For the people who are telling Hillary to drop out...

[butterfly77]

don't you think that the people in the states who haven't voted yet have a right to a vote?

[mikelgb]

1. She will still be on the ballot

[Avalux]

2. LOL - you can't be serious?

Usually by this time in the primaries, those of us in Texas don't matter, never do. Of course we have a right to vote and we do; never makes a difference.

[Deep13]

4. This time it does. nt

[Deep13]

3. But this isn't an election, it is the will of GAWD!

:(

[tekisui]

7. The coronation didn't take.

:-(

[Deep13]

20. What are you talking about?

It will "take" if HC drops out. Unless McC. hands O's ass to him in November. What has really surprised me is the apparent rage an indignation O's supports show are mere criticism, as though negative campaigning is somehow blasphemious. That's what I mean by the will of gawd. Like O is somehow an inevitable force of nature that damns all who dissent. Jesus Christ, folks, he's just a politician from Illinois. Calling his campaign a cult is an exaggeration, but I can see why some are drawing a comparison.

[tekisui]

26. You see Obama's rise as an act of GAWD,

because your candidate didn't get her crown. Your darling is just a politician, too.

Criticism is fine. Negative campaigning is ugly, and is what turns people off. We've had enough of that.

[Deep13]

40. Actually, I know what I am thinking better than you do.

Jesus, I get the feeling that you are guessing your way through this and don't have the first idea how this all works. (The answer: "badly.")

The only reason HC is my candidate is because all the good candidates have dropped out. Now we can have doomed empty suit A or doomed empty suit B. I was for Richardson knowing his foreign experience and knowing the voters generally prefer governors. When he turned out to be a fizzle, I was for Biden. Then I was for Edwards as the only remaining candidate who could give us a slam-dunk in November. Now we are down to the bitch and the altar boy. Hurray.

I think that because of the uncritical, emotional response that O's fans have. And they are "fans" too. I think that kind of personal adoration is dangerous to democracy. I think the "uncritical" part is giving us a candidate that can't beat Mr. Whitebread War-Heroe and if he does will be too inexperienced to manage the country.

By the way, cricism = negative campaigning. Duh! It doesn't have to be slander to be negative and so far HC has not been slanderous. She has pointed out that O has no way to keep his promises and she is right.

[tekisui]

49. Thanks for the response.

Your initial comment sounded like typical anti-Obama. He is not my first choice. I was Kucinich to Edwards. You're right, Obama does have a lot of emotional "fans", but he also has a lot of serious, well respected supporters. And, a lot of Americans voting for him. My apologies for the assumptions.

I think either can beat the Old Man, and either will when the time comes. I will take work and diligence. Obama has done the right things at the right times, so far. He has taken on well-funded, well known opponents, and come out ahead. He and Axelrod are professionals, and they know what they are doing. I just don't want to see smears in the Primary. If it is just negative(criticism) that is fine, and we will be better served for it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

51. .

:spray:

[tekisui]

5. Since her campaign has admitted their only chance is to go negative,

don't you think the Democratic Party has a right to go to the GE strong.

If she stayed in, without going negative, I'd say sure, let every state vote. But, she's in it to hurt it, now.

[Deep13]

9. What makes you think going negative will make us weak?

Do you think the Rs won't go negative? If O has any soft spots, don't you think we ought to know now?

[tekisui]

18. Please, the Clinton's have searched for soft spots. They are going

to have to manufacture some.

Of course the pukes will go negative. Aren't we better than that?

It is clear, Hillary can't win on her own merits. The voters have been speaking, and choosing Obama. The math and the votes are against her.

Let the Pukes get in the mud. In case you haven't noticed, the negativity hasn't been working for Hillary, do you honestly think it will now?

It divides the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, for what? So, Hillary can try to save a little face? It's going to make it harder for Clinton supporters to face the music when it's time and join Obama. Or, leave a lot of Obama supporters mad a hell if the smears work. You don't get it?

[Deep13]

35. "Aren't we better than that?"

Shit no! Why is there negative campaigning? Because it works. My biggest complaint about Kerry and Gore's campaigns is that they did not go negative sufficiently. Gore should have been pointing out what a moron Bush was and Kerry should have been calling him a liar (not a "misleader" whatever that means) and a war profiteer.

This is about survival, not being "better." And what is so bad about pointing out flaws? If it is true, they ought to be pointed out. Both of these candidates are better on the campaign trail than they were because of this fight. Frankly, they both need the practice.

Hillary has plenty to offer, but management ability just is not as flashy as impressive, but ultimately hollow oration. I heard him talk in Ohio a few days ago. About the only thing he did not promise the crowd was was to crap rainbows. Sure voters have been going for O. And he has won fair and square. Still, I can't exactly credit the voting public with an overabundance of forethought. Besides, she is leading in Ohio and probably Texas. If she wins those states, it's back to a toss-up.

