It's not the candidates who split the party

[blues90]

It's the people who don't have minds of their own as it has always been . One or the other candidate should just drop out because one or the other side wants their candidate to win .

[Kelvin Mace]

1. No, it is the expectation

that the candidate who has no chance of winning drop out, rather than destroy the party by endorsing the Republican candidate at the expense of the party.

Once a candidate shows a desire to win that is so overweening that they are prpared to curry favor with people who have spent over a deace and millions trying to destroy them, that candidate has lost all credibility and self-respect.

[Benhurst]

3. It's the fact that Clinton still has a chance of winning which has

Obama's followers so hysterical. If Mike Gravel were still in the race, no one would even be noticing. Unfortunately for the party, it's pretty close to an even split, and neither is going to win without the help of unelected super delegates.

If Obama and Clinton don't curb their overweening personal ambitions and come to some sort of agreement, the party is going to go into the general election split, and it will be both their faults.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. For the record,

I am not an Obama "follower".

To me, it is a matter of the lesser of evils. Obama, is the lesser evil.

Sen. Clinton can win only by destroying the party and handing the election to McCain. She seems quite happy to do this. An Obama win will not split the party, though we will have to endure years of whining at the result.

Sorry, I do not see any reason for the person leading in the popular vote, the delegate vote, and set to retain that lead to "step aside".

[blues90]

7. it's true at this point Obama may be the lesser of two evils

But 4 or 8 years down the road he may very well become the next evil if what he claims to be and stand for is not the case . We did not know all the crap about Hillary we are told now . One does wonder why this is now the case or if this is just Bill Clinton's past dropped onto Hillary .

There is no way on earth any first lady was ever expected to not stand by the president whether she agreed or not . She has a unique position being the only first lady to run for president .

[Kelvin Mace]

12. It has NOTHING to do with

standing by her husband.

It has to do with consorting and currying favor from the most evil elements of the Right. It has to do with endorsing McCain. It has to do with lying about Bosnia and Ireland. It has to do with her vote on Iraq, her refusal to repudiate that vote, and her showing us the Iraq vote was NOT an accident or a mistake, by her vote on Iran.

Why do her supporters give her a complete pass on her Iraq & Iran vote when it has been the foundation of our opposition to Bush? (Sen. Obama makes my shitlist for his refusal to deny funding to the war, but at least he isn't giving Bush the go ahead to start another one).

As to what will happen in the future, you can make the same argument about ANY candidate that 4-8 years they could turn out be Satan's spawn. Your argument is that I should vote for Clinton knowing her evil, because at some future datae, Obama could be worse. I'm sorry, your logic escapes me.

No one has "told" me all this "crap" about Sen. Clinton, I have just watched what she has done and said. She sat down and gave an interview to Richard Scaife. That's a fact. She lied about Ireland and Bosnia (I would have given her the benefit of "exaggerate" but she then chose to claim she "mispoke"). She praised McCain and said he would be a better president than Obama. I didn't imagine that. No one made it up. I watched her say it.

I am sorry, but when you are willing to sell out everything you believe, to lie, and to consort with people who have sought to destroy you, you are not someone I will vote for.

Again, we would never accept this kind of behavior from another Democrat. Also, I am watching people who support her willing to denounce the cornerstone of our leadership and supporters (Molly Ivins, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and many, many others) and call them traitors rather than admit that Senator Clinton is NOT the candidate we need. Senator Obama is about an order of magnitude less evil than Sen. Clinton, but I would have preferred Gore. I can now see why Gore didn't want to run. He would now be suffering the same accusations of misogyny than Obama is subject to. He knew what would happen when he got in her way. You just watch how quickly the people who support her turn on Gore if Gore endorses Obama.

And God help poor Jimmy Carter if he doesn't endorse Clinton.

[blues90]

13. I'm not talking about what un-folded in the last month

I was talking about all the crap hung on Hillary when she was the first Lady .

My argument has nothing to do with you voting for Hillary at all . That was not the point .

I don't see any real difference at this point in voting for the war or voting to continue to fund it . As far as Obama not supporting the war , well he was not in the position to vote for or against it at the time so that is mute and crap . He was not under the same pressure at that time or in fear of appearing weak on terror as the others were .

Both the standing Dem candidates have far too many flaws as far as I am concerned .

They were both hand picked by the MSM and are both not liberals in the true sense of the word .

I am not looking for perfection but Kucinich was closer to what we need than these two ever will be . He was ignored out of real fear of change not double speak or slogans and banners .

Do you think that if either Hillary or Obama threatened the corporations that either one would be still standing ?

[Kelvin Mace]

15. What was hung around Senator Clinton

when she was first lady was, and is, disgraceful. Which is why I am shocked to the core that she would grant an interview to the one man most responsible for it, Richard Melon Scaife.

This is completely inexcusable and more than anything else disqualifies her for the White House.

Also, anyone who voted for the war because they were afraid they would seem "weak on terror" is a coward, and certainly doesn't belong in the White House. To claim that Obama was not taking a huge political risk by speaking against the war, is disingenuous. He was, as was any politician who spoke against it. Most are still in office, so even politically it was inexcusable.

