Originally Posted By Nemo88 Yes its time for Hillary to bow out,its very improbable that she will beat Obama by a large enough margin in TX and OH to actually get enough delegates to catch up to Barack. Shes run a terrible campaign,shes changed her approach about 50 times,lately shes come off very bitter and nasty.For her political career she would be wise to bow out gracefully,but she wont.She will dig her heels in and probably try to use legal action etc to win this nomination,like she said shes "in it to win it",thats all that matter,she uses GOP "win at any cost" tactics,which is why I wont vote for her.Obama is so much better.
Originally Posted By dsnykid What Legal Action would she be able to use? This is not a repeat of Florida 00, and I see no legal reason why Obama has not won his portion of the delegates.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 see for yourself,good ol' Hillary is IN IT TO WIN IT,at any cost. Officials: Clinton aides threatened lawsuit over Texas caucuses The Texas Democratic Party warned Thursday that election night caucuses scheduled for next Tuesday could be delayed or disrupted after aides to Hillary Clinton threatened to sue over the party's complicated delegate selection process. <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/449/story/510802.html" target="_blank">http://www.kansascity.com/449/ story/510802.html</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux I interpreted that as a "trial balloon". I don't think they'd actually do it - at least I hope not. How is this a way to "win"? If you exploit every legal loophole and parlay every political trick into a "victory", what have you really won? The fact remains that more voters would still support her opponent over her, and the resentment would dim her chances in the national election. But it was a bad idea to even mention this. There's a bored press waiting to pounce on whatever the next story is, and they just handed them a juicy one - but one that portrays them in a negative light. And they keep doing this. Hillary doesn't deserve the nomination just based on the ham-fisted campaign she's run throughout the primaries.
Originally Posted By dsnykid From the Article: "The source, who asked not to identified by name because he did not have authorization to speak about the matter, said Clinton 's political director, Guy Cecil, had forcefully raised the possibility of a courtroom battle. But Adrienne Elrod, Clinton's top Texas spokeswoman, said campaign and party officials had merely discussed election night procedures and that the campaign was merely seeking a written agreement in advance. She could not elaborate on the details of the agreement the Clinton campaign is seeking. "It is our campaign's standard operating procedure that we need to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it,'' Elrod said. "No legal action is being taken. We have no reason to take any legal action.'' and The source, who asked not to identified by name because he did not have authorization to speak about the matter, said Clinton 's political director, Guy Cecil, had forcefully raised the possibility of a courtroom battle. But Adrienne Elrod, Clinton's top Texas spokeswoman, said campaign and party officials had merely discussed election night procedures and that the campaign was merely seeking a written agreement in advance. She could not elaborate on the details of the agreement the Clinton campaign is seeking. "It is our campaign's standard operating procedure that we need to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it,'' Elrod said. "No legal action is being taken. We have no reason to take any legal action.'' So yes, both campaigns have threatened legal action, but to do so, according to their own party, would result in a swift demise for the entire party. The democrats have had too much legal BS in the last few years and it has never work in their favor.. I honestly can not see this as anything more than the emotional ramblings of campaign workers who know they are on the losing side.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I got a chance to listen to the chairman of the democratic party on talk radio yesterday (the topic had hours of airtime devoted to it), and he portrayed it as a discussion with both sides, but that the clinton side was being far more 'assertive' in their concerns. He was disappointed in their tone and tenor, and told them pretty much exactly what anyone else would - namely, that the rules in place have been this way for over ten years, and it's a bit late to be kicking up a fuss at the last minute. Either way, it got front page media coverage with a built-in negative impact on clinton herself. In comparison, obama 'wins' this one by doing nothing other than staying out of her way while she self destructs. So the quotes you posted in the post above are the expected outcome - hastily arranged press releases disavowing what they've just done. These are stupid blunders her campaign is making, just at the time that it's most important to get it right. She had a fair shot at the nomination in this campaign, she was even the "presumptive nominee" for a long time. I even think she'd have a pretty good chance of winning in november against mccain. But ... the troubles she's had all along the way have been self-inflicted - dumb missteps that were unexpected from such a seasoned and professional politician. She also had the dumb luck to be standing in the way when hurricane obama blew in outta nowhere. No one couldv'e predicted what has actually happened. Prediction: Obama/Gore 08 Kinda catchy, don't ya think?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I got a chance to listen to the chairman of the democratic party ... << TEXAS democratic party - oops.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Just watched tonight's opening skit of SNL. I may have to rethink my position on Hillary. NOT. But it was fun.
Originally Posted By planodisney gadzuux, just to not let you get away with it and needle you a little, if this was a republican candidate attempting these plays, your adjectives describing their actions would be far, far different.
Originally Posted By planodisney Obama/Gore? God help us. I like Obama but I honestly dont think this guy is ready. I am voting for Hillary in the Texas primary and I cant stand the woman. However, i feel we would be far better off with the Clintons in the hite house than Obama. Man, I realy wish Democrats would slow down the Obama express a little and think a bit deeper on substance. The support for him seems to be on such a superficial level. On a side note, Obama will never be more popular than he is right now, the media is completely in love with this guy, and he hasnt been scuffed up at all yet, however the L.A. Times has him trailing McCain by 2% in the most recent poll. I couldnt believe it.
Originally Posted By Mr X Those are good points, Plano. Why are you so against an Obama/Gore ticket though? Something against Gore? Seems to me that he would certainly help the "he's too young, he's not ready" argument.
Originally Posted By jonvn He won't win against McCain. I don't think Hillary will, either. The democrats have painted themselves into a corner from which they can't win. Their best hope is for a brokered convention where Edwards or Gore gets the top part of the ticket. Then they can win. Otherwise, we're going to have republicans in office for the next 16 years.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 "He won't win against McCain. I don't think Hillary will, either. The democrats have painted themselves into a corner from which they can't win." Obama raised 50 million dollars in Feburary, I dont know McCains numbers but I do know its nothing close to that. If its a Obama McCain matchup,I think McCain has an uphill battle with Obama.Plus Obama is a much harder candidate for the GOP to attack than Hillary Clinton. You seem to think because McCain is a "white guy" that he will automatically win the presidency,I think thats a foolish assumption.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Especially since mccain doesn't have much support from his own party. There's no enthusiasm for his entire candidacy. You want enthusiasm? Take a look at obama's support - it's unprecedented. Also, mccain is easy to run against. It's an uphill climb for any republican candidate, and he's closely tied with the bush administration and the entrenched DC power structure, Do I have to remind people that bush is a political pariah? Not only here but around the entire world? A vote for mccain is a vote for status quo - war, corruption, profligate spending, corporate welfare - all the things the GOP stands for. Who's gonna vote for that?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I am voting for Hillary in the Texas primary and I cant stand the woman. << Curious - why aren't YOU voting for mccain?
Originally Posted By jonvn "mccain doesn't have much support from his own party" I think republicans will likely vote for McCain over Obama. Just a wild guess on my part.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't think Gore would have any interest in being VP again. More likely choices for Obama: Webb (the pick I'm leaning towards wanting him to make right now), Clark, Bayh, Richardson... if he wants to go for a woman to underscore the "change" message (and maybe get some disaffected Clinton voters back in the fold), perhaps McCaskill (from the ultimate swing state), Murray, or Granholm if he wants to go with a Governor.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder He absolutely needs to go with someone with international experience, since he's devoid of it.