Frankly, O is not going to have a unified party behind him regardless. Frankly, I won't work for him and I won't donate like I did in 2006 and 2004. It just isn't worth it to me. First, neither of these candidate will beat McCain. I didn't say they can't beat him. I said they won't beat him. Democrats have got shooting ourselves in the foot down to a fine art. And if one of them does, the damage done by Bush is so extensive it will tie his/her hands. There is no money to do anything.

[tekisui]

38. We can and should and will go negative in the General.

I just don't think smearing is the same as honest criticism. And, I am not too impressed with Hillary's management ability. Obama's has managed his campaign a helluva lot better.

[Deep13]

42. Fair enough on the campaign management.

I haven't heard any defamation, if that's what you mean by smearing.

[tekisui]

52. No defamation, yet. That's what I'm worried about, though.

I just hope that the Clinton campaign doesn't wade into it.

[northzax]

43. we will? What gives you that idea?

obama wants to work with the republicans, not attack them. He's running a campaign based on NOT being negative, all that stuff about hope and new politics? The minute he goes negative he loses all those people. He has never shown an inclination to attack, what makes you think he will start now? It's funny, really. The same people who think Kerry didn't fight hard enough despise the candidate that will do anything to win, in favor of the one who won't.

[tekisui]

50. Obama and Axelrod have an ability to counter-attack while seeming

to take the high road. It's one thing that Hillary hasn't been able to figure out. They way he has framed himself is of being above the fray, and he can attack from there when needed.

It's working so far. He has done what is needed, when it is needed.

[northzax]

39. it is kinda funny, ain't it?

I hear one reason to oppose Hillary is because she helped convince Kerry not to fight too hard in 04. Now she's facing a guy who won't fight backand she's the bitch, while it is somehow noble for obama to not fight back. But don't worry, he will, right? Against mccain? Even though he never has, and says he won't?

[Deep13]

41. I'm not even trying to figure it out anymore.

When 3/4 gets here, this election will be over for me.

[elixir]

44. O definitely has some "soft" spots they just haven't been brought to light...yet.

[OzarkDem]

6. Still a lot of delegates to choose

and neither candidate is nowhere near the votes they need to clinch the nomination.

[LoZoccolo]

8. I would not want them to waste money on gas. n/t

[jgraz]

10. She can stay in as long as she wants. Just show some freakin class

If Hillary wants to make the case that people should VOTE FOR her, go right ahead. If she's just going to continue with her bullshit negative attacks and behind-the-scenes delegate wrangling, she can fuck off.

[cali]

16. I like her negative attacks

it's good practice for Obama and it hurts her. I've reached the point where I'm enjoying watching her campaign tank, and negative shit fly back in her face.

[jgraz]

34. Wait until she starts attacking his qualifications to be commander-in-chief

That's now Mark Penn's stated strategy for Ohio and Texas, and it plays right into McInsane's hands.

[GumboYaYa]

11. Sure, Hillary should just refrain from the negative attacks and politics of

personal destruction. My concern is that she gets more and more desparate to save what is quickly becoming a lost cause and sinks the Democrats chances in 2008 as a result.

[my3boyz]

12. Why should she waste valuable time leading up to the general election

when she basically has no chance of ever catching up with pledged delegates. She would have to win 68% of the remaining delegates. That is not going to happen. So, why waste the party's time and get the same outcome? She could drop out now and give the party time to heal and organize for the fall. McCain will have a huge head start.

[shraby]

19. Not to mention the millions of dollars that will

be wasted in campaigning.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. As somebody in a state that hasn't voted yet...

that's pretty absurd.

[RememberWellstone]

14. Yep.

Don't need to throw anyone under a train right now. It ain't over.

[SecularNATION]

28. It's over, accept it. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

15. I vote June 3rd. If Hill drops out, I can write in Kucinich with a clear conscience

Otherwise I'm going to have to vote for Obama for the good of the party and the country.

So yeah, I think she should drop out.

It's all over already.

[KAZ]

17. If she would lay off the negative stuff, I'd like to see her stay ..

.. around for a long time. Both of our candidates are generating tons of interest, and garnering loads of coverage. That's a good thing.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. How many primaries have been decided on the last day again?

2004. Nope.
2000. Nope.
1996. Nope.
1992. Nope.
etc...

[asthmaticeog]

22. By that logic nobody should ever be allowed to drop out.

Why shouldn't Ohioans have the right to vote for Dodd? :grr:

[SecularNATION]

27. Exactly

It's amazing the number of dimwits here, who do not understand how the primary system works.

[NoPasaran]

55. I don't know what the ballot laws are like in Ohio

But when I early voted in Texas yesterday, Dodd was one of the choices.

[NastyRiffraff]

23. NOBODY has the right to tell any candidate to drop out.

Period. Otherwise, good candidates would never be heard. How about Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, Edwards, who all contributed to the conversation? From the beginning, all but Edwards had little chance.

I applaud this primary, which has given states (including my own) some say in the process which they hadn't had before. Let the other states vote, and let their votes mean something.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

24. I feel the same way about Duncan Hunter

If the people of Puerto Rico not being able to vote for Duncan Hunter isn't fascism, I don't know what is.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. not unless they vote for her. If they don't, they become

not significant.

