:

"Plouffe (Obama's campaign manager) said the calls for a revote in the two states "seem to have become more of a Clinton production.""  http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1222769820080312?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

"Clinton said a complete re-do of the two primaries would be acceptable to her.  But Obama says he's not sure that's such a good idea"  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88212282 

"Florida Democrats thought they had a plan that would allow for a mail in primary thus making it possible for their delegates to be seated at the convention in August.  Alas, the Obama campaign never got on board and Florida Super Delegates in Congress squashed the proposal this morning."  http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/no_go_on_florida_revote.html

"A top Michigan Democrat expressed frustration Wednesday with Sen. Barack Obama for not embracing a plan to conduct a revote of the state's Democratic primary"  http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/clinton.michigan/

"The hesitance shown by the Obama camp over the primary "do-over" plan contrasted with the position taken by Clinton, who traveled to Detroit Wednesday for a rally advocating state legislative approval of a June 3 re-vote."  http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080319/pl_cq_politics/politics2690785

Even from the press in Asia:  "Obama surrogates pushed back against the idea of a revote, and questioned whether a primary by mail was feasible, secure or fair."  http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/334828/1/.html

I do understand the concern about changing the rules midway through the process.  It's a valid point, but in the end, being technically correct and standing on principle won't help the Dems if in November they lose Michigan, lose Florida and lose the election.

Of course Obama doesn't want a "do-over."  That's all I got to say 'bout that.  Anyone with a brain can figure it out.  Oops, said something else. 

Shirley

If they don't redo the primaries in Michigan and Florida I don't see how Clinton can get the superdelegates to vote for her at the convention. She has the larger States in her corner, she can make a case for that, but she really needs the majority of the popular vote too.

She might take this fight to the convention, but without getting the upper hand through the popular vote, it's a waste of time, effort and money.  We'll actually know June 4th who is going on.  They'll be quite an outpouring of dems asking her to step out of the race.  They're already trying to put pressure on her, but it's too soon.  We can wait till we know the results of the last primary.

Does anyone not think that it's ok to change the rules of the election during the middle of the race????

Amy, of course it's a problem to change the rules in the middle of the race!!!! But it's a worse problem to consciously make a decision that will throw away the election in November.  It's a question of priorities.   The lesser of two evils.  Doing something distasteful because in the end it's the decision you have to make to survive.  Thinking ahead to the implications of your decision before you decide.

As for your example of Russia or Iraq, remember that we are not talking about the election here, we are talking about the nomination process for one of the parties.  Yes, it would be a concern if Russia or Iraq changed the rules of an election mid-stream, but I doubt that we have any idea of the inner workings of each of their political parties and how they select their leaders.  Different political systems, different countries, different parties within countries all have their own rules.  And I suspect that the U.S. government would applaud if an Iraq party changed their nomination rules mid-stream, if the purpose was to ensure that more people had their say in the process.

The number of educated people that I know that are racist are legion.  The number of blue collar workers, also that I know, that are open, tolerant, and good people are also legion.  Intolerance comes in all classes, races, and genders.
 

But It is entirely possible that these people (I assume all waiting to register to vote) can't or don't read, since the latest Gallup Poll shows Clinton in a statistical tie with McCain, but McCain beating Obama 47 to 43.  Clinton in the Gallup Poll is leading Obama 49 to 42 among Democratic voters--one of those small mercies that I can only hope continues.

Your obvious or mine?

Apologies if anyone read the earlier post here.  I forget myself at times!

Amy,

"blue collar, racists, uneducated white people".

Wow speak of  the intolerance! Imagine if someone substituted "black" for "white", there woud be an ourage here.

Here is a prime example of so called liberal elite looking down on working masses, isn't it. Amy, you are showing your true colors now .

BTW, they cannot be uneducated , they listen to Rush Limbo!

I must say I really enjoy reading this thread.   I say no matter who you like?

Amy,

You crack me up.  You're always putting words into Hillary's mouth.  How do you know what she knows about the experience of African-Americans?  If Obama wasn't running in the race, Hillary would have had most of their community support as her husband had during his campaigns.