Obama Vs. Clinton. Greaves Vs. The world. And then there's John Mcain.

[Godot]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]But Nader's an American tradition!!

I mean, didn't he run Independent against Lincoln? :p[/FONT][/QUOTE]

I saw what you did there

[eleanor]

[font=trebuchet ms]While I'm not exactly up to date with everything, at this point I am leaning towards McCain. Not a supporter, because I'm still on the fence. I'm tired of his social conservatism, and with the Republicans' social stances in general, but his liberal stance on economics is a plus for me. I am pretty against protective tariffs, pro-capitalism, so Obama's economic plans don't really fly with me.

I know this sounds bad, but I plan on not really thouroughly researching candidates until the official two are announced. lol[/font]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Morpheus']The problem is that there is an assumption that supporters of one candidate will shift to mccain from the other, which really isn't likely, especially since most primaries are closed.[/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]I don't think anyone actually believes that a significant number of people will abandon a political party for the other just because their nominee of choice isn't picked. Where are you getting that?

the idea is that the strongest candidate will be more able to capture the moderate vote. [/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]But Nader's an American tradition!!

I mean, didn't he run Independent against Lincoln? :p[/FONT][/QUOTE]


[color=#9933ff][font=monotype corsiva][size=4]No, that was McCain, Nader ran against Cleveland.[/color][/font][/size]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]I don't think anyone actually believes that a significant number of people will abandon a political party for the other just because their nominee of choice isn't picked. Where are you getting that? [/color][/QUOTE]

Right here:

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]The one with with the most votes in a contested state is considered the one most capable of beating the opponent.[/color][/QUOTE]
This is saying that whoever wins the most votes from democratic registered voters will win the most from independents, which makes no sense whatsoever.

[Nerdsy]

[color=deeppink]Nowhere did I state or even imply that anyone thought that. [/color]

[quote]This is saying that whoever wins the most votes from democratic registered voters will win the most from independents,[/quote]

[color=deeppink]You're thinking too much about the parties. They're not aiming for Democrats, they're aiming for citizens of a contested state.

The belief they're running on is that all the people in a state think similiarly; not a hard and fast truth, but far from an unrealistic generalization. If one candidate is more able to sway a group in a state than his or her opponent, then that candidate will supposedly do better in that state.

On another, more manipulative level, it's about charisma. Which one can get more people (and that's the primary word: people, not Democrats, Republicans, or Independants) to like him or her.

I'd also like to point it's not about who [b]will[/b] win the most votes, because that really can't be measured. It's about who is [i]most likely[/i] to win the most votes.[/color]

[Darren]

Instead of posting a new thread, I thought I would revive this one now that new developments have emerged.

Barack Obama is the projected nominee. :(

However, Clinton has stated that she doesn't plan on making a decision as of now. She wants to try and get as much of the people's opinion as possible while she consults with the democratic party leaders.

I hope that this goes to the DNC, but what do you guys think? Should she concede? Should Barack invite her to be V.P.? If she does take this to the convention, do you think she can win???

[Morpheus]

Hillary should concede because the race is no longer effectively over, it IS over.

[Kimmeh]

I'm a supporter of Obama. Sooo...

You figure out where I stand. :smirk:

[The Spectacular Professor]

Besides the fact that I haven't really been rooting for her since the start of this thing, Clinton's really starting to make herself look like some kind of abrasive racist crap-talking jerk of late.

"Oh, well JFK was assassinated. If the same thing happens to Obama, who else could step in?"

Seriously, Hillary?

[Retribution]

[quote name='Darren']Barack Obama is the projected nominee. :([/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]:bow:

I'm excited that what was once assumed has now been made final. No longer will Clinton be able to keep the Democratic party divided by stubbornly remaining in the race. The party can at long last begin its reconciliation process and focus its energies on defeating McCain.

Mostly I'm relieved that this contest is not going to drag all the way to the DNC, which would almost guarantee McCain a victory. Going to the convention behind a ticket will be much more beneficial than going in and fighting.

Not entirely sure if Obama should pick Clinton as a running mate. I think Obama should pick a running mate who could carry a few key states for him (ones that Dems don't win by default anyway). So Governor Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) might be a very prudent decision -- not only could he attract blue-collar voters, and let's be frank, white people, he would give Obama control over a very populous swing state.

