Nearly half of the Democratic voters between these two candidates have rejected Obama

[bigtree]

. . . in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Polls show that nearly half of her voters reject him completely, under any circumstances. This doesn't seem like the best time for the Obama campaign to turn his back on them and assume he's ready to face McCain with the bulk of the 27 million or so who've voted in this Democratic primary fully backing the senator's candidacy.

The fact that Barack Obama hasn't yet achieved the necessary amount of votes from Democrats in this race to nominate him under party rules is an obvious indication that he hasn't yet made the case with a sizable percentage of the Democrats he expects to fall in line behind him if he manages to achieve the nomination by other means other than actual votes cast.

Critics of Hillary Clinton's continuing campaign apparently expect for her voters to shut up and fold into Sen. Obama's campaign without even a whimper of dissent, lest they weaken the Senator's already shaky position in the polls against the republican nominee. But it's never been the responsibility of the Clinton campaign to make up for whatever lack of support Obama has been able to generate in this primary election with some capitulation. It's his own responsibility to achieve the necessary amount of votes to nominate. Lacking that support from voters, he needs to keep on appealing to the nearly half of our party who has already rejected him in this race, not attempting to stifle them as many of his supporters suggest in their calls for Clinton to exit.

Expecting that the party is ready to provide the backing and support our Democratic nominee would need to propel them to the presidency without having cast enough votes to nominate either of them, is just wishful thinking, rather than some winning strategy. Neither of these candidates can expect to turn away from the other's supporters and face McCain, assuming they have these voters' full cooperation in that effort. It may be possible to intimidate and bully posters on a message board into falling into line, but it's a different matter to expect folks who haven't yet been drawn to the ascending candidate to provide the backbone our nominee will need in the general election.

More work needs to be done by Barack Obama to repair whatever divisions his campaign has created (and encouraged) by their strident campaign against Hillary Clinton, if he expects to leap past the rules of our primary system and become our nominee without the benefit of the required number of our actual votes and advance with the party's full support. The same applies to Clinton. That can only happen, in this close campaign, after the rest of the voters have weighed in and had their say. Stifling them now by attempting to de-legitimize the only vehicle left for their dissent in this Democratic primary is a recipe for the division and weakening of our party against the republican nominee that so many here claim to be so concerned about.

[anonymous171]

1. "Strident campaign against?" BULLSHIT!

[BlooInBloo]

6. It's just Clinton supporters trying to maintain some shred of ego-dignity...

... in the face of certain defeat, by trying to tell us that we owe them something - and trying to make it Obama's fault.

[thunder rising]

17. "Nearly half rejected" what does that mean ... hmmmm ... I guess that means he's winning

[bigtree]

57. he's leading.

neither candidate will 'win' this nomination by votes cast alone.

[Tesha]

93. It's also a carefully-crafted lie.

Many of us who didn't vote for Obama in our primaries
might have done so if the race had simply been between
Clinton and Obama.

Heck, if we restarted the whole process again, with
everyone knowing all the facts that are now in evidence,
I'll bet Obama would get 75% of the vote!

Tesha

[cui bono]

125. Good point.

[bigtree]

9. that's right. a strident campaign waged by his hitmen Axelrod and Plouffe

[Straight Shooter]

36. Don't forget Robert Gibbs.

The one who really deserves the title of kneecapper in Democratic campaigns.

How many people know that Axelrod and Plouffe are in the advertising business?

http://akpmedia.com/services/defining.html

Television and radio:
Our bread and butter is the production of top-flight TV and radio ads. AKP&D has won a number of national awards, and a great deal of notice, for the distinctive quality of our work. More important, we have won many races because we understand that winning requires more than creative media. It requires the right message.

Every spot on our reel -- every spot we have ever produced -- can be understood in the context of strategy. We are message consultants, not merely producers of media, and therein lies an important distinction.

[papau]

12. Clinton has taken the all state popular vote lead after PA - leads Obama by 122,728

[anonymous171]

14. NO SHE HASN'T! That is a lie.

[cascadiance]

46. papau's trying to count Michigan's "Sadam Hussein" election slate...

... with no opponents to inflate her totals.

It's all about trying to manipulate the facts!

[MyNameGoesHere]

53. You may not want to compare

the good people of MI with Saddam Hussein's regime. You can point out the falsehood of the posters claim absolutely. But I am sure MI voters do not feel like they are under a dictators rule.

[cascadiance]

74. I used to be a Michigan resident myself. I have nothing against Michigan voters...

But to try to hold up that Michigan primary vote result as some sort of Democratic vote when it is not much different from the "unchallenged" slate that Saddam Hussein had in his 2002 "election", then that's a crying shame for us that call ourselves "Democrats". Now there probably isn't the same sort of consequences for anyone that tries to vote "uncommitted" there that might have happened in Saddam's election, but still the premise of trying to call such an election a "democratic election" is flawed for the same reasons.

[MyNameGoesHere]

85. So do you really think they feel like

they had to vote for a dictator? HRC is a dictator then? Please i say crap all the time and will apologize when i make a bonehead statement. As a supporter of the candidate that espouses unity, hope and change maybe you could?

[cascadiance]

88. No they didn't, but to call this vote any more democratic than his election is BS!

They are equivalent in terms of the choices that they had. And I bet that Saddam's election had more voter participation (that was forced in some circles) than this one, when many Democrats chose to do "negative" voting in the open Republican primary instead where they thought their vote might count for some purpose, which it didn't appear to count in the Democratic facade of a primary.

Though the other aspects of trying to vote in a Saddam Hussein country aren't similar, I qualified my original statement on that, I think it is important to highlight the ridiculousness of trying to say that the Democratic Primary in Michigan in any way was a measurement of the voters' wills in that state by comparing it to a similarly "unopposed" election that is had in other countries where it is done ceremoniously rather than meaningfully.

[LibraLiz1973]

92. Obama supporters care not about who they offend.

Now Michigan is like a Hussein regime. Fuckin a. Anything ELSE?

[bigtree]

95. there's more

there's always more from them. it's a bottomless pit.

Their sense of entitlement is stunning.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bake]

105. So Michigan folks are now like Saddam Hussein?

Wow. Some people really WILL say anything to win ... (and guess what, I'm NOT talking about Hillary!).

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Bake

[rzemanfl]

18. Bullshit! Bullshit! That's all that's on this board anymore is

bullshit!

[stillcool]

23. that damn math again!

[Usrename]

42. We let her think she's ahead, cause we don't want to upset her too much.

It's good that your keeping up the ruse, but I don't think Hillary reads DU. You can speak freely here.

