At this point, if you are a Democrat, a fan of HRC, and a resident in a state that has yet to vote, at what point does the following thought begin to factor into your decision-making process:

Obama has a pretty significant lead in pledged delegates, and a pretty solid lead in overall delegates. If Hillary picks up some delegates in my state, she might close the gap, but she's unlikely to catch up, especially in pledged delegates. If she closes the gap, there's the very real possibility that the convention could be ugly; Clinton could overturn the pledged delegate count with superdelegates, or there could be a Florida-Michigan debacle, or a vote-counting mess, or some combination of all of the above. It could cast serious aspersions on how democratic the Democratic party is, and hurt either candidate's chances of winning in November.

If Obama wins my state, the party is more likely to have a clear and convincing victor against whom McCain would have to run. If Obama leads by significant margins, there will be no convention debacle. Therefore, to increase the chances of putting a Democrat in the White House, I will vote Obama.

I'm an Obama supporter, so perhaps this train of thought sounds a little sweeter to my ears than to yours, but it certainly seems logical: a vote for Clinton is, at this point, essentially a vote for Clinton and a brokered convention. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama and a clear winner.

Thoughts?

So bentontheworld, let me get this straight. Don't vote your conscience. Just go with the who you think may have the most momentum at this point? I get it. Thanks it seems so logical. NOT!

A CLINTON PRESIDENCY MEANS OBAMA WILL NOT BE PRESIDENT
TILL THE YEAR 2017! (An incumbent president Clinton would run in 2012) A McCain presidency means Obama can run again in 2012. If my voting choices come down to Clinton vs. McCain (i.e. Obama 2017 vs. Obama 2013) I WILL VOTE FOR MCCAIN. I am not the only Obama supporter that feels this way. For decades the Democratic Party has firmly stood for the status quo. Only an Obama presidency, with his superior ability to rally public opinion, has a chance to create the meaningful moral change that Americans are demanding. America is tired of REBUBLICRATS and their disastrous programs. The Democratic Party must become meaningful with a change embracing Obama, or be doomed to be marginalized by the third party alternatives that are sure to arise. OBAMA's miracle of support is a wake up call that times ARE CHANGING. The question that will soon be answered is whether the Democratic party is in the lead, or in the way.

I personally support Obama, but I'm not sure that I see any way, short of dubious machinations (e.g. seating the Michigan delegates) or unforeseen political bombshells, that either candidate will have a clear majority by the time the primaries are over. But an electoral stalemate doesn't automatically mean that the convention will have to be a bloodletting spree. This is exactly the kind of race that produces last-minute dark horse candidates - yes, both groups of supporters are devoted to their leaders, but the party as a whole is sufficiently motivated by the last several years to unite behind an agreeable alternative.

I personally could foresee a sufficiently um...weighty candidate emerging in the person of the late, great Al Gore. Would he win? I don't know. But I could easily see him being the unifying elder statesman if this race comes down to a dead heat.

I had been going to post earlier, but as an Obama supporter, I had to wait until my hands stopped shaking and my spine stopped quivering long enough to allow me to use the keyboard.

All Obama supporters are not spineless jellyfish, nor are they all black, all men, or even all Democrats. Likewise, Clinton supporters are not all rabid pit bulls, nor are they all white, all women, or all Republicans. Why can't we all just get along?

Well, because politics is war, and by golly, we will fight for our guy (or gal) until the last superdelegate has been riddled with invective and collapsed, heaving, to the convention floor.

No, but seriously: I think a good point is being made that NOBODY KNOWS. Nobody knows who will get more electors, who will win the nomination, or who will win the presidency. And we're all caught in that precarious position of wanting everything to be fair and square...as long as our guy (or gal) wins at the end of it.

As for a potential "consensus" candidate emerging from the convention as "everybody's second choice," I'm not sure who it would be at this point who hasn't a) run already and been defeated, or b) got some serious issues that could potentially crop up later. A consensus candidate is a risky proposition: Warren G. Harding in 1920 was one, and somehow the press missed the fact that he'd been institutionalized several times and had had numerous affairs (and an illegitimate child). But that was 1920. Imagine if something like that happened today: Game Over! I'd sooner have a Hillary candidacy than someone who seems "safe" but later turns out to be a suspected child molester (or something). I imagine most others feel the same way. The trouble is that because we're all now in "Hillary v. Barack" mode, neither side wants to back down and be The Weakest Link, which means it all might result in a consensus candidate, which is ironic, because this is the type of thing (a potentially unviable candidacy) that superdelegates were created to avoid, not cause.

Uh, no. That's simply absurd.

Oh ya a Republicrat like Billary will get a lot done. Better HOPE for another dot com boom to take Nasdaq to 10,000. Better HOPE Hillary is not in the lobbyist control. Better HOPE that Hillary can get the Republicans to start respecting her or she is not getting squat thru Congress. Better HOPE that Hillary's tax returns which she will not release during the primary are not shocking.


Too much HOPE for me.


I KNOW that Obama generate consensus, he as already proved it.