Taking Clinton as a running mate means taking a lot of political baggage from the 90s, which totally contradicts his message of 'change in Washington.' The Clintons [i]define and typify[/i] the Democratic political establishment of the modern era, and to associate with that would hamstring him. Further, I have a feeling Bill would try to muscle his way into the decision-making process... imagine having three executives! Heh. Overall, I don't think their personalities and images are compatible.[/font]

[Darren]

[quote name='Aceburner']Besides the fact that I haven't really been rooting for her since the start of this thing, Clinton's really starting to make herself look like some kind of abrasive racist crap-talking jerk of late.

"Oh, well JFK was assassinated. If the same thing happens to Obama, who else could step in?"

Seriously, Hillary?[/QUOTE]

Do you have a link to that quote? I'm not saying she didn't say it, but since it seems that I'm the only Clinton supporter, I would just like to see for myself.

And I think that at the beginning of the campaign, both candidates were using petty, pointless insults and arguments to undermine the others. But that was way at the beginning. "As of late," Both Hillary and Obama have been completely civil to each other and have been complimenting each other on their campaigns and such.

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Darren']Do you have a link to that quote? I'm not saying she didn't say it, but since it seems that I'm the only Clinton supporter, I would just like to see for myself.[/QUOTE]

[color=crimson]Are you [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Clinton%22+%22assassination%22+%22kennedy%22&btnG=Search]oblivious [/url] to your own candidate? lol. She brought up RFK a couple of weeks ago to widespread question marks.

Thank God this primary season is waning. Hopefully Obama does the right thing, denies her a V.P. slot, and marches straight on to November.[/color]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Darren']Do you have a link to that quote? I'm not saying she didn't say it, but since it seems that I'm the only Clinton supporter, I would just like to see for myself.[/QUOTE]

It's not a direct quote, more of a generalization. However, check DeathKnight's post.

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson] Hopefully Obama does the right thing, denies her a V.P. slot, and marches straight on to November.[/color][/QUOTE]That's what I want to see since I really don't want her in there at all. I'm pleased to see that Obama is in, but to drag Clinton along would be a mistake in my opinion, for the reasons Retri already pointed out.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Rachmaninoff]

I'm thrilled to see that Obama made it instead of Clinton.[quote name='Retribution;814158][font=Arial]Taking Clinton as a running mate means taking a lot of political baggage from the 90s, which totally contradicts his message of 'change in Washington.' [/font][/QUOTE]I so agree, she's totally the wrong choice for a running mate in my opinion. [quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson'] Hopefully Obama does the right thing, denies her a V.P. slot, and marches straight on to November.[/color][/quote]I know I'll be disappointed in him if he does take her along.

[Darren]

[quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]Are you [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Clinton%22+%22assassination%22+%22kennedy%22&btnG=Search]oblivious [/url] to your own candidate? lol. She brought up RFK a couple of weeks ago to widespread question marks.

Thank God this primary season is waning. Hopefully Obama does the right thing, denies her a V.P. slot, and marches straight on to November.[/color][/QUOTE]

Apparently so. I heard about the reference, but only briefly, so I assumed it wasn't that big of a deal. And since she said nothing about Obama being assassinated, I just assumed it was the media having a field day by twisting her words.

And I guess I was right.

Anyway, If she doesn't stay in the race, I think it would be in Obama's best interest to take her as V.P. Think about it: For the past six months, these two have been breathing down each others necks. They have practically divided the party down the middle. (Even though Hillary claims she's winning in popular vote, statistics that were posted on CNN.com suggest that she only barely winning. Think of it 51% to 49%) That means half of the democratic party has been rallying for one of these two as their future president for six months...
And with the way that both of them have been talking about the democratic party uniting when the final decision is made, it seems that the best way for Obama to do that would be to take Clinton as a V.P.

But that's all speculation anyway. I still hope she stays in it.

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Darren']Apparently so. I heard about the reference, but only briefly, so I assumed it wasn't that big of a deal. And since she said nothing about Obama being assassinated, I just assumed it was the media having a field day by twisting her words.