We already know the real count.

[jbm]

28. keep thinking that way and let me know how that GE works out for you..

K?

[BlooInBloo]

2. He didn't do a damn thing divisive. Well, except for the hope and change bit, I suppose.

[bigtree]

16. he doesn't have clean hands in this election

. . . but I don't really expect you to admit to anything wrong at all with his campaign. Others have objections, though.

[stillcool]

25. There is hope...

and then there is No Hope...or Hopeless.

[ruggerson]

26. So questioning Hillary's character early on when she was the frontrunner

which was the domino that started all the negativity in this race, was perfectly fine?

[thevoiceofreason]

3. Often you are good. Tonight you are full of shit.

[burythehatchet]

73. And what does that imply? The being good part is the way to earn trust and then

the true part comes out.

[Medusa]

4. Nearly half huh?

Damn what is it about you Clinton supporters and math? Nearly half means that MORE than HALF have rejected Hillary! :rofl:

[bigtree]

7. I made that point

but, obviously I'm not arguing in favor of Obama

[Kittycat]

20. The only thing that keeps BT off my ignore list, is that he posts some kickass

Rally & Campaigning Reports on Obama.

I cannot wait until BT is on our side :)

[Bake]

107. Then perhaps you all might want to insult him a little less ...

We're not going to just magically "get over it" and automatically come over to your side, you know. So just keep on doing what you're doing, and see how badly you lose in November.

Bake

[Andy823]

32. Good point! nt

[ossman]

5. fucking hopemonger!

[BornBlue]

8. Ummm, you can make the same argument the other way.

Almost half the voters who have voted have rejected Hillary Clinton.

Besides the fact that Hillary, was ready to let every contest after Super Tuesday not really matter. She is broke because she was not expecting it to go on this long, and you don't see a problem with that?

[bigtree]

11. I agree with that, but she's not asking for the race to be shut down

as many of his supporters her have done.

[Armstead]

21. We wouldn;t be asking to shut it down if she were less obnoxious about it

I think you miss the point that many of us have tried to make.

Hillary is totally within her rights to keep campaigning for as long as she is able to hang on, if she chooses.

However, that does not give her license to do everything possible to smear Obama and to spread the foundation for the GOP by amplifying right wing memes about "elitist" Democrats, and trying to make Obama as unattractive as possible.

She is just screwing her own chances in the General as well as Obamas.

Whatever happened to the Hillary who started the primary saying that the Democratic contenders should sell themselves and stay united against their common enemy, the GOP?

[smiley_glad_hands]

40. Well said. eom

[bigtree]

52. she's only obnoxious to Obama supporters

and Obama has his detractors, as well, although I have the sense not to let my hard feelings hang all out with insults, ridicule, forced outrage, or by characterizing his words and actions in the worst possible light. Obama supporters feel free to dish out any kind of over the top insult and feel justified in that because their candidate is in the lead. That's the entire basis of their victimization. Somehow the politics of the Clinton camp threatens, but you folks refuse to acknowledge the effect of your own divisive politics against Hillary Clinton.

You say she deserves it and you trot out these trumped up complaints and get all the support you need here at DU. But in the real world, there are plenty of folks who are fed up with the denigration and ridicule coming from the Obama campaign, and now, from the candidate. I don't expect you to notice or care about the slights to Hillary Clinton. I think that's beyond your ability. But, I do expect you to realize that there are similar feelings of resentment, outrage, and revulsion from Clinton supporters toward the Obama campaign. You can brush them off if you please, but they are there. And, I think they are justified and correct in those feelings.

Keep knocking our candidate down, pretending that the Obama camp is above the 'politics as usual they regularly complain about'. In the process you are knocking the voters who support and believe in her and keeping her voters from even coming close to supporting him. Clinton's voters aren't buying the whining from the Obama camp about s racist campaign from Hillary Clinton. They aren't buying the cheap political tactic of insisting that every difference they have with Clinton amounts to a lie on her part.

And they don't seem to be buying your candidate. That should concern you. Not to go on a rampage of intimidation and ridicule against the Clinton campaign. But to try and understand how the campaign appears from the rival's side. A little honesty would help. I really don't expect that from you, though.

[cui bono]

98. You know, you really are not seeing things the way they really are.

Do you really not see what the Clinton campaign has done? How negative and detrimental to the party she has been? Seriously?

And I'm not going to argue about it, if you've been paying attention, which apparently you have, you know what I'm talking about.

[bigtree]

104. of course, you aren't going to acknowledge the damage that has come from the Obama campaign

and, I have been paying attention.

[cui bono]

115. I said you apparently have been paying attention.

And if you really think that Obama and hiss campaign has hit below the belt in the same way that Clinton and hers has you are really blinded. I don't think you can find one objective person out there who would think that.

[bigtree]

128. you obviously haven't been paying attention if you haven't seen Obama's attacks

One objective person has just asserted here what you say no one has. Why should anyone believe you are prepared to listen to and accept the word of anyone else in that regard when you so blithely dismiss my own perspective to declare that your candidate is infallible and incorruptible.

[cui bono]

129. Then clue me in.

I have yet to see anything close to the type of attacks leveled by Clinton, both by her personally and by her campaign.

But when you are posting OPs about how Obama owes you something you might think about losing the attitude displayed in your responses. Not going to help your cause.

And again, since you are no longer paying attention... he is not my candidate, and I have never declared him infallible and incorruptible. I don't know what filter is between you and your monitor, but you might want to take it out if you plan on having any meaningful discourse and persuade anyone to see your point of view. And if it's not that you're misinterpreting my posts, then stop falsely attributing comments to me.

Edit to add:

Not just to me, I've just looked at your posts in this exchange and you are really presumptuous about others and condescending as well. After almost everyhting you say you have to add something like "I don't expect you to understand". You've got a terrible attitude towards anyone who doesn't think the same as you. I wouldn't care so much but it takes some nerve to post an OP like yours with that attitude. The world doesn't owe you anything, you earn it, well you don't, but you're supposed to. I was trying to not be snarky but you are so dismissive I couldn't help it. Sorry.

[bigtree]

132. well

I've had conversations with those particular posters before, and they know what I'm talking about.

You're right. You owe me nothing. But your candidate does if he expects to get my vote. Fortunately, for Democratic candidates like him, my threshold for my support is rather low. If he was a dead Democratic dog in the general election I'd vote for him. That's not the attitude of many voters though.