The Democratic party is a dinosaur. The pathetic party that lost to a monkey like George Bush 3 times (if you count both monkeys)


A vote for Hillary is a vote for another pathetic Democratic loser. McCain will eat her alive. Debates mean nothing, remember how bad Bush was in the debates.


Wake up before you miss the only chance you will have of keeping that charming old white war criminal out of the White House.

Memories there seem to fade. In 2000, the Clintons were such tainted fruit that Al Gore spurned their support and distanced himself from their record. Monica Lewinsky and the phoney impeachment process were only a part of the reason. (Gore would've been smart to have more clearly dismissed the impeachment process. He knew too little of his president's virtues and decided, as many rational colleagues did, not to stand in his defence. Robert Rubin, who is now expected to support Obama, did likelwise.)

The Neocons came into their being during the Clinton years. Hillary was amongst those who embraced the concept of preventive war. She was in the small circle who encouraged her husband to undertake the phoney bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan hours. This television event was scheduled to occur hours after his pathetic televised confessions of furtive sexual encounters that should never have merited comment. The man whom women love treated a young, hormone-charged admirer as a street slut who had plied her charms upon him. To this day, he has failed to extend an apology to her or her family. While she is not an icon, if she was my daughter, I would expect an apology. It is the decent thing to do.

Judge Hillary and Obama by the calibre of advisors standing with and supporting them. I think Obama has the top shelf on this count. Hillary prefers the clever and the PR-oriented types. The Clinton-I economic team seems to be with Obama.

If for no other reason, the US and the world you share would surely benefit more from change than from an extension of the divisive debates and reactionary policies that have characterised the past two administrations.

Do any of you know how much the U.S. is feared and hated abroad because of the last two decades of Bush-Clinton-Bush? You can believe that our enemies (and we do have real enemies overseas) are busy exploiting this hatred. Why are we hated? Could it just be that we are total hypocrites? We preach democracy but we have no concern for it in other countries, when it comes to making money there. (As one example, check out the history of United Fruit in Central America on Wikipedia.) Why are we exporting jobs to China when they have such a horrible record of human rights and environmental abuses? Why do we look the other way when our multi-national corporations contract with virtual slave labor factories in Indonesia and other places in the developing world? Why do we not insist that our trading partners must operate under the same environmental regulations that our own industries do? Obama has said that if he becomes president, he will not sign Kyoto unless it includes China and India--is this not just sanity?

Do we want to allow the multi-national corporations to turn the world into a collection of banana republics? Can you not see that illegal Mexican laborers have already begun the process of turning this nation into a banana republic? I saw an interview with a stone mason in Texas. He said that he made $14 per hour (hardly a lot of money) before the illegals came in large numbers. Now, the going rate is $6 per hour. Try to support a family on that kind of wage. The large general contractors that he used to work for are quite pleased to be reaping the extra profits, of course. And the desperately poor illegal aliens are barely able to keep body and soul together. The fact that there are hungry people in this nation is a national disgrace.

There are good men in both parties who feel helpless to change the system but we have in Obama, a man who inspires others to insist that changes be made to the status quo. We should be leading the world away from moral bankruptcy--not continuing to be doing business as usual. Hillary cannot and will not support real change because she and Bill represent the status quo. The only moral choice is Obama.

It factors in after Obama is the nominee and not before.

If Hillary's ship goes down I will go down with it.

I don't think Obama will be able to stand up to the Republican fire, we do know somebody who can however.

Phoen-X

The reason the argument you present is a bit weak is that Obama is NOT the clear WINNER. Amazing to see quite a few smart well educated people overlook the plain and simple fact that Mr.Obama is winning in usualy republican voting states [ie. Nebraska, Utah, Colorado] He DID LOSE in 'my' state FL 51% to 35% and lost in MI [ BOTH VERY DEMOCRATIC STATES]. Of course Obama fans would not want those delegates counted. They would account for 18% of all delegates which would favor HILLARY CLINTON.

Also a fact that should be known is everyone thinks that democrats wanted Jan 29 to be the primary date for FLORIDA. In reality, the GOVERNOR, Charlie Crist [ WHO IS A REPUBLICAN] would not sign a bill requesting a change of primary date unlesss it had the DATE OF JAN 29 , 2008. No other date was acceptable. This bill was pushed by Republicans in HOUSE AND SENATE and as you now know it does not favor Democrats when 2 states that have a vested interest in this election [related to foreclosures and economics] have their votes not counted.

Florida is a huge industry state that had 1.75 million voters show up in the primaries. If you think they are going to throw those votes away, YOU ARE WRONG.

Anyone saying CHANGE for changes sake or because the OLD WAY of doing politics is not good for the country probably should not USE a SENATOR such as KENNEDY from MA that has been in office for 30 plus years. As we all saw many times on TV, Mr. Obama did this. It looks a little HYPOCRITICAL.

CALL HOWARD DEAN AT 202-863-8000 AND LET HIM KNOW THAT ALL OUR VOTES COUNT. HE SHOULD NOT SELECT WHOSE VOTE SHOULD COUNT.

Anyone republican who uses the argument that it is time for the dynasty of the Clinton - Bush era to end will be the same persons in 4 - 8 years from now saying Jeb BUSH is the man for the job.

