|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Feb 19, 2008 18:39:41 GMT -5
Ok...I officially have political tiredhead... www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.htmlNot talking about the SUPERdelegates, but the ones that Obama won through caucuses and primaries. IS that even possible? IS this dude crazy? |
|
|
|
Post by akbarjones on Feb 20, 2008 9:33:16 GMT -5
Clinton is falling apart and getting very desperate now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 20, 2008 9:50:08 GMT -5
On Sunday, Doug Wilder, the mayor of Richmond and a former governor of Virginia, went even further, predicting riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates.
“There will be chaos at the convention,” Wilder told Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation.”
“If you think 1968 was bad, you watch: In 2008, it will be worse.”
That is so true. You will find me hiding in my attic, because it will be very ugly in the streets of America if this happens. Very ugly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nupey on Feb 20, 2008 9:55:08 GMT -5
And, I will be SMITTING everyone on OO, Especially those that said that they would vote for Clinton
|
|
|
|
Post by Lighthouse on Feb 20, 2008 10:56:20 GMT -5
I think it's going to be ugly but again, I'm still not convinced there will be riots. Especially not nationwide. Whatever happens, it will be an ugly situation for the Democratic party. Nancy Pelosi is very accurate, it will definitely turn many Democrats (especially Black) off if the nominee is decided based on the superdelegates. I applaud Edwards for getting out of the race when he did.
But what you all haven't thought about is the possibility of Edwards resurfacing as the dark horse candidate. What are your thoughts on that??
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 20, 2008 12:25:40 GMT -5
If that does happen because of the party deciding to put Hillary up instead, I will vote for Edwards just because. That whole situation will be wrong and ugly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lighthouse on Feb 20, 2008 12:29:29 GMT -5
The dark horse candidate would be presented to the delegation before the superdelegates would vote I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lighthouse on Feb 20, 2008 12:30:30 GMT -5
The dark horse would be the compromise to keep the party from being split b/c that is what would undoubtedly happen if Hillary wins via superdelegate votes. I won't go as far as to say I will join the Republican party but I will definitely become independent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 20, 2008 12:39:07 GMT -5
The dark horse candidate would be presented to the delegation before the superdelegates would vote I think. Regardless, people should understand that the dark horse is being brought forth because of what they are about to pull. That is what I'm saying, |
|
|
|
Post by Lighthouse on Feb 20, 2008 12:50:17 GMT -5
Tht is not true. No one has even mentioned a dark horse at this point. My question is simply how would people feel if a dark horse candidate emerges. The point of the dark horse candidate would be to [bold]KEEP[/bold] the superdelegates from being able to sway the vote. In fact, the powers that be in the DNC would sit behind close doors and determine who they think would be a viable option to unify the party and keep there from being riots or detractors. Google James Knox Polk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prissy New Year!!! on Feb 20, 2008 13:03:39 GMT -5
Bottom line is the super delegates should not overturn the will of the people. Obama has so much strong support and he is bringing new people to the party. It would be a grave mistake if they pull anything funny. The Clintons have the reputation of being ruthless politicians, but even they have to know better than to lean on the superdelegates to elect her when she does not have the popular vote. That will surely split the party and give the Republicans a win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lighthouse on Feb 20, 2008 14:04:21 GMT -5
I don't think it's going to be left to the super delegates. According to that article, both (but I know they really just mean the Clintons) will try to sway the pledged delegates. And it can happen. It's the same as the electoral college. They don't have to vote according to the will of the people. They more than often do however.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 20, 2008 14:17:31 GMT -5
Tht is not true. No one has even mentioned a dark horse at this point. My question is simply how would people feel if a dark horse candidate emerges. The point of the dark horse candidate would be to [bold]KEEP[/bold] the superdelegates from being able to sway the vote. In fact, the powers that be in the DNC would sit behind close doors and determine who they think would be a viable option to unify the party and keep there from being riots or detractors. Google James Knox Polk. You are right, no one has. But if Edwards dropped out of the race, and people are seeing the headline news, and how Obama is gaining momentum, Clinton is about to seek pledged delegates, and then Edwards hops back in, I would hope anyone who has a ounce of sense could see what is really going on. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 20, 2008 14:18:58 GMT -5
Bottom line is the super delegates should not overturn the will of the people. Obama has so much strong support and he is bringing new people to the party. It would be a grave mistake if they pull anything funny. The Clintons have the reputation of being ruthless politicians, but even they have to know better than to lean on the superdelegates to elect her when she does not have the popular vote. That will surely split the party and give the Republicans a win. Exactly soror, exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by akbarjones on Feb 20, 2008 16:06:14 GMT -5
Clinton cannot beat McCain in the general election. She will polarize the vote and end up rallying the Republicans because they can't stand her already and will push the independents to the right. The only way she could have won is if Romney or Guiliani ended up being the Republican nominee. If I was Obama I wouldn't even pick her as a running mate, it's way to risky.
|
|
Bigs
OOA pledge
Posts: 236
|
Post by Bigs on Feb 20, 2008 16:11:34 GMT -5
Thats going to be Hillary's main problem. She is polarizing to everyone including her own party. Either you're with her, or against her. There isn't a middle ground with her. What's really interesting to see is if she gets the nomination, who will she pick as a VP mate.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 20, 2008 16:19:18 GMT -5
Clinton cannot beat McCain in the general election. She will polarize the vote and end up rallying the Republicans because they can't stand her already and will push the independents to the right. The only way she could have won is if Romney or Guiliani ended up being the Republican nominee. If I was Obama I wouldn't even pick her as a running mate, it's way to risky.
Worth repeating. I've been saying this for awhile now. She is not only polarizing, she would ignite their base. Right now Democrats are going to the polls in FAR greater numbers than Republicans. If Hillary is the nominee all that will change. Plus I think all the people who are seeing a glimmer of hope in Obama, would probably be disenchanted and only tepid in their support of Clinton. The time for Obama is now. We don't need experience in the old ways of doing things. We don't need a loyal party servant willing to fall on his sword for his party, but not to speak up for his country when the Commander in Chief went "off the ranch" with foreign policy, fiscal policy, domestic policy etc. You can't be a Maverick and tow the party line McCain.
What we need is change... not so much in policy, but in discourse and approach. The Karl Rovian era of out right lies, corruption, back room deals for a select few, and fear mongering have to end now. Having a Democratic version of the old Bush style is NO impovement. We NEED a change.
Obama 08 |
|
|
|
Post by Lighthouse on Feb 20, 2008 17:05:24 GMT -5
YO MAMA FOR OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
{=}http://s2.images.proboards.com/cool.gif{/=}
