Primary is over. Obama has it/ Hillary won't concede

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-06-04 11:52am

Mr Bean wrote:Why won't Obama fucking call her on her bullshit lie, please Obama shut her up on that popular vote line your going to lose voters because you accept that line unless you put forward the fact that she needs to use ROVE MATH(TM) in order to claim that bullshit.

What annoys me is how few of the political pundits, commentators, and news people are calling her on it. Really, if a politician can get away with continuously spouting something that's totally false, what the fuck is the point of having all of these goddamned overpaid stuffed-shirt commentator assholes anyway? Why not just run fucking political ads 24/7 on these news channels and let the politicians speak for themselves, since it won't make any difference?

Mr. T · Post by **Mr. T** » 2008-06-04 12:11pm

Probably what will end up happening is her suspending her campaign, and then a few weeks before the convention, starting it up again in the hopes of taking the nomination to the second ballot where pledged delegates will then be free to vote for whoever they'd like. I admit I'm pulling that theory out of my ass, but I wouldn't put it past her.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2008-06-04 12:31pm

Mr. T wrote:Probably what will end up happening is her suspending her campaign, and then a few weeks before the convention, starting it up again in the hopes of taking the nomination to the second ballot where pledged delegates will then be free to vote for whoever they'd like. I admit I'm pulling that theory out of my ass, but I wouldn't put it past her.

Once she shuts down the majority of superdelegates will commit to Obama, publicly or privately, and then it's over.

chitoryu12 · Post by **chitoryu12** » 2008-06-04 12:38pm

Ender wrote:I'm really hoping he doesn't make her VP. It will make voting for him a really bitter pill to swallow.

I seem to recall a news report on our local morning radio show saying that Obama is refusing to make her VP.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2008-06-04 01:31pm

NomAnor15 wrote:
Ender wrote:
NomAnor15 wrote:If McCain wins, then God help us all. (note: just using that as an expression, no actual religious connotation intended, in case anyone cares)
At this point the guy has shown he will say and do anything to be elected, so much so that I don't even trust him to follow the Bush policies he is saying he will. Guy could tell me the sky was blue and I would still go the the window and check now.
I honestly don't know if he's intelligent enough to follow Bush's policies. Not to say that Bush's shtick is intelligent, just that I don't know that McCain even grasps what's going on. I mean, he literally said in a speech "I don't know much about economics". Even if he doesn't become Bush mk. 2, is this the kind of guy we want running the country? I sure don't.

Bush admitted the same too.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-06-04 01:39pm

Mr Bean wrote:Why won't Obama fucking call her on her bullshit lie, please Obama shut her up on that popular vote line your going to lose voters because you accept that line unless you put forward the fact that she needs to use ROVE MATH(TM) in order to claim that bullshit.

The complication is that the last thing Barack Obama needs is to be jumping into the mud on a catfight over the popular vote, as it diminishes his own credibility, bolsters Hillary's, and gives the GOP ammunition to use against the Democrats. That Hillary is clearly too stupid to see this goes without saying but is a side-issue in consideration of what Obama's actions should be. Right now till August, he's walking a tightrope. This is especially tricky given that he's got to do everything to ensure he gets a solid lock on superdelegate support. Obama's best chance of that is to position himself as the dignified one while Hillary rages in her pigsty.

NomAnor15 · Post by **NomAnor15** » 2008-06-04 02:01pm

ArmorPierce wrote:
NomAnor15 wrote: I honestly don't know if he's intelligent enough to follow Bush's policies. Not to say that Bush's shtick is intelligent, just that I don't know that McCain even grasps what's going on. I mean, he literally said in a speech "I don't know much about economics". Even if he doesn't become Bush mk. 2, is