And, I won't be drawn into making the types of personal invectives against Obama that are the norm these days when Obama supporters here refer to Hillary Clinton. What's the point? I only raise the issue of his campaign's regular practice of 'politics as usual' in their opportunistic attacks on Hillary Clinton's character, their behind the scenes innuendo about the Clinton's past, and their representation, from the start, of Hillary Clinton as some sort of trigger-happy warmonger. Those may not be outrageous to you, but from the standpoint of a candidate who I have high personal regard for, the duplicitous attacks from the Obama camp are particularly offensive to me.

[BornBlue]

22. and I have seen many of her supporters ask the same thing of him.

Obama has said that he does not think she should drop out. Don't paint him with his supporters views, just like I will not paint Hillary by her supporters views, I dislike her enough and I came to that conclusion long before I logged on to this site.

[bigtree]

56. well, I've seen supporters say all sorts of things

. . . but I'm not going to pretend that there hasn't been an overt, and concerted effort to get Clinton to withdraw, despite the fact that enough voters haven't yet chosen to advance him to the nomination.

[BornBlue]

59. This time.

If you give people a 50/50 choice, that is what you are going to end up with a split party. No one has ever really complained in the past when the nominees were decided by super Tuesday. I have not called for her to drop out, it is her right to stay in. Do I want her to drop out, yes, but that is me and I can't make anyone do anything so why cause problems?

Both sides are wrong to call for dropping out, we agree on that. What it boils down to IMO is that one side needs to take responsibly and withdraw so that the healing can begin. We need to beat McCain, and if this fighting goes on until August, we are screwed.

[Bake]

108. Yeah, since you've only been here a month and a half ...

I would hope you had some political opinions formed "long before" then.

:rofl:

Bake

[BornBlue]

119. Had to get a cheap shot in huh?

Since you didn't respond to my last post in our little discussion the other day.

[Bake]

121. Who said anything about a cheap shot (other than you)?

I just made a factual observation. And I do appreciate your comments in the followup post about not calling for anybody to quit the race. Rather reasonable of you, I thought.

:hi:

Bake

[cui bono]

126. You diminish the effectiveness of your claim that Obama supporters ridicule and insult

Clinton supporters when you make posts like that. Just sayin... since you complained about it in our exchange.

[Bake]

130. Wow. Now who's being sensitive.

Did you see my response to the poster's "insult" claim? I stated a fact (which it IS, so if the facts are insulting, I can't help you) and did so to lighten things up a bit. I didn't call him a "newbie."

Believe me, if I want to insult someone, they'll know it was an insult.

Bake

[cui bono]

134. I don't care... I was just pointing it out because of your complaints about Obama supporters.

That's all.

And I do believe you. ;)

[C_U_L8R]

10. Hillary's so broke, her baloney has no first name.

And this is 100% Clintoonian baloney.

[BlooInBloo]

24. hahaha!

EDIT: Tho I think "She's so broke her bologna can't afford a second name" might be even better.

[C_U_L8R]

29. either way... It's pretty unspeakable baloney !

: - )))

[BlooInBloo]

30. True that.

[Bake]

109. Clintoon? Freeper much?

I just love how the "progressives" are using freeperisms here lately. I'm surprised you didn't spell it with a "k."

Bake

[FrenchieCat]

13. It's really more simple that that......

[NashVegas]

15. I Can't Imagine Why

Oh wait, yes, I can.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Okay, what sort of work does Obama need to do?

I really don't have a problem with this thing going until June, but that's not going to change the fact that things will look exactly like they do now when all is said and done.

This will continue to remain close with Obama having the edge because the Clintons have a very loyal following and a sizable number of Democrats will prefer her to Obama. That doesn't mean they hate Obama or won't vote for him in the GE, it just means that they prefer Clinton. Any other candidate with fundraising numbers as bad as hers would be out of the race by now, but Clinton is able to continue and do well because of the machine and following she and her husband have built. If Obama weren't running against a Clinton he would have this thing locked up.

[RichardRay]

27. Other boards in which I participate have 'post karma' points...

if this board had them I'd give you some for that observation.

As it is...

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[cliffordu]

31. Nearly half the wit in your OP is gone, too, leaving just a half-wit post...

FAIL...

[still_one]

33. This campaign taught me something about the Clintons. They are trash

Questioning Obama's patriotism, saying she and mccain were qualified to be president, but Obama wasn't, making suggestions that he "might" be a Muslim

both she and her cheating husband are liars, and though I will vote for her if she gets the nomination in the general election, after what her campaign has done, she will NEVER have my support, either emotionally or financially

She is scum in my book. Implying in the debates that Obama's association with Wright, infers that perhaps he is "anti-Jewish" shows what her character really is about

At the end of the primaries if the candidate who has the most votes, and the most delegates is not chosen as the Democratic nominee, I will no longer be a Democratic, though I will vote for the Democratic nominee in this election whoever it is

[cliffordu]

34. Yep. Sad.

[bigtree]

35. the actual statements behind all of those points of contention were mild

. . . compared to traditional campaigns for the presidency. And, you've exaggerated them to the extreme. The anti-Jewish thing is in your imagination.

[Shae]

86. that's similar to how I feel.

I liked her okay before all this began. ( I had hoped she wouldn't run because I lived through the 90s, and knew she would mobilize the RW base of the Republicans). But I never thought I would find her to be a person of such low moral character as I find her today.
She is dishonest and deceitful. If she were to exit the national stage and never be heard from again, that would be fine with me.

As far as her getting the nomination if Obama has the most delegates, that is unthinkable. If the unthinkable were to happen, I would have to do a lot of soul searching when deciding whether or not to vote for her.

[Bake]

110. Suggested he might be a Muslim???

Put up or shut up ... give us all a link for that one. She's NEVER done that.

You people are such fucking liars! I can't believe you get away with this shit!

Bake

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

37. Yes!

Nominated for a Squirrel Award!

[Beacool]

38. Great post as usual!!!

Critics of Hillary Clinton's continuing campaign apparently expect for her voters to shut up and fold into Sen. Obama's campaign without even a whimper of dissent, lest they weaken the Senator's already shaky position in the polls against the republican nominee.

If they only knew how many people would never vote for Obama........

[susankh4]

103. This, I think, I what bothers me so much.

I keep trying to like him. I really do. But I feel I am invisible to his followers. I hope he is also not this blind. But I just don't know... I don't understand that part about flicking people he doesn't agree with off his shoulder....

[cui bono]

39. Sounds like a threat to me.

The sentiment of your post sickens me.