Like

WI IL MN MS HI and many, many other states.

[RoadRage]

29. I actually don't care if she drops out.. and there will ALWAYS

be states who don't get to vote - look at all the Repugs who have their choice of McCain, or Huckster - no - shot - in - hell.

I live in Nebraska.. this is the first time EVER we've made a difference. We have a May primary, but the Democratics in our state pushed for a Feb. 9th caucus. That was nice- but a first.

My point is, there will always be some states who don't get to make an impact on the primary. So we drag it out 'till March 4th.. and then it's decided by OH/TX - what about the states after that. If Hillary loses both of those states as well, do we drag this out longer just to cover all voters - or do we do what's better for the party and start to consolodate?

I do however think the negative attack ads are horrible. Quit stabbing your own party in the back, grow up and try to do the right thing.

[islandmkl]

30. Hillary should definitely stay in...it is probably too much to ask ...

that she fights 'the good fight' to the end. The Clinton machine can't help itself; negative has worked too well in the past.

I would say that it is a lame and lazy train of reasoning that somehow Hillary's negative assaults on Barack are actually doing the Party some kind of 'favor'...yeah, like if you beat someone all day long, they will be 'better prepared' for the fight.

No one is so naive as to not realize what this fall will bring from the RW. Please, just spare us the poorly-intellectualized defense of the negativity of the Clinton's campaign.

[Renew Deal]

31. You can still vote

No one is stopping you.

[ExtraGriz]

32. its pretty simple

let everybody vote.....how can we deny anyone of this individual right?

[butterfly77]

33. Some of you people are crazy as hell...

I ask a question and you start attacking me. Evidently,you must be afraid that if Hillary stays in she may win.

[abburdlen]

36. Stay in the race

I have little doubt now that Obama will ultimately get the Democratic nomination and come November be elected President of the United States but I certainly don't want Sen Clinton to withdraw from the race.

Every contested race not only strengthen the candidates but also the Democratic party. People supporting both candidates are bringing new voters to out party's ranks.
Here in NC, progressive Senate candidate Jim Neal's best chance to win the nomination and go on to face Libby Dole will be for a large turn out in our primary on May 6th. If the battle between Obama & Clinton is over, I worry how many will bother to vote. Would Donna Edwards have done as well as she did in Maryland without the excitement of the presidential race?

So let Clinton stay in the race even if there isn't much chance for her win the nomination, this contest so far has been good for the party.

[hfojvt]

37. it appears to be explained here

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/19/225857/609

Before Wisonsin and Hawaii, they have pledged delegates as 1116 to 985, Obama over Clinton. Because of superdelegate support, it looks closer in the final tally. It takes 2025 to win and there are about 1300 still remaining. So she needs to win about 900 out of the last 1300 in order to win the nomination, or she needs to win by 70-30. There is no poll showing that that's gonna happen.

By keeping on, and turning negative, she sends the message that she thinks Obama is a really horrible candidate, that it's vitally important for him to not win the nomination, for one reason or other or more.

Not only that, but if there is not a clear nominee, then the fight to seat Michigan and Florida becomes more pronounced and more bitter.

None of that serves the Democratic Party. So, if she cares about the Democratic Party more than she cares about her own ambition, she will gracefully concede after Ohio and Texas. As Bill would say "it is the right thing to do" (not that he wants her to drop out, but I remember that as one of his catch-phrases from the 1990s.)

She cannot win. She cannot break even. But she can quit the game.

[Moh96]

45. well they have the right to vote for Edward as well

[butterfly77]

46. Fifteen more states...

[bunnies]

47. Ah. The Huckabee argument!

Go Huckabee!

[butterfly77]

48. So then when anyone brings up florida and Michigan..

I guess those votes don't matter...

[citizen snips]

53. its mathmatically impossible for Huckabee to win.

that is not the case for Hillary.

[MadHound]

54. Welcome to my world

My primary was Febuary goddamn fifth. By that time my first, second and third choices had dropped out and I was left once more with the choice of the lesser of two evils.

The thing is, if Hillary continues this scorched earth policy of hers, she will tear the party in two, and sacrifice it on the alter of her ambition, vanity and ego. I really don't want to see that happen, do you? Yes, I realize that it will suck for you and thousands of others, but frankly I'd rather have that than see McCain winning in the fall.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. Anybody worried that Hillary hasn't dropped out at this point isn't seeing the big picture...

Barring any major gaffes, what happens in March and April doesn't matter. September and October are when elections are won and Democrats seem to have a hard time understanding that fact.

[JackORoses]

57. Yes. But she should still drop out for the good of the Party.

If she continues, she will only cause more damage and cost more money that could be used to fight McCain.

An extended battle will only weaken our chances in November.

Hillary will not come out of this on top.
I hope she realizes this before she causes major problems.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

58. I think doing so now would be premature

Not because people should still have the experience of voting for her. After all, it's not as if Edwards stayed in for me to get a chance to feel good about my vote. I think she should because she still has a chance of winning.

If things don't go in her favor in a big way on March 4th then she should step back and support Obama.