Fighting all the way through the primaries, in other words, is perfectly normal.

Uh huh. AND SO IS LOSING TO THE FUCKING GOPIGS, YOU DUMBASS.

Here's why it's appropriate and necessary for Hillary to drop out-- she can't win the pledged delegate race in any conceivable combination of victories. She can only win it if she damages Obama so much that the superdelegates override the popular mandate and push her down our throats. Maybe you missed that analysis. I mean, it's only been stated five hundred thousand fucking times in the press and on the web.

It's clear that her candidacy is designed to do one thing and one thing only: against all odds and the forces of popular will, to deliver the White House back to the GOPigs.

Now, if that's your agenda too, what you write makes sense. It's bullshit, but it makes sense.

With your demonstrative vocabulary being limited to profanity I can see why you wouldn't understand the article.

It's clear that her candidacy is designed to do one thing and one thing only: against all odds and the forces of popular will, to deliver the White House back to the GOPigs. "

No dumbass, it's clear that HIS candidacy is designed to do one thing and one thing only. See? It works both ways. If he wasn't a crazy megalomaniac, and waited until he even truly knew what the president does (get rid of all of the lobbyists? OK!!) perhaps the world at large could take him a little more seriously.

By the tone of a lot of these posts, it's becoming clear that Obamanation has little vested interest in democracy.

Hillary was fighting the GOP when you were in Grranimals buddy.

Sigmond: you are right about Hillary fighting the GOP for a very long time. Problem is, that is all she does with them...fight. It didn't get her Universal Health Care before, and if that is her approach to doing things, it won't get her Health Care this time. Hillary might (although very unlikely) get the nomination, but she will NEVER be able to garner the ground troops she needs to get Dems in the House and Senate, so we will have the same thing. If she somehow got the nomination, and won the presidency, the Republicans would take the House and Senate, and all her fighting in the world will accomplish nothing. ..just like before. Frankly, I will take my chances with Obama...and bank on his ability to get his ground troops to actually go to the polls for Dems in the House and Senate races.

sigmond:

It's clear that her candidacy is designed to do one thing and one thing only: against all odds and the forces of popular will, to deliver the White House back to the GOPigs. "

No dumbass, it's clear that HIS candidacy is designed to do one thing and one thing only. See? It works both ways. If he wasn't a crazy megalomaniac, and waited until he even truly knew what the president does (get rid of all of the lobbyists? OK!!) perhaps the world at large could take him a little more seriously.

By the tone of a lot of these posts, it's becoming clear that Obamanation has little vested interest in democracy.

Hillary was fighting the GOP when you were in Grranimals buddy.

A person with a vested interest in democracy? What the fuck does that mean?

Obama is beating Hilary in delegates and the popular vote. Unlike Hillary, he hasn't focused on a handful of states, but a nationwide, 50 state strategy.

As for fighting the GOP, get serious. She is the fucking GOP.

You can't tell the difference between a GOPig and a real Democrat, and you aren't my buddy.

SandyB: How do you figure that if she did get the nomination that she wouldn't be able to rally voters for the House and Senate? After all, the states she did get tell something of support for her, and November's a long way off. I think she'd do well in fighting back the GOP attack machine; she's been there before and has Bill to lean on.

With the economy causing massive crap streaks as it swirls down the shit pipe and the bottomless money pit called Iraq she has plenty of fodder. And even if she did authorize this administration to use force so did other Dems, and it was this administration that excercised that option to our peril. She can lambast McCain and the GOP for their foreign policy blunder and has all the credibility in the world to do so. The GOP is accountable for their decision, and as far as Dems sitting this one out? Well that just aint gonna happen.

Behnon: No, they didn't do very well fighting the GOP before, his entire term was spent fighting them. No, she didn't get Universal Health Care. My argument is that if she wins the Dem nomination you will see record turnout for the Republicans for state elections. We need a majority in the House and Senate...Obama is in a much better position to rally Dems to the polls in state elections, and less likely to rally the Republicans.