I LOATHE Hillary and what's she's done in this campaign, but if she manages to snatch this nomination through whatever means work, I WILL vote for her.

IT'S TOO IMPORTANT NOT TO RALLY BEHIND WHOEVER IS THE NOMINEE.

It is the responsibility of all Dems to grow the fuck up already and vote Dem NO MATTER WHAT.

[bigtree]

50. any dissent from Obama 'sickens' his supporters. So what? You're not the majority of the party

. . . and the feeling isn't universal.

It's typical to see an Obama supporter using intimidation to generate support for their candidate. That's the whole appeal to Clinton voters: Their choice in this election 'sickens' and they have no choice but to vote for Obama.

That's a threat -- not this post appealing for recognition for the almost half of the Democrats who have chose Hillary Clinton. What an amazing pitch you have. It may work to intimidate DUers, but you don't have the ear of the majority of voters from here. you certainly don't have the attention of those 13 million Clinton voters you expect to fall in line behind Obama. Good luck with all of that.

[cui bono]

96. You missed my point entirely.

It's not the fact that you chose Clinton that sickens me, it was your post's sentiments that do. I'm so sick of people ON BOTH SIDES saying things like what you posted. The other candidate does not owe anyone, does not need to prove anything, if they are CHOSEN to be the candidate BY THE PEOPLE they are the nominee and ALL Dems should vote for them regardless of what they feel about them. Unless you'd prefer Son of McCain.

As to your use of the word "rejection". Choosing one candidate over another is not by definition rejection. You are using spin to try to force Obama to become Clinton so that you and your inner Kyle can accept him. Well guess what? More people have chosen Obama than have chosen Clinton. So grow up and vote for whoever the nominee is without adding the spoiled brat caveat that they have to listen to you now. Even though I'm pretty sure that Obama wants to listen to you. I will vote for Clinton if I have to, and you won't see me posting such inane demands of her and telling her more than half the people rejected her.

Oh, and I guess I'd have to be called an Obama supporter by now, since I did donate to him for the first time the night of the PA primary, but it's merely by default. Clinton has driven me to it, she made me loathe her. When this all started I merely disliked her and didn't trust her. Obama has made me trust him more, respect him more, and the way he inspires young voters to have passion to participate in the process is fantastic. I still don't like a lot of his policies and would much prefer a true progressive.

[bigtree]

101. if there is no obligation to those voters then Obama should just stop campaigning now

I don't know if you've noticed, but the 'loathing' comment is typical bullshit. Anyone can be rude and boring. But, if that kind of sentiment toward Clinton is openly expressed by the Obama campaign it will alienate a sizable majority of Democrats from his candidacy and threaten limiting their full support in the GE. It may well be just fine to throw around your self-serving adjectives here. But don't pretend like that attitude and that open resentment toward Obama's rival is something that should be emulated and promoted to the general public.

It's a wonder how folks who regularly employ such strident and offensive rhetoric to describe their rival think they have any room to complain about some party division that a continued Clinton campaign would cause.

Again, you are not giving any credence at all to the reasons people vote in these primaries in the first place. You just insist on representing the will of the voters for Hillary Clinton as some sort of pout rather than their sincere rejection of Obama's candidacy. It just makes sense that he will have to, at some point, find a way to appeal to those voters. Certainly, if he followed the demands of his supporters here and insisted that Clinton should end her bid and declare that he's already won, he'd risk alienating those very voters he needs to win in the fall.

I hope the eventual nominee has enough sense to let the primary run it's course. Then I would hope they have enough sense to reach out to those voters in some overt and meaningful way. It's not unheard of in close races to make overt amends, and this one will go down in history for it's competitiveness and longevity.

[cui bono]

112. You like to generalize and project a lot.

Again, my point was...

Even though I loathe Clinton, I will vote for her in the GE should she become the nominee.

Your use of the word rejection is not valid for all, though it may be for some. I have certainly rejected Clinton so far since she didn't even make it on my list as my last choice. But I will vote for her in the GE if she is the nominee.

No one owes you anything. You need to earn it. And we need all Dems to vote for whoever the nominee is even if you have to throw a tantrum while doing so.

And of course the nominee is going to campaign to get all the votes they can. But your stating that you are owed something is just wrong and it's that sentiment that sickens me. And you attempting to twist his being ahead into a negative that he has been rejected is reaching and well, negative. Negativity in the Clinton campaign and posts like yours are what is hurting the party right now.

[Bake]

113. Actually, yes there IS an obligation.

Any candidate has an obligation to appeal to the voters -- ALL voters, whose votes he/she expects to get!

There's that whole "entitlement" thing coming out again with Obama supporters! First, Obama himself dissed us boomers, now his minions diss anyone who disagrees with him/them! Better start polishing that crown for him ...

Bake

[cui bono]

114. The OP is the one who is claiming he is owed something.

It's a given that candidates will attempt to appeal to all the voters out there, within reason of course. However, that is not an obligation, and it is not done because they owe it to anyone. It is the nature of running for a position of running the country and thus affecting people's lives.

And when they preface their stance with a statement of negativity, that the front runner has been rejected, they are asking to be called on it. And you think Obama supporters have a sense of entitlement? Did you read the OP?

I honestly don't see all the things that people claim in their generalizations of all Obama supporters. I have seen an occasional post or two that are out of line and usually complain about it since they force me to defend someone I cannot stand. But on the other side of things, boy oh boy, do I see a lot of nasty posts defending despicable behavior, and a majority of them aren't even based on facts or current rules.

[Bake]

117. The OP wasn't negative.

It was a statement of fact. 27 million votes have been cast in the Dem primaries, and the difference between the two candidates is relatively small. That means that almost half the voters have rejected the front-runner by voting for the other candidate; just over half rejected the other candidate. That's just a statement of fact.

The party IS SPLIT. It is the eventual nominee's obligation, if he/she wants to win in the fall, to try to heal that split by REACHING OUT TO the almost half of Dem voters who voted for the other candidate in the primaries. The fact that I am a Democrat doesn't mean that I owe my vote to anybody, especially to a candidate who has dismissed by generation and told us to "get over ourselves." Especially not to a candidate whose supporters have told us to go to hell, they don't need us, etc.

I really don't understand why you find that such a difficult concept to grasp, except that you see us as standing in the way to your candidate's coronation. And frankly, if you've been here regularly and only seen a couple of posts by Obama supporters that you found objectionable, you're blind. Just in the past two days, we've been called racist (of course!), Archie Bunkers, bigots, uneducated, illiterate, and oh yeah, WHITE TRASH. That REALLY motivates us to vote for your candidate.