Experienced people are a good thing. Mr Giuliani wanted the country to support his buddy Bernard Kerik for head of the Homeland Security Department [the LARGEST government department.] The current president Bush actually accepted this candidate until is was found out that Mr. Kerik was going to be indicted. I guess it did not matter that Mr. Kerik WAS NOT COLLEGE EDUCATED. Do we really want someone inexperienced in the highest office positions of our government? According to exit polls [ 89% OF ALL PEOPLE THINK EXPERIENCE IS IMPORTANT]. Change is going to occur whether Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton is the candidate of choice.

Republicans are voting in the primaries for democrats [ie. OBAMA]. Anyone thinking that democrats are outvoting the republicans 2 - 1 in every state across the board is fooling themselves. Republicans WANT Mr.Obama. He is fresh meat and untested in a national election. Mr. Obama has already shown his frustrations by his attitudes toward former President Clinton when he publicly stated the Republican Party is the party of ideas and that Reagan policies were good relative to Clinton balancing a budget and being inclusive to minorities. The Democrats have shown over the years shown which party is open to new ideas by including BOTH women and minorities in high level office positions . Review the Youtube.com clip for yourself here [ <http://www.youtube.com/watch?­v=tkwIvsKVR18> ] Whose words is Mr. Obama saying we don't understand. Republicans on the other hand use tokenism to make sure they cover their bases and give proper political correctness perception. They would love to run against Mr. Obama. The republicans now can say he is like them.

There is a long way to go yet. Let's all VOTE and let all votes count. CALL HOWARD DEAN AND LET HIM KNOW THAT ALL VOTES SHOULD COUNT 202-863-8000

Phoen-x, you say that Hillary is able to stand up to Republican fire but if we listen to Bill, he claims that Hillary and McCain will be billing and cooing in the general. Obama has already stood up to the wrath of Billary and I see no evidence that he is withering. His campaign is still the best-run compared to all the others. Hillary has run a goof-ball campaign. She had more than a 20-point lead in the polls a few months ago and she lost it out of her arrogance and ineptitude. Even if she is somehow able to pull it out of the hat, she will blow the general through the same arrogance and ineptitude. The Republican schadenfreude is totally connected to a Clinton nomination. They get glum at the prospect of running against Obama. They love to ridicule him as "St. Obama" but that covers a deep anxiety.

Republicans want to run against Obama. In the last 7 plus years, please name 1 thing that a republican has wanted that was good for the country. Now, you [woofer] would like all to believe that what the republicans really want is best for our country. You wish all to believe that 'we' want an inexperienced 'man' such as Mr. Obama with no national or international diplomatic experience in politics during a time of war. We have that example already. It is GW Bush. We all know that that model is BROKEN.

The last time I looked 8 years of peace were good during the country such as during the Clinton years. Years of war during BOTH Bushes and a projected 100 year McCain war are NOT GOOD for our overall future of our country let alone Mr. McCain who openly states that he knows very little about the Economy.

Truthspeaksvolumes and Demcon It is you two who have fallen victim to propaganda. There is a reason why Billary is hated--she has the character of a Great White in a feeding frenzy. I don't understand why you can't see that, but I suspect that you do and that your support for her is mere pragmatism; she says she will get the job done and you believe her. But since you say you care about the issues let me pose some to you: Will she stop pigging out at the special interest trough? Will she foster legislation to protect workers and pensioners by putting a cap on executive compensation? Will she give tax cuts only to the middle class and the working poor and insist that her fat cat friends pay their share of taxes? Will she insist that any trade deals go only to those nations who address human rights abuses and put fair labor practices and environmental regulations in place? Now that would be a presidential candidate that I could support. But Billary is so enmeshed in the Washington establishment that it is ridiculous to even contemplate such a move on her part. That is why Barack Obama is the only candidate for those who care about these issues. I pray that he will be successful and that I can vote for him in the general. Read his books to see why I and others believe that if the president can make a difference (and I believe a president can make a difference), he will be the one to inspire all of us to make the changes that are necessary.

Woofer, Please explain for all how USING Ted Kennedy, a lifelong politician for over 30 plus years AND Kerry [who you probably didn't vote for] are EXAMPLES OF CHANGE. THEY ARE THE POLITICS OF OLD THAT YOU ARE RAMBLING AGAINST. Remember, KERRY is THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR. That is the quote from the republican playbook.

Explain your hypocritical stance please.

Republicans are licking their chops to swiftboat Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama has proven he can lead a pep rally. Ms. Clinton has proven she can bust mens balls and hold MEN accountable. Men do not want a woman leading the country. Mr. Obama should really be careful NOW about asking for his change because it may be what he gets.

In all honesty, THE "POLITICS OF OLD" is the mens club in Washington D.C. dictating the policy of the country and Mr. Obama is disguising it as CHANGE. If he were truly the man he wants us to believe, there is no way he could USE KENNEDY OR KERRY as his CREDIBILITY.

Change good .... Clinton bad. That is the republican way....Clinton bad....bad bad...Repeating this Mantra over and over does not make it true and is truly a republican tactic.