Look at history. No nominee at the convention = Democrats lose

[Avalux]

Look back at history; in any year the Democrats have not had a nominee when the convention rolls around, the nominee they choose loses.

I am sure the superdelegates know this.

Hillary, with all you political wonkiness, you know this too.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Hillary and Bill don't care. 8 years of ruling the most powerful country on earth wasn't enough for

them.

[frogcycle]

2. look at history: no white guy as candidate...

oh...never mind

[Snarkoleptic]

3. Which clears the way for a Hillary vs McCain contest in 2012.

Scorched earth politics indeed.
Sickening.

[newmajority]

4. Except this time it could be all too literal.

If Grandpa McLoon starts World War III, much of the earth will be literally scorched by 2012. :evilfrown:

[mmonk]

5. I think you've got it.

It's what has the rightwing talk show hosts so excited and the media moguls salivating for controversy.

[backscatter712]

6. That's Hillary's intent.

Since 2008 is mathematically not in the cards, how's she going to try again in 2012 if there's a Democratic President at the beginning of next year?

That's right. She's willing to sacrifice the lives, limbs and minds of thousands of troops and countless civilians by letting the GOP win, continue the war in Iraq and start another war in Iran, just so she can try again in 2012.

She's willing to allow tens of thousands of Americans to die without health care by letting the GOP win the November, let the health care crisis continue to kill innocent people, just so she can try again in 2012.

She's willing to destroy millions of good middle class jobs by letting the GOP win, and thus letting more agreements like NAFTA come into play, by letting Chinese outsourcing and Chinese products undermine our economy and drive us all into poverty, just so she can try again in 2012.

She's willing to let the environment go all to hell, by letting the GOP win, and letting Bushie oilman policies stay in force, until global warming creates enough havoc to kill millions and screw up our planet for millennia, just so she can try again in 2012.

It's all about her. She's willing to kill us just so she can get that hot seat.

Fuck Killary.

[Joyce78]

7. Let's take some time to look at Obama's background and party-goers and party-fundraisers and

Michelle's thesis at Princeton and her recent campaign comments.

[Joyce78]

8. The Obama's seem to forget attending certain parties.

[Avalux]

10. You're really pushing the crap aren't you?

:eyes:

[cali]

12. bots really shouldn't be talking about things like this

not with hillypoo's crooked connections. Hsu. Gupta. Giustra. Paul. There's plenty more. keep it up, bot.

[cali]

11. go back to freeperville with your vile bullshit

Obama's background? oooh, scary. Michelle's thesis? nothing there,bot.

[flowomo]

9. Are you sure about that? What about JFK?

from what I've read he did not have nomination locked up in 1960 until after the convention started. In fact, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson didn't even get into the contest until a week or so before the convention. I'll look for a source but that's what I recall.

OK -- I went and found a cite quickly:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenspan/recapturing-the-spirit-of_b_88717.html

[Rageneau]

13. Refresh our memories. What elections are you talking about?

There are also plenty of electiuons where the Democrats DID have a nominee before the convention and still lost.

But is your history right? I seem to remember that LBJ and JFK battled it out in convention backrooms in 1960. Also, wasn't Woodrow Wilson a compromise, convention-chosen candidate?

Truth is, I don't really kno the exact history of these conventions, so I'm only going by memory. But since you obviously DO know the history backward and forward, why not enlighten us on the conventions that did and did not have candidates selected going in?

[flowomo]

14. you are correct on the JFK... see my post above yours

[Condem]

15. Sparo

No worries. We'll have a nominee.