Bake

[cui bono]

118. Yes, it was negative. Saying the front runner has been rejected is negative.

I understand the party is split. That is a very different thing to say than what the OP said. The OP also said they were owed something. I've posted about this already so...

"I really don't understand why you find that such a difficult concept to grasp, except that you see us as standing in the way to your candidate's coronation/"

Is that the way you'd like Obama supporters to talk to you? You're not name calling but you are being extremely condescending. Again, I hear this more from the Clinton camp than the Obama camp. And he's not really my candidate. There are so many people I would rather see as president than him. He is my default choice because he's the only one left after I eliminate the others in the race that I absolutely do not want to see as president. So it is by default that I support him, and it is in defense of him from all the lies that I support him.

And I have seen posts saying that a post was bigoted, but you know what? I have thought a lot of posts have been bigoted. I don't see what's wrong with calling someone on that. Calling someone white trash is not a good thing though. I generally don't worry about individual fights like those but I have defended Clinton when I've read something stupid written about her.

The bottom line is, you are not voting for the supporters, you're voting for the candidate and we have to have a Dem in the WH in 2009. If you let the supporters, especially anonymous ones on an internet message board, influence how you feel about a candidate then you're no longer looking at the candidate's policies and message and you're losing sight of the big picture. And that's how the OP struck me. The OP has forgotten what this is all really about, imo.

Maybe taking a break from message boards is the answer? I don't know, but you know that if you were talking to people face to face the conversation would be much different.

[Bake]

122. Saying the frontrunner has been rejected by almost half the voters

is not negative. It is factual. Just as it is factual to say that Hillary has been rejected by a little over half the voters.

It just means the party is split, perhaps hopelessly.

Bake

[cui bono]

124. I don't think it's factual. When you hvae to choose between two people

it's a misrepresentation to say that the other person was rejected. To use that term implies that all those people who voted for Clinton are actually against Obama and his message/policies, when I would bet that most simply picker her as the one the preferred.

It's also disingenuous to frame it as all the voters who "rejected" the front runner and saying nothing about the many more who "rejected" the losing candidate.


Edit to add:
Also, regarding your earlier claim about 27m people choosing in the primaries... don't forget they weren't choosing between just these two candidates, there were others in the race for a while, so the so-called rejection might be by quite a bit less people than you and the OP are considering.

[bigtree]

133. 27 million or so votes between them

500,000 difference in popular vote

[cui bono]

135. So is the 27m subtracting the votes the other candidates got?

If it is including them then the number isn't exactly accurate since we don't know who the other voters would have gone to.

[bigtree]

138. about 13 million for Clinton, 14 million or so for Obama

500,000 vote difference between them out of about 27 million votes.

[Triana]

41. Clinton and her supporters have Obama beat hands-down in one respect, certainly...

...arrogance.

[bigtree]

55. nothing could be more arrogant

. . . than assuming that Obama's 'won' the nomination already without having achieved the necessary amount of actual votes or secured the votes of the SDs he expects to substitute for that failure to secure that nomination by votes cast alone.

[wisteria]

43. They will come around. There is no reason for them to dislike him.

He has been very kind to her. On the other hand, she has been nasty and outright lying about him.
The will have to come around because he is our nominee. It is just time playing itself out.
Clinton supports need to come to earth and realize it is time to end this and support the Democrat nominee.

[Mags]

90. You just proved bigtree's arrogant point. Don' bet your chickens before they hatch.

[bhikkhu]

44. Your first sentence sums up the gist of the post.

But I will make my own conclusions from it.

"Polls show that nearly half of her voters reject him completely, under any circumstances".

That is a symptom of a closed-minded hate, caring nothing for the party or the goals of its members. Just hatred aimed at one individual. Is that the new face of the Democratic party? Was it always there, or has it been nurtured? Is this what you want, personally? Is this what Hillary has worked for?

[bigtree]

54. you call it hate, but you know nothing about their motivations. You want to tell them how they feel.

How about listening to them? How about not taking these voters for granted? That's as closed-minded as anything.

Voters come to these elections with needs and concerns that they expect these candidates to represent. Turn your back on them and they just may decide your campaign doesn't care about those concerns. Do you really think Obama is so strong, politically, that he'll be successful no matter how many Democratic voters he's failed to appeal to?

And hatred? Have you read this board in the past months?? There is nothing BUT hatred for Hillary Clinton here. It's disgusting and divisive. And, the kicker is that it comes with the charge that Clinton is somehow dividing the party. Well, what about her supporters? Are they just cold fish? Aren't they part of the party anymore? What about all of the effort by Obama supporters to destroy her character and to portray her as some sort of evil? It's ridiculous. She's not the caricature that's been presented here and on the boards who are in the tank for Obama.

This has been a despicable campaign against Hillary Clinton from the beginning, when Obama decided to portray his differences with his rival as his truth vs. his portrayal of her as a liar. It's cheap politics, poor leadership on his part, and it has resulted in a divide in our party. But it suits his campaign to keep Clinton on the defensive, so Obama and his political hitmen perpetuate the characterization of those differences as some sort of dishonesty on her part, rather than legitimate differences which need to be acknowledged and debated. (like the typical and predictable questions of experience)

I want fairness. I want the same respect for my candidate as Obama supporters demand for theirs. I'm not holding my breath.

[bhikkhu]

123. You're mixing up all sorts of things in your response

Going back to the sentence "Polls show that nearly half of her voters reject him completely, under any circumstances". What do you think would make a Democrat refuse to vote for a Democratic nominee, under any circumstances?

You suggest it is Obama's "failure to appeal" to HRC's supporters. Their stands on issues are close enough to say refusal to vote is not an issues decision. So where has he failed to appeal? Considering that a Democratic candidate under reasonable circumstances need not so much appeal to me as follow the goodness of our party's platform, any individual who speaks and acts for my party will have my vote. I think that is the same for most people, so when a Democrat says that they refuse to vote for Obama under any circumstances, that pretty much leaves personal hatred as a likely cause.

I have seen one or two statements by Obama regarding Hillary that I regard unfair. I have seen several by Hillary regarding Obama that I regard unfair. In is a hotly contested campaign, it is inevitable. It is ironic that all the perceived evils committed by the Clinton campaign (from one perspective) are here claimed to have been committed by the Obama campaign. Does this further anyone's purpose?

[emilyg]

45. Good post.

[dorktv]

47. It was never Senator Obama who lost my vote. It was his supporters.

Today my mentor...MY MENTOR told a colleague that "that self centered witch has cost the general with her win in PA."

