Mandate? I love this! Nobody's claiming Obama has a mandate. You're using this assertion to set up your "rational" point of view. Everyone knows it's a tight race. But a mandate? Uh-uh.

Hillary should concede because at this point, by dragging out the primary, she's doing the work of the Republicans for them--despite the fact that she will not win the nomination. The continuation of this race is about her and her alone. You think she'd beat McCain? (Pause for incredulous shaking of head) I'm sorry--who's living in a dream world? In case you've missed out on this, Rush Limbaugh & Co. have used the bully pulpit to drive their faithful to vote for Hillary. They're fairly certain they'll lose if McCain has to run against Obama.

ANYONE who thinks the "Reagan Democrats" are going to vote for ANY Democrat, be it Obama or Hillary, is living in a dreamland filled with false hope. And by the way, that "good ol'boy" you referred to wouldn't have had the privilege of becoming president without Ross Perot to draw votes away from his opponent. You can hardly argue that the Reagan Democrats turned out in droves for ol' Bill. Ol' 42% of the vote Bill.

Posted at April 23, 2008 3:27 PM in response to It's all over

Apologies--my post was intended as a reply to another post above, so that must have seemed a bit out of context.

It absolutely goes both ways. I don't think that either Democratic candidate has the right to expect the votes of the other's supporters. Votes aren't entitled; they're earned. The point I wanted to make was a response to the question posed above: "Why do Clinton voters line up behind Obomb if he wins but the Obombers get to stiff if they do not get their way???"

Posted at March 23, 2008 5:42 PM in response to Obama-Supporting Retired General Compares Bill Clinton To Joe McCarthy

I repeat the question: Why should Sen. Clinton expect the votes of Sen. Obama's supporters if she's willing to reject them--in rejecting their will expressed in the popular vote--in her quest for the nomination? I get that superdelegates are intended to add a subjective element to the nomination. Fine. But when you factor human nature and emotion into the equation--and I think that's critical--a lot of people are going to see Clinton's usurpation of the nomination as yet another instance of the power of the few trumping the will of the many. In the still-recent aftermath of the 2000 election, that's no small thing. And even if it doesn't spur anger, it would at minimum result in widespread disenchantment and disinterest in the political process. That phenomenon would be just as dangerous as another GOP presidency, with the added factor that it would be detrimental to the long-term well-being of the Democratic Party, not to mention American democracy.

Also, re. caucuses v. primaries, I reiterate: Obama has won 15 primaries to Clinton's 13. And please do not discount the impact that the Rush Republicans have had on Clinton's margins in the few states she has won. If Rush Limbaugh is promoting her nomination--and he has clearly already had an impact--there's a good chance his mob would turn out in droves to vote against her in November.

Bottom line: Senator Clinton polarizes the Democratic Party; she polarizes independents; and she attracts the passionate ill will of almost all Republicans. She is simply unelectable.

Posted at March 23, 2008 5:37 PM in response to Obama-Supporting Retired General Compares Bill Clinton To Joe McCarthy

I repeat the question: Why should Sen. Clinton expect the votes of Sen. Obama's supporters if she's willing to reject them--in rejecting their will expressed in the popular vote--in her quest for the nomination? I get that superdelegates are intended to add a subjective element to the nomination. Fine. But when you factor human nature and emotion into the equation--and I think that's critical--a lot of people are going to see Clinton's usurpation of the nomination as yet another instance of the power of the few trumping the will of the many. In the still-recent aftermath of the 2000 election, that's no small thing. And even if it doesn't spur anger, it would at minimum result in widespread disenchantment and disinterest in the political process. That phenomenon would be just as dangerous as another GOP presidency, with the added factor that it would be detrimental to the long-term well-being of the Democratic Party, not to mention American democracy.

Also, re. caucuses v. primaries, I reiterate: Obama has won 15 primaries to Clinton's 13. And please do not discount the impact that the Rush Republicans have had on Clinton's margins in the few states she has won. If Rush Limbaugh is promoting her nomination--and he has clearly already had an impact--there's a good chance his mob would turn out in droves to vote against her in November.

Bottom line: Senator Clinton polarizes the Democratic Party; she polarizes independents; and she attracts the passionate ill will of almost all Republicans. She is simply unelectable.

Posted at March 23, 2008 4:47 PM in response to Obama-Supporting Retired General Compares Bill Clinton To Joe McCarthy

Given the fact that "Obomb," as you so wittily call him, is winning the popular vote and has won more caucuses and primaries than Sen. Clinton, your vitriol is misplaced. Sen. Obama thinks he can win because he *is* winning. The purpose of my response is not to defend the Clinton-McCarthy comparison; rather, it's to observe that if one party will be responsible for handing the election to Sen. McCain in November, it will be Sen. Clinton. She continues her campaign despite the fact that the only way she can capture the nomination--even if the votes in MI and FL were counted--will be through smoky-back-room wheeling and dealing at the convention. And if Sen. Obama's supporters are angry enough to stay home on election day in November, it will be because they were discouraged from participating in the first place. Why should Sen. Clinton expect the votes of Sen. Obama's supporters if she's willing to reject them--in rejecting the expression of their will expressed in the popular vote--in her quest for the nomination? She's not entitled to our votes any more than Sen. Obama is entitled to those of Sen. Clinton's supporters. You can't have it both ways, Hollywood.

Posted at March 23, 2008 11:43 AM in response to Obama-Supporting Retired General Compares Bill Clinton To Joe McCarthy