Do you think that if either Hillary or Obama threatened the corporations that either one would be still standing?

What would they have done, had them murdered?

Neither are very liberal in my view, but they are what we have. Sen. Obama, as I stated earlier is the lesser of two evil choices.

Even Kuchinch disappointed me by going on Fox News, but yes, he would have been a better choice. Gore better still, because he had finally learned the danger of compromising with the Right

I am hardly happy with the choice, but they are the choices we have.

[blues90]

16. no not murdered as in dead but politically murdered

Like Kucinich or Edwards were .

Certainly any politician who voted for the was because they would look weak on terror do not belong in any area of political influence .

There are many of them as many will still be there for years to come .

But to say Obama really voted against the war was anything more than playing it safe as in , I want to run for president so since most others who may run voted for this war so I won't and look good for it . This is closer to the truth of political games and positioning than what his real stand on the war is . He did vote to support the funding of the occupation so this is some indication he may have very well in he were in the senate at the time voted for the war .

My personal view is this . Americans like to win , most things are about winning . They will and do run to the winning side and allow their personal values to be sacrificed to be on the winning side .

The day when this all ends is when people finally say , NO ! I refuse to vote for the better of two evils . This is Obama's platform , he tries to present himself as the lesser of the two evils . It is all based on how bad bush has been .

[blues90]

5. That's true but let me offer my own ideas

it was Dean was it not that decided to allow the spilt in the delagates in the dem primaries and since this seems to be the case from what I understand this made it possible for both candidate to stay in the race far as long as they have been able . It began as an even chance for both sides . Now it seems to have back fired and either one of the other sides candidate is expected to drop out and leave their supporters hanging and be forced to now choose for the standing candidate to now suddenly heal the party divide .

All the people form both sides and now to forget all about their money to fund their candidate and all the support given is down the drain .

and then which ever candidate decides to drop out is expected to back the other candidate and walk away from their supporters with this present divide we have now .

If it was winner take all in the primaries then this would now not be the problem it has become .

It this close to reality ?

[Benhurst]

10. It has always been known what's happened COULD happen; but

no one thought it WOULD happen. The fact that it quickly became a two-way race (thanks to a large degree to our corrupt corporate media, determined to make it so from the beginning) exacerbated the situation.

If we now had a field of candidates with elected delegates, after the first ballot, the minor candidates could join with the major candidate of their choice or align themselves together for a compromise candidate. As Denver approaches, however, we find ourselves with two large, hostile camps, neither capable of reaching 2035 without super delegates, and the followers of each threatening to bolt the party if the other candidate is dragged over the finish line.

To our leaders, Clinton and Obama included, "It's a fine mess you've gotten us into."

[blues90]

11. You would think that Dean of all people would have known

from his past experience of the MSM that this would probably happen . He has to know the MSM is corporate owned and will do anything to pick and steer the candidates and elections to their advantage .

[Benhurst]

14. I agree.

And why do we let the fascist news organizations run the debates? We ought to turn them over to a public interest group and let C-span cover them. It's pathetic.

And I read a while back that the DNC was letting FOX provide coverage for the convention. If true, they ought to just turn the show over to KKKarl Rove.

:argh:

[kirby]

2. Yes and no...

I agree with you that the voters are the one who put us in the situation. I also understand that this is a process.
The problem is that it is impossible for Sen Clinton to catch up. This whole thing will come down to the superdelegates.

This leaves only two possibilities:
1) The superdelegates vote to mirror the overall contest (or the momentum of the contest)
2) The superdelegates override the voters claiming they 'know better'.

The whole situation sucks. What I believe will happen is that as the last primaries complete, the superdelegates are going
to come out in public and make their endorsements EARLY. There is no way the party wants this dragging out to the convention. That gives the GOP too much time to fly McCain around looking presidential while we have no in general election mode yet. Once the superdelegates make their announcements one of the candidates will need to drop out.

[Buck Laser]

6. It's the Dittoheads trying to split the party...

...more than democrats themselves. On other forums, I see one post after another from rabid right wingers who think they can sow discord among us and somehow benefit. Most of the righties would rather have Clinton as McCain's opponent because they think they can run a better race against her--so right now their lie campaign is aimed at Obama. I think Clinton should retire from the race, but I'm not the boss of her. She has to make that decision herself.

After eight years of unbelievable decline, I really have a hard time imagining that there are many democrats so disgruntled and pissed off that they'll refuse to vot if their candidate doesn't win the nomination. If they do that, I think I'll have to move a big step closer to utter despair about my country.

[blues90]

8. That is one way to look at it but it could also

be the reverse . I'm sure the ditto heads play a role as does Rove . It's difficult to tell who would be better at defeating McCain . Now that the Clinton's have been bashed to hell , who is to blame for this ?

[niceypoo]

9. If you go onto Yahoo political chatrooms...

...the rooms are all dominated by Obama supporters and Republicans spewing endless vitriol against the Clintons and Hillary's supporters

Sadly, there are a lot of hateful bigots on Obamas side. It feels like there are three republicans in this race.

Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Hope my ass!