The only reason he did not use another term is because it was a work email. With that, Senator Obama has lost my vote for the time being. I simply cannot stand anyone who has such hatefilled supporters.

[Shoelace]

65. same here, it's sad to read all the hate filled posts against any candidate

here on DU. I've been a Democrat for 40 years, I've seen how the Republicans treated the Clintons during his presidency. I witnessed the derailing of Hillary when she talked about Universal health care back in the early '90s.

It begins to feel like I'm on a Freeper's forum here on DU! Same Hillary hate, same name calling.

I was going to vote for Obama but for now, that's on hold.

[burythehatchet]

75. Get help. Now.

[haymakeragain]

100. Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle.

What you are saying is not really a smart thing. Do you hate Obama supporters more than the flying monkey brown shirts on the right? You'll vote with them?

[dorktv]

136. I said for the time being. Please read.

[ClericJohnPreston]

48. I'm sorry Bigtree

but you have gone too far!!

You actually dare to make sense by writing a completely literate OP and backing your points with a solid rationale? Where do you think you are?

This is all Obamatons, all the time. I expect you to comport yourself appropriately, by checking all reason and sanity at the door, acting in a reflexively knee-jerk manner, and demeaning HRC as the scum of Space Aliens, while simultaneously expounding on the Heaven-like aspects of Obama!

If you need pointers, read the responses from Obama supporters. They have no problem writing like fanatical cultists!

[ClericJohnPreston]

49. K&R

deserved!!!

[Bensthename]

51. Her support is mainly WOMEN.. I am positive McCain will not have the same effect..

Obama has beat Hillary and will beat McCain..

[rox63]

58. More than half of all the voters have rejected Hillary n/t

[bigtree]

60. that's not the point here. Obama supporters are assuming he's won already

. . . without first achieving the votes necessary to nominate him. And, the Clinton half of the party has as much to complain about regarding the 'dividing of the party' as Obama supporters have about the negative effect Clinton's continuing has on his campaign. Folks like to act as if there's this evil, pernicious, threatening force, represented by the Clinton campaign, arrayed against the innocent and earnest Obama candidacy without acknowledging the same destructive effect on the Clinton part of the party from their own strident attacks and attitude.

[Shoelace]

66. if they count Mi., Fl., Clinton jumps ahead, and where's our BIG TENT???

according to RealClearPolitics estimates. Not by much but still, no clear win for Obama if these 2 states hold primaries.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Not only that, the people of Indiana, other states WANT to have a voice in choosing the candidate so we've got to somehow maintain a little decorum until June.

Where did our BIG TENT go????????? If Obama wins, I'll vote for him, if Clinton wins, I'll vote for her. No more fracking Republicrats running this country into the ground!!!

[rox63]

84. MI and FL will not count at the convention

And since Obama was not even on the MI ballot, counting those votes would be vastly unfair. Both candidates agreed before the primaries started that MI and FL would not count. I've heard the clip of Clinton saying that. It's not hard to find. Counting MI and FL is living in fantasy-land.

[haymakeragain]

99. Wrong again, buffalo breath.

Get a clue, Obama wasn't on the goddamn ballot in Michigan, are you seriously suggesting he'd get NO VOTES in Michigan? Polling shows him ahead. Pull your head out before it's too late.

[Shoelace]

106. "buffalo breath"???

lighten up darlin' I said I'd vote for him if he's the candidate. If Clinton is the candidate, I'd vote for her. I'm a Democrat, remember?, not a buffalo though I think that they are perfectly beautiful creatures, I, in no way, resemble one, lol.


:dem: :dem: :dem:

[gsaguyCLW54]

61. Your effort to inject logic into this discussion.....

....will utterly fail. Obama has won nothing. Until he has 2025 Delegaates he is not the nominee. Without 2025 delegates, Clinton is very much alive and we go to the convention. Sorry, but those are the rules. As soon as he gets to 2025, Hillary loses.

[dbmk]

62. Couple of points

Seems to me that you repeatedly attribute what is happening here to Obama and consequently what he should do.

But anyways:
"Lacking that support from voters, he needs to keep on appealing to the nearly half of our party who has already rejected him in this race, not attempting to stifle them as many of his supporters suggest in their calls for Clinton to exit."

I really do think he would like to. But it must be relatively hard, when his opponent forces him to hit back at her. Not much room in there for a "But I like your supporters". (And again you apply what his supporters does to Obama directly. Given that he has said the exact opposite, thats a stretch. I don't see the attempt by Obama to stifle anyone.)

And that is partly also why people are calling for Hillary to call it quits. Because they realise that the current fight is breeding a level of division, and that it needs time to heal. And they think her campaign is damaging the chance of a Dem win in november. And they look at all the cash thats being burnt in an internal fight. Cash that could be spent in the GE.
They are not doing it to shut people up or to "stiffle them". Thats spin.

They are doing it because all of the above is happening in a reality where Senator Clinton stand no chance of winning. Take a good look around the internet. Anyone able to work a calculator or a spreadsheet and apply a little political knowledge will tell you its over. (I would love to see anyone defend the opposite, using arguments that are not based in feelings alone. I really would.)

People see all this happening for no good reason. Thats what fueling the calls for her to stop.
On top of that you have anger that is being fueled by the fact that she is running a republican campaign against a fellow democrat. And yeah, I think thats a fact. If I can make that call - my friends, colleagues and family can make that call - all the way from Denmark, then it should be relatively easy to acknowledge if you live in the US and take an objective stance for a moment. Take that out of the equation and people might just be mildly irritated.

But yes, more people should strive after showing at least a minimum level of grace in victory. But Hillarys supporters also have a responsibility to acknowledge that they have a part in repairing what needs repairing. And not demand that the other side should come begging for their support or they will not support the eventual nominee, in a cut of the nose to spite face way.

And I do things will come together in general. Things are much more highpitched and volatile here than they are in the general population. Sure, people will be disappointed - but then they will move on. Some might not. But I am pretty sure that will be less than a few.

[bigtree]

70. the effect of cutting off the primary now, without Obama actually voted in as nominee

. . . will be the stifling of the sizable Clinton camp.

I believe that, if we continue on, and allow the rest of the party to weigh in, we can avoid a great deal of resentment from the losing side's voters that their candidate was forced out in any way. That seems important to me, as the victor will not have 'won' the nomination by votes cast alone.