And I guess I was right.[/quote]

[color=crimson]It was a big deal, lol. If Obama had said something like that, I would have been utterly flabbergasted by his big mouth. RFK's assassination is not something you bring up so casually when referencing the "unknown" aspect of the primary season, especially when there has been speculation regarding the potential assassination of Obama throughout this primary season due to his race, candor, and the specter of the [i]other[/i] Kennedy's death as anyone who is young, a good orator, and so capable of gathering supporters seems to draw the comparison inevitably.[/color]


[quote=Darren]Anyway, If she doesn't stay in the race, I think it would be in Obama's best interest to take her as V.P. Think about it: For the past six months, these two have been breathing down each others necks. They have practically divided the party down the middle. (Even though Hillary claims she's winning in popular vote, statistics that were posted on CNN.com suggest that she only barely winning. Think of it 51% to 49%) That means half of the democratic party has been rallying for one of these two as their future president for six months...
And with the way that both of them have been talking about the democratic party uniting when the final decision is made, it seems that the best way for Obama to do that would be to take Clinton as a V.P.

But that's all speculation anyway. I still hope she stays in it.[/QUOTE]

[color=crimson]Hillary Clinton lost. She should not go on until Denver. She should have exited earlier in this race, her loss is [b]inevitable[/b] for the past few weeks. No one screwed her over. The media did not rally against her. Florida and Michigan were LEGALLY PUNISHED through the rules of the DNC a long, long time before it was some kind of antidemocratic "issue" like Clinton supporters paint it to be. Clinton herself, before breaking an unwritten agreement between herself, Edwards, and Obama not to campaign there, supported the punishment. Voters have chosen who they want to be the Democratic candidate for president.

Clinton should NOT be vice president. She has done nothing to "earn" the slot by fighting fruitlessly and giving the Republicans ammunition against him. Obama has campaigned for change and the Clintons have little to do with change. If Clinton supporters are so naive and simpleminded that they will vote for John McCain in November, then they deserve the repercussions of their shortsightedness as McCain does four more years of Bush-esque policy.

The Democrats will heal much better if Hillary Clinton takes some basic actions of support towards Obama instead of suggesting continually that the outcome can shift dramatically given several more months of her dragging it out.[/color]

[Aaryanna]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"][COLOR="DarkGreen"]I won't be old enough to vote this time around, but I'm still glad Obama won. Now if he'll just be smart enough to leave Clinton behind. Honestly, if he runs with her, I think it will really hurt his chance to win the election.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Raiha]

[quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]The Democrats will heal much better if Hillary Clinton takes some basic actions of support towards Obama instead of suggesting continually that the outcome can shift dramatically given several more months of her dragging it out.[/color][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Oh yes, and maybe I can stop the tides from coming in and then maybe the world will suddenly be covered in pink flowers and we can dance around endlessly with our elbows linked, singing about trains and fluffy bunnies.

Not happening.

She was going to support Obama in a speech but then she decided to go home and 'think about it.' And since she brings nothing but negatives to the table.....exccept [I can't believe I'm saying this] perhaps a sense of more experience at virtually [b]everything[/b]. Furthermore, she'll appeal this all the way up and down the bloody lines. And the amusing thing is now nobody can complain about the popular vote and stealing elections. Because we'll be too busy laughing the irony and getting whiplash from it all. But while I'm interested for the minute, does anyone else think BIll Clinton is looking like ten miles of bad cliche lately?

And my god, his face. He looks like a coke head. ......oh wait. And no lectures about his heart surgery please. That has nothing to do with it.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[James]

[quote] The media did not rally against her. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't know if I'd say that the media "rallied" against Clinton, but there's also no question that the media in general have artificially elevated Obama's campaign.

In our last federal election here, the media did a similar thing with Rudd (who is now our Prime Minister).

It was not so much a case of the media actively attacking his opponent, it was more that he received continuous favourable coverage.

Also I must admit, I really get annoyed by this whole "change" question.

I'm not entirely sure why everyone thinks that Obama inherently represents change. Is it simply because he's black? Or because he is considered to be a political outsider?

Neither of these things - nor any number of speeches that contain the word "change" - are representative of true political change. In many respects, Obama has advocated maintenance of the status quo.

It was, again, a similar situation with Rudd. We heard all about fresh leadership and change and this became a kind of buzzword that the media perpetuated.