And you don't think you'll see a huge GOP turnout if Obama gets the nomination? Do you think you're going to see a massive GOP - to - Dem conversion if he's the frontrunner?

The fact that Bush has endorsed McCain is a step in unifying the GOP behind their candidate. Bush is a strongman particularly for the evangelical sect, and he will campaign on McCain's behalf. They surely aren't going to throw up their arms and say 'oh well' if its Obama vs. McCain.

What I can't get over is how people here are saying the Clintons gave over to the Republicans. If anything, that was achieved because of WJC's 'don't ask don't tell' policy that angered the hawks, and because of pessimistic views of Clintonomics before they withered away deficits. The Clinton administration was no friend to the Republican base. Oh contrare, the GOP was VERY sore about the 1992 election outcome.

If Obama were to win, how is it that a Republican comeback in the midterms would be less likely to happen?

No, you misread...I think that Obama will do a better job of getting Dems to rally to the polls in upcoming state elections. If Hillary is the nominee the Republicans will rally to the polls for the House and Senate to make sure that the dems don't take the majority.

benhon3:

And you don't think you'll see a huge GOP turnout if Obama gets the nomination? Do you think you're going to see a massive GOP - to - Dem conversion if he's the frontrunner?

The fact that Bush has endorsed McCain is a step in unifying the GOP behind their candidate. Bush is a strongman particularly for the evangelical sect, and he will campaign on McCain's behalf. They surely aren't going to throw up their arms and say 'oh well' if its Obama vs. McCain.

What I can't get over is how people here are saying the Clintons gave over to the Republicans. If anything, that was achieved because of WJC's 'don't ask don't tell' policy that angered the hawks, and because of pessimistic views of Clintonomics before they withered away deficits. The Clinton administration was no friend to the Republican base. Oh contrare, the GOP was VERY sore about the 1992 election outcome.

If Obama were to win, how is it that a Republican comeback in the midterms would be less likely to happen?

You're badly confused. First off, Obama wins a higher percentage of independents than Hillary and is getting all the disaffected Republican cross overs. According to anectdotal evidence in Texas, GOP support for Hillary was engineered by GOP mouthpieces to help her because they know they can beat her in November.

You are correct that the Clintons are hated by the GOP base-- another reason nominating her is a mistake. But the core reason that the GOP establishment--- the people who run the party-- hate the Clintons is because they stole the GOP playbook. They cater to the same corporate interests, take the same lobbyist money, and pursue the same corporate friendly, anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-minority and anti-small business policies that the GOPigs pursue to get their payback from the PTB.

In other words, the Clintons stole their gravy train. They didn't try to derail it. So, if you want to elect a Republican, vote for Hillary or McCain. But don't pretend to be a Democrat.

As for a GOP push back in the mid terms, get serious. Of course there will be some kind of push back. That's inevitable and happened every time but once in like the last eighty years. It happened to FDR.

I didn't misread. How is it that the Repubs won't rally if Obama is elected? Because he's more conservative? Because there's no possiblity of the Dems also taking both houses? Or will the Repubs rally if Hillary's elected because there's more of a chance that the Dems will also sweep both houses as well?

benhon3:

I didn't misread. How is it that the Repubs won't rally if Obama is elected? Because he's more conservative? Because there's no possiblity of the Dems also taking both houses? Or will the Repubs rally if Hillary's elected because there's more of a chance that the Dems will also sweep both houses as well?

Because they are currently demoralized and expect failure. They will rally against Hillary because they hate her. The GOP establishment won't care either way-- McCain or Hillary, they can run around and control the same. They just don't want to face Obama because his power base is not corporate or old money. It's people power.

I also don't think Hillary wins the coattail argument, either. Obama's election will be the cherry on a sundae of change. Hillary will take the wind out of the sails of all candidates hoping to overturn the current order.

Disagree if you wish. Time will tell.

And you don't think that Obama will play to corporate interests? How naieve. He already has. According to the Chicago tribune (2/08) he didn't stand up for workers at a Maytag plant closing in Illinois. Instead, he accepted a $200K contribution from a Maytag business interest for his senate and presidential campaigns.

And as far as his 'stand' on Iraq? He didn't have one until 9 months into the war. He was silent, and that doesn't put him into the column of dissent. How easy it is to say your against something when its going down the shitter.

The guy's a bunch of huff and puff.

As far as WJC stealing from a GOP playbook? Gingrich and company so much as said, "we won't (meaning the House) be held responsible for such a reckless economic plan". But the Clinton combination of tax credits and equitable tax system worked.

Here's a news flash. Both parties are in bed with corporate America. That aint gonna change. The difference is the GOP has thrown away all fairness. This started in the 80's, progress was made in the 90's toward safer working conditions and worker rights, and now we've seen that progress errode during the past 8 years.

Clinton's the more reliable one to get things back on track for the average American.

Here's a news flash. Both parties are in bed with corporate America. That aint gonna change. The difference is the GOP has thrown away all fairness. This started in the 80's, progress was made in the 90's toward safer working conditions and worker rights, and now we've seen that progress errode during the past 8 years.

Oh, that's not news at all. You must read my posts regularly. The only difference is that the GOPigs are bad cops and the Dems are good cops. But they are all still paid by the same owners and they all still hammer the same people.

If you are against that situation, as am I, you have three choices: surrender (which means allowing the race to be between two GOPigs, Hillary and McCain); support Obama and hope that a mobilized grassroots constituency can counterbalance the corporatists; or go outside the system and fight for a third party, such as Nader.

I'm sympathetic to the third, but for now I'm willing to try the second. Undoubtedly, Obama isn't going to become a Senator or a presidential candidate by being a rabble rouser. Otherwise, Mark Green would be Senator from New York, not Clinton. But when comparing Clinton vs. Obama in terms of who has promoted a corporate agenda, the Clintons win hands down. Can you say, "Walmart"? How about "Tyson"?

Are you seriously comparing 35 years of corporate shilling with Maytag? Har dee har har.

Obama is the closest thing we have to a reverse Trojan Horse. Instead of the typical trojan horse-- a corporate shill pretending to be a working class supporting democrat (like the Clintons), Obama is actually a working class supporting democrat pretending to be a corporate friendly player (or shill, if you will). That's the only way he'd ever get elected. So you can't really expect him to have acted any differently even if he is what his supporters hope he is. After 35 years, what you've seen from the Clintons is exactly what you'll get-- not what the Clintons now conveniently say they'll give you.

Since we're predicting the future, and estimating what's inside another person's head, it's all speculative. But what's not speculative is that Obama was raised by a working class family, eschewed an assured mega-lucrative corporate career and became a street organizer. That's a life commitment. On the other hand, Bill was an office seeker from day one and played with the Big Boys to get into their club. Hillary was born into a GOPig family, rejected street organizing (she was actually offered the same position that Obama later took, because she wanted to work "in the system"--i.e. be the system).

So, if past is prologue, it's no question who is the better bet. It's Obama. That is, assuming you think the current power structure needs changing.

Actually, I haven't read your past posts. I've lived and learned the corporate shaft quite well thank you very much.

Of course we need change; the GOP has purged and pillaged this country's treasury. It's so blatantly obvious that the more priveleged have reaped the rewards of a machevelian tax system that if you haven't noticed, you're dead from the neck up. This 'trickle down' system has failed spectacularly; city and state budgets are choked, infrastructure is lacking in regular maintenance. All the while the GOP cronies have cashed in big time.

I've heard Obama speak and the man's got some good ideas; its a feel-good, inspirational approach. But, reality such as it is, I'll be happy with getting a more equitable tax system and bringing down the federal deficit in the next 4 years. So, I draw from experience, which leads to Clinton & Co.

Fasten your seat belts, it's gonna to be a bumpy ride.