[dbmk]

89. Now that could actually be good argument

One note; "the effect of cutting off the primary now.." as a misrepresentation of the issue. Noone is forcing her to stop or cutting anything.
Other than the events of the process. The Clinton camp will no more be stifled than any other candidate that has bowed out in this or previous elections when realising the futility of continuing.

But I do see your point. How viable it is, has something to do with how the campaign will be run though.

[burythehatchet]

63. What an utter load of horse shit. What solar system are you from ?

What campaign have you been watching? My opinion, if you clowns vote for McCain, so be it. I'm a firm believer that we get what we deserve. And if we deserve McCain/Clinton, then that's what we'll get.

[mmonk]

67. You forgot the other half.

[bigtree]

71. did you read? I said 'The same applies to Clinton'

Obviously I'm making my point, carefully, from the perspective of her campaign, but the reverse applies as well, whoever expects to advance. It doesn't make any sense to just say, well, the other side isn't playing nice, so we should just switch off their only avenue of expression in this primary.

If one of these folks expects to win, they had better think about what they need to do to keep these voters with them in the fall. Both of them.

[Buzz Clik]

68. The next phase: "Vote for Hillary, or we're going home."

So go home. Vote for McCain.

[Mz Pip]

69. I guess the other half

doesn't count for diddly-squat.


Only in Hillary World.

Obama stated that Hillary should stay in the race as long as she wanted.

[bigtree]

72. the other side is presumed to be just fine if the primary election is discontinued.

. . . even though Obama hasn't managed to get the folks to actually nominate him with their votes any more than Clinton has.

Here your camp is, proclaiming victory anyway, but calling for the voting to stop by demanding Clinton withdraw. Assuming victory before all of the votes are cast.

[Mz Pip]

76. Clinton will do what she likes

I have no say on it and have never said I think she should drop out. I don't think she can win the nomination, but who am I to say? Maybe her Tarot Cards tell her something different.

Hillary can stay or go. It really doesn't matter to me personally. In August we will have a nominee, and for what's it's worth, my one vote will be cast in November for that person.

[yardwork]

78. LOL! I disagree. There seems to be stronger feeling against Hillary than against Obama.

Yes, there are racists who won't vote for Obama. But there seem to be millions of folks in this country who deeply despise Hillary. Her negatives are higher than his.

[bigtree]

81. yet she polls ahead of Obama against McCain

That says a great deal about how these voters regard those 'negatives' in electing their president.

Also, the fact that she's received a little less than half of the votes between them makes that point a bit moot. You've seen the polls where Obama voters favor her more than her voters favor Obama? There's a real disconnect between those polls (about her 'negatives') and the reality on the ground.

[yardwork]

82. Other polls show Obama beating McCain.

[bigtree]

87. they're at least even

making my point . . .

[yardwork]

77. That means that more than half have rejected Hillary.

What's your point? It's a primary. People are choosing between two candidates.

[ClericJohnPreston]

79. Tsk,tsk

Of course you can't see the point. A cognitively dissonant "blind spot". You can't comprehend, what threatens your whole closed universe view. Amazing. You do speak English right?

[yardwork]

83. What part of "more than half have rejected Hillary" don't you understand?

[grantcart]

80. Are you kidding

"More work needs to be done by Barack Obama to repair whatever divisions his campaign has created"


The exit polls in Pennsylvania showed that even among Clinton supporters they thought her advertising is "unfair".


The NYT editorial excoriates her for her "low road" tactics.


Independent media observer Media Matters rated Clinton's ads in Pennsylvania as 100% media.


Please do not ruin your objective standing by smearing Obama with Clinton's lie that Obama has created a 'strident campaign'. It is an absolutely ridiculous assertion that is not supported by fact or any independent observers - let alone by the comments of Clinton's own supporters.

[LibraLiz1973]

91. Right on. THey BOTH have work to do.

[TragedyandHope]

94. Another hollow argument

To accept this tortured logic (which I do not), you would have to admit that Hillary is even less desirable.

We need a new slogan for the GE: "No Hillary Supporter Left Behind"

[haymakeragain]

97. Did you author that horseshit?

Haven't more Democrats rejected Hillary? Are you saying we should choose Hillary because her whiney-assed supporters are threatening to vote McCain?

This will end bad. You Hillarians a gonna blow it.

[bigtree]

102. who do you think you are to dictate to voters? Is that how you think you'll win?

. . . by berating them and trying to intimidate them with your rhetoric and ridicule? Good luck with that.

[haymakeragain]

131. More projection. Right out of the

Rovian handbook I might add. I am not intimidating anyone. Hillary is trying every trick in the book to reverse what Obama has gained. He hasn't done anything against the rules of the party. Now all of a sudden Hillary thinks she can squelch what has already happened by hook or by crook and you say it is us who are using rhetoric and ridicule?

Oh for fuck's sake this is positively the twilight zone.

[bigtree]

139. you frickin people can't make a sentence without accusing someone of being 'rovian'

Those accusations are as 'rovian' as anything else. The cheap innuendo and the bogus accusations are a 'rovian' attempt to divide the party. The berating about some obligation someone might have to vote for Obama is bullshit outside of DU. If Obama adopted that as a campaign tactic he'd be drummed out of town.

The Obama camp is floating a proposal to allow a revote in Fla. or Mich. in exchange for an agreement that the SDs don't count at all. Don't pretend to me that it's only the Clinton camp who wants to change the rules to accomodate their campaign. It gets posted here endlessly that the SDs are under some obligation to vote for the pledged delegate leader. They have no such obligation, but the Obama camp would love more than anything to dictate how those SD votes are cast, just like the Clinton camp has their own expectations.

And you can whine about Clinton wanting to win at any cost all you want, but your candidate is operating the same. It's just dishonest to suggest that he hasn't taken every political opportunity, either directly or through his surrogates. To suggest otherwise is blindness, ignorance, or an outright lie.

[SanchoPanza]

111. Not nearly half

If you are referring to polls showing that Clinton supporters are claiming they would not support Obama in the General Election, national polls show roughly one third. Slightly more than Obama supporters who claim they would not support Clinton. Add in the margin of error, and its virtually indistinguishable.

Besides the fact that this is a fundamentally bad argument for Clinton supporters to make (Being that Obama is bringing more independents and these polls show his supporters are slightly less likely to turn on him), it ignores the nature of the current game. This is the primary season. Where the activist base falls in love with a candidate. Being that this has been a longer season than those in recent memory, those feelings of candidate loyalty have been further cemented. Similar polls have existed in previous campaign seasons, and have shown similar results.