In the end? He is proving too politically impotent to implement the serious, fundamental changes that his campaign implied. We have had surface changes and good media management, but little of substance.

Obama does represent change in some genuine respects, however, my point is that "change" is regularly thrown around without consideration to its meaning or context.

By contrast, we're always told that the Clintons simply can't represent change. Why? Because, I assume, there has already been a Clinton in office (and Hillary has had prominent political roles in the past).

This alone should never be the basis upon which we decide that a candidate does not stand for genuine political change. It is highly naive for many out there to suggest that these qualities and true political change are mutually exclusive.

Anyway, for my money, Clinton should definitely be giving up at this point. Not giving up would only hurt her position in general even further.

And I don't believe that Obama should take her on as a Vice Presidential candidate, primarily because it would be seen (I think) as obvious and blatant hypocrisy. How can you criticise someone's fundamental policy approach for months and yet find them suitable to be your Vice President?

This would, perhaps, ironically suit Obama (if I were to take the cynical approach, haha). On the other hand, as I said, it would blatantly and cynically damage his chances come election time.[/font]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Also I must admit, I really get annoyed by this whole "change" question.

I'm not entirely sure why everyone thinks that Obama inherently represents change. Is it simply because he's black? Or because he is considered to be a political outsider?[/font][/QUOTE]

There are many reasons he is considered the candidate of change. I'll refer you to his own words: [URL="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf"]http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf[/URL]

[eleanor]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]
Not entirely sure if Obama should pick Clinton as a running mate.
[/font][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] Loved the smiley response, lol.

But, blaargh, no. Obama should not even think about taking Clinton as his running mate. Even if it were done in the spirit of unity, it would not really succeed at unifying anything, as they've spent too much time bashing each other. And I really doubt Clinton would want to take the backseat crap position of VP, unless she wanted to become the next Dick Cheney. [/font]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]

I'm not entirely sure why everyone thinks that Obama inherently represents change. ... because he is considered to be a political outsider?

[/font][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms]It worked for Jimmy Carter after the Watergate scandal, so it's probably working for Obama. And I think the bigger point is that he's hugely popular with the youth vote- he's seen as intellectual and idealistic, which fits the ideals of many college students/younger people. Even if those things aren't really good, valid reasons to vote for someone, it has worked tremendously. The idea or embodiment of "change" was looking pretty good to Americans while we went through the Iraq War and now the recession... also, he's really charismatic. When I was listening to this speech on race after Rev. Jeremiah Wright's outbursts, I couldn't help but like him. :animeswea

You can't really count on common sense and grounded opinions in US elections, though I'm not trying to rag on Obama. [/font]

[Raiha]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms]
[font=trebuchet ms]It worked for Jimmy Carter after the Watergate scandal, so it's probably working for Obama.[/font][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]And then Carter proved to be the most loathed ex president. He was also World's Most Ineffective President ever. Hostage Crisis anyone? Say what you like about Bush, but he actually took action, whether you agree with those or not. He did not spend his time in office going: "Well gee I dunno. Maybe we should try to talk Iran out of slicing the heads off of American citizens."

So while it got him elected, it also got him universal disgust from the American public as well as one measly term that everyone was only too glad to kick him from back side first.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]I don't know if I'd say that the media "rallied" against Clinton, but there's also no question that the media in general have artificially elevated Obama's campaign.[/quote][/font]

[color=crimson]Haha, yeah. Pre-primary season, though, Hillary Clinton was the presumed winner before the contentious atmosphere between her campaign and Obama's solidified.

The spotlight always shifts.[/color]

[quote name='James']I'm not entirely sure why everyone thinks that Obama inherently represents change. Is it simply because he's black? Or because he is considered to be a political outsider?[/quote]

[color=crimson]For the campaign? A good slogan. For me, as a supporter?

I don't know what other supporters think of his aim to bring "change", but I supported Obama starting from last November due to his anti-lobbyist standpoint. I have viewed lobbyists in Washington, both liberal and conservative, very negatively. I hope, though he is a politician with aims for power, that he will, to some level, make efforts to curtail lobbying in Washington.

Additionally, a somewhat bipartisan president would be very refreshing for a few years.[/color]