Obama seems to be ignoring the growing movement among Clinton supporters who absolutely will not vote for him if the Democratic Party nominates him. It has nothing to do with spite, sour grapes, or childishness. Nor does it have to do with his race with most of us. It has to do with our firm belief that he is completely unfit to be president on any level. It has to do with voting for the lesser of two evils. We think McCain will do less damage than Obama. I realize that the DNC and Obama are whistling in the dark with the delusion that we are just blowing smoke and when November rolls around, we will tow the party line. Wrong. If the Democratic Party insists on shoving him down our throats, we owe no loyalty to them and we will vote accordingly.

Obama seems to be ignoring the growing movement among Clinton supporters who absolutely will not vote for him if the Democratic Party nominates him.

But wouldn't such defections be incorporated into the national head-to-head polls against McCain, which show Obama doing just as well as Clinton?

See my thread on this argument below in this forum.

Obviously more dems think Obama is electable than think Hillary is, or, um, he wouldn't be ahead...she would be.

If he gets the MAJORITY of popular vote and the MAJORITY of elected delegates..then it is the will of the MAJORITY not the party "shoving him down your throat".

America is, in theory, a democracy, where MAJORITY rules.

This does not mean the MAJORITY always rules well or benevolently (aka George W.) but it is literally the law of the land. And it is unpatriotic to the United States to suggest that you or the specific supporters of any candidate should get some sort of privelege that exempts you from our democracy just so that you can get your own way.

I agree completely. When MoveOn.org polled Dems to find out who to back, I told them I thought it was a good idea to remain neutral and not to try to force anyone down our throats. I said at the time I voted for Kerry simply because he was a Dem but I would NOT do it again.

Now we are being force-fed someone who has ZERO National experience, ZERO International experience, and, in fact, no experience in Big Boy politics at all. He got elected to the Senate then immediately began running for president. So they guy can make a speech - BFD. I dont believe that Dems will come together under one big happy banner at the end of all this. I will NOT vote for Obama because the DNC says to. I dont believe he is electable, I dont believe he has the chops to be the POTUS, and I dont believe he deserves the nomination.

That's entirely your own call, but if you don't vote dem..vote Ron Paul, please. I really just want to see the look on the Repubs faces.

I dont believe that Dems will come together under one big happy banner at the end of all this. I will NOT vote for Obama because the DNC says to. I dont believe he is electable, I dont believe he has the chops to be the POTUS, and I dont believe he deserves the nomination.

No one is saying to vote for Obama because the DNC says to. No one is force-feeding anyone anything. People are voting, and delegates are being awarded. The result will be according to the process that both candidates strategized around and planned for.

The question is: when faced with Obama v. McCain, will people really pick McCain? Or stay home? Regardless of Obama's experience (which, I think, equals Clinton's on the merits--really, I don't see what she's done that's been so great, any brave stances she's taken in times of crisis), will Clinton supporters really say we should stay in Iraq, let the free market deal with health care, and extend tax cuts for the wealthy?

Isn't the issue not really experience, but what the candidates will do when in office? Because on the issues, there's really not much difference between the Democratic candidates. Why not vote on what the candidates say they're actually going to do?

barack is NOT ahead

the race is close enough that the supers will decide it

hillary already has about 20 MORE supers than obama

So vote for McCain who wants 100 years more war, or Hillary who has already promised to bomb Iran. For god's sake, giving a good speech is a lot like being an excellent COMMUNICATOR, you retard and if America is going to nobly remove ourselves from Iraq, where we shouldn't have been from the get go, he's the candidate to do so. You won't vote for Obama.....maybe it's more about his color than his experience? Some of us aren't all stupid and can actually see THROUGH facades like yours.

the race is close enough that the supers will decide it

That was obvious after Super Tuesday. Both candidates had about 900 delegates at that point. With 1053 pledged delegates left, it was impossible for either candidate to get to 2024 without superdelegates.

But I don't see how one can look at Obama's total delegate lead (including supers) of about 130 and say he's not ahead. With so few contests and uncommitted superdelegates remaining, that lead is important.

hillary already has about 20 MORE supers than obama

Yes, but she had a far greater superdelegate lead in the past. Before Super Tuesday, she had 93 more superdelegates. Since then, she's picked up 58; Obama has picked up 129.

Even under the most generous assumptions for Clinton in the remaining primaries (mild Obama win in NC, tie in IN, and a 60-40 break for Clinton the rest of the way), remaining uncommitted superdelegates would have to break for her 2:1 for her to get the nomination.

Could happen, but unlikely. The math is what it is.

Oh, I see... I'm a retard because I'm not swayed by words artfully crafted but basically empty in substance.

Color has nothing to do with it and the people that jump on THAT bandwagon are truly retarded in their thinking. Clinton has been working in the political arena since the 70's. She knows and has experience in the game, she knows and has worked with the players, and she has the experience to work the system to get things done. Obama has done what exactly, other than work on Chicago's south side?

If Obama had really had the country's best interest at heart he would have lobbied to have been Clintons running mate, then after 8 years of VP experience he would've been a shoe-in for the Presidential slot.

She knows and has experience in the game, she knows and has worked with the players, and she has the experience to work the system to get things done.

I don't know why (1) people buy into the experience argument, and (2) why it's considered so definitive.

Clinton portrays herself as the person who has been around so long that she knows how to handle a crisis. But what crises has she dealt with? Where has she staked out a courageous position? Where are the specifics to back up her claims that experience makes her a better decision-maker?

I can only think of her health care proposal in the early 90s; then she was quiet about it for a long time, including seven years in the Senate, and was the last of the major candidates to announce her recent plan. The only crisis was the Iraq war vote, and with her supposed 29 years of experience at the time (by her own count), she made the wrong choice.

Moreover, few people are more experienced than Cheney, Rumsfeld, and lots of others in the Bush administration. We see where that's gotten us.

Experience is useful only to the extent that it informs judgment. Clinton has been my Senator for seven years, and I have not seen her experience turned into leadership. I have not seen exceptional judgment. She has taken the safe position on just about every issue, even though she's in a very secure seat.

So I'm not impressed by her claims of experience. And I've seen her campaign make so many flawed arguments that I can't believe that they even believe, I'm afraid I don't trust her anymore. That's too bad, because I was trying to believe that she was better than her campaign.

Still, I'd vote for her over McCain because the issues that face the country are too important. I find it hard to believe that Clinton supporters would really support McCain's policies over Obama's--especially since there's very little difference between the two Democratic candidates on the actual issues--but people will do what they will do. I just hope that passionate support for one candidate or the other won't get in the way of doing what's best for the country in the end.

Obama has done what exactly, other than work on Chicago's south side?

Served many years in the state legislature, for one thing--more legislative experience than Clinton has.

There was once another presidential candidate from Illinois who served in the state legislature, then served one term in the U.S. House. It didn't go well, and he didn't bother running for reelection, returning instead to private legal practice. Then he ran for Senate and lost.

He was Abraham Lincoln. Most people think he did a pretty good job as president.

Obama as Lincoln?!?!?!?!?! LMAO