Your analysis of the nature of the candidate's campaigns aside, which I personally find absurd, but that's another argument, you are making the assumption that this forum is a microcosm of the Democratic rank and file. It isn't. In the real world, snarky, boneheaded Clinton supporters are just as prevalent as snarky, boneheaded Obama supporters.

Lastly, you may try to argue that "assuring all voices are heard" is the strategy of the Clinton campaign, but circumstances dictate otherwise. She has no clear path to the nomination through pledged delegates alone, and neither does Obama. Both campaigns know this. What we are facing now is essentially a contest for the super delegates being played out in the remaining primary contests, being fought in terms of fundraising and the hope that the other candidate will obliterate themselves between now and the convention. The public face of this contest has been in terms of electability issues and "gotchas". It's effectively been this way since Texas/Ohio, and it should come as no surprise to anyone that, following the Pennsylvania results, the Clinton campaign changed their website frontpage to immediately redirect to a donation form.

[bigtree]

127. that donation redirection is a part of new visit to the Obama site as well

. . . and I'm not surprised that you know next to nothing about what the Clinton campaign is actually doing and content to perpetuate whatever spin the media or Obama's camp is promoting at the time.

[SanchoPanza]

137. Oh Really

http://www.hillaryclinton.com

vs.

http://www.barackobama.com

There is a marked difference between the two. I'll give you a hint: One has an automatic redirect to a donation form, and has had one since the conclusion of the Pennsylvania primary, and the other one doesn't.

Here's another clue: Both candidates will be in extensive meetings with Super Delegates over the next few weeks. The state chairs of their respective campaigns will be putting pressure on state officials with regards to their support. This is already happening in Indiana. It's now an endorsement game. At this point, Pledged Delegates will only determine the margins by which Super Delegates are required to attain 2024 total.

You don't have to watch Cable News to see what's going on. In fact, you're better off if you don't.

[bigtree]

141. I got the automatic one on the Obama site when I first logged in and when I delete their cookies

but, you know better than my own experience :eyes:

[wowimthere]

116. Clinton supporters come up with the strangest...

While she's using republican tactics, hitting him below the belt and he's been above board, sticking to the issues, he has to repair the egos of voters who can't tell the difference between personal attacks and differentiation of issues? Wow! There are two candidates right now. Come the general there will be one. Majority of the Dems will back the Dem nominee and that is Obama. If some Dems don't back Obama then they never were going to. It's sad but I accept it. He will reach and bring other Dems into the process and that will more than make up for the republicanized Clinton supporters.

[bigtree]

140. republican tactics like Obama's whispering campaign about the Clinton's past

. . . looking to advantage themselves with the right-wing campaign that was waged against our two-term president for their cheap political purposes.

And you obviously don't hold Clinton supporters in any decent regard. That's going to be a problem for Obama if that's what his campaign is projecting. You go on and take comfort that you can somehow split the bulk of her supporters off from the rest of the party if they fail to respond to the Obama campaign's 'with us or against us' attitude they're projecting now. THAT'S the only dividing that has the potential to undo the party, not the continuing campaign appealing to those voters who either haven't made up their mind, or want to weigh in on this undecided race. Go tell them your candidate has already won without the benefit of their having nominated him with their votes. Tell them that their vote is irrelevant because Obama insists on nominating himself.

Thankfully, the Obama campaign isn't taking their lead from DUers who have no respect at all for the will of the opposition voters in our own Democratic primary. I'd suggset Obama start listening to those voters if he wants their full support in the general, beyond their votes that many of his supporters like you take for granted.

[barack the house]

120. Because against all odds I think he will select Hillary as VP.

[bigtree]

142. I think if he gets the nod

. . . he can pick someone who is well regarded by the Clinton supporters and have the same unifying effect. Same for Clinton.

[mac2]

143. If neither party can't pull more than half the Democratic

voters how do you suppose we can win an election?

[bigtree]

144. there has to be some overt reaching out that has substance

. . . either through the VP pick, or, through the appropriation of some plank of the opposition's platform or agenda. Especially since there's going to be the sense that the voters really didn't get to actually nominate the candidate and that the pick will be in the hands of party insiders who, in effect, hold a second, unconditional vote.

[RichardRay]

145. She can go on as long as she wants, of course, My only complaint

is the massive amount of money and energy that's getting used up in the primaries that would be better used in the GE. All the money either candidate spends comes from the pockets of supporters. When it's spent, it's gone. When the energy to phone bank and canvas are gone, they're gone, when the goodwill of the supporters of either candidate is used up in the infighting, it's gone. It's not like everybody gets a refund and we reset to count zero when the candidate is finally chosen.

To the extent that continuing the selection process makes it possible for you to eventually support the nominee then let it run. I've already decided that I'll vote for Senator Clinton if she's the nominee, so it's not an issue for me. If it's an issue for you then rumble, young man, rumble!

[mac2]

147. Rumble yourself

Is it your money? Actually Hillary is spending less money on her campaign then Obama.

I agree it is too much but we can't change that now. Congress has to approve spending and time limits for all party candidates.

This is the way the election in America goes. We vote to determine our candidate for President in a state by state primary for our party. We then have a convention and the delegates vote for party issues and agenda. They give a final vote for our candidate and choice of VP.

We then vote in a general election against all the other party candidates. Obama people want to bypass all that and go to Obama being President.

Hold on to your pants...it will get here soon enough.

[RichardRay]

148. Yes, as a matter of fact it IS my money.

And yours (I hope) and that of every other supporter of both candidates.

This is NOT the way it usually goes. MOre often we have a candidate by now and are engaged in the early stages of competing for the prize in November. Even if it's not 'decided' by now it's clear enough that the bulk of the time and energy from both the candidate and the party are focused on the general election. This year the two candidates are pouring money and resources into the primary process long past the point where it could have been focused on the GE. McCain, who isn't a strong candidate for the R's, is over there coasting along. I'd like to start forcing him to spend, too.

Senator Obama is spending money because he has it to spend. Senator Clinton is spending every dime she can find and some she hasn't, yet. All of that is lost to us come the main event. It should be spent if it has to be spent, but I think it's past that now. Clearly, you don't, thus my exhortation to rumble, I'm willing, and I know Senator Obama is, too.

[mac2]

149. You are grabbing at straws to make this an issue so Hillary

will say...Obama you're it?

Finish the primary and let the delegates vote who is the party's candidate. O

Obama's money is more than he needs. Have you seen all the ads just on the Internet?

[Galway girl]

146. Nearly half is about normal in a two horse race

Just over half say they won't back Clinton i would bet