Letters to the Editor
-
JackHughes
The argument is stupid.
Sorry a unity ticket with either candidate as VP would be handing the Republicans the election on a platter.
While the two candidates need to cooperate on something before this primary is done, the general will not do it. It will ring false for both of them, with Obama upstaging Hillary (He is the acknowledged better orator) and Hillary being unable to rouse the youth vote, which will feel betrayed by the whole thing.
A unity ticket would be the absolute worst thing the Democrats could do. The candidates are not suitable for each other, they won't work well together.
Particularly after Hillary endorsed McCain.
One of the two has to win, it cannot be both.
As to the embittered Clintonites. Most Clinton supporters aren't bad people, there is about 25% of them that are actually neocons (And it is pretty easy to tell, just look for the ones mangling Obama's name for example, or the ones focussing on how mean those meany Obama supporters are. As a proud meany I like proving them right) but for the most part they are good people who want a better America and who are voting on issues they find important.
They will vote Obama in the end.
On the other side you do have people like me, who have just seen issues upon which they would struggle to support Hillary, but in the end what matters is who ends up sitting on the supreme bench and what happens to the economy.
Hillary is better than McCain, even if she is absolutely the last current day Democrat I would pick for the presidency.
-
arandi
Bill and Hillary may want to believe that black voters owe them, but African Americans have come out for Obama in large numbers.
Frankly, I am not sure that if Hillary "wrangles" the nomination, she will be supported by young Americans and African Americans in the general.
But I expect that Hillary Clinton will burn the Democratic Party before we even go into the general elections. She will stop at nothing.
-
@doloresflower
But what if Hillary serves as a cabinet member or VP. If Obama wins the nomination, taking it away from him by some kind of fenagling behind closed doors really will split the party. I can't imagine that the hard-core Democrats, the base of the party would not by a large majority support the president who wins the nomination fairly. Suggesting that the base of the party would follow Hillary or vote for McCain doesn't make sense to me.
That's the problem, nobody can win under the rules -- there aren't enough delegates and they're too evenly divided.
Further, nobody can "take" anything from Obama. It's either a freely accepted compromise, where we have unity and victory, or we war it out, with who-knows-what the outcome will be?
-
Bill Clinton pandered to southern whites during his first run for prez but sending a black mentally ill convict to death penalty in AR
the Clintons have no problem tossing Black folks under the bus..Hillary's discounting of MLK still hurts.. I have heard in the South Black voters really admire MLK..
-
Clintonistas
"Mrs. Clinton has consistently won the popular vote and therefore clearly would deserve to lead even if the obamateur's inexperience were not the glaring problem it is to anyone who isn't wearing the koolaide glasses."
Nope. Wrong. Of course, you're a Clintonista, and required to lie, dissemble and tell lies.
But right now Barack has the lead in the popular vote. That's why, you moronic troll, he has a lead in delegates of 150 committed delegates.
-
Sorry Shawn, check the facts
Republicans have not carried New York in a general election since Reagan in 1984. New York has supported the Democratic candidate in every elections since. That means in addition to supporting Bill, they also voted for Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. To assume that Obama can't carry New York because he lost a primary is to ignore the differences between the cadidates and stakes of a general election. In the primaries, voters are being asked to choose between Clinton and Obama, NOT McCain and Obama. So one can't assume that Obama losing to Hillary equals a loss to McCain.
Once again, Clinton's win in Texas is meaningless if she doesn't carry Texas in a general elelction. Once again, the facts are that Texas has not voted for a Democrat since Carter in 1976. That means, every Democrat that has won the Texas primaries and caucuses still failed to carry that state in the general election.
The problem is, Clinton supporters are making too many false analogies between primary performance and general election performance. When you look at the facts of the general elections that have taken place, those analogies simply do not pan out. Clinton claimed for example that no Democrat can become President and lose the Ohio primaries. Funny thing is, Kennedy lost Ohio in the general election in 1960...the year he became President. Not only did Kennedy lose Ohio, but he also lost California.
Michigan has been solidly in the Democratic column since 1992. Also, it should be noted, with Hillary Clinton as the only major candidate on the ballot, she only won Michigan by 55%. 40% of those that bothered to show up voted uncommited. Which is astounding when you were the only major candidate to choose from. You could bet many more stayed home in a primary election that people knew wouldn't count. Don't be surprised if Obama carries Michigan, the neighbor to Illinois.
-
Madame: Ditto
You are on the money in here..
-
arandi
Do you remember Bill Clinton throwing Sister Souljah under the bus too? That was his way of telling white Americans (not all white Americans are racist) that he would not tolerate any dissent from uppity blacks.
-
@Shawn
HUH? Maybe you meant someone else, not me? I haven't p[osted to this thread except on page 5 and it has nothing to do with the quote you put in there attributed to me.
@ JohnHughes
I agree we need unity but to me it makes more sense to put whomever has the most delegates at the top of the ticket. Anything else doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. The 'race' is still going. Let's see where we end up. If Obama has the lead in delegates, fine. If Hillary does, fine. At this stage, however, this solution is (as Obama called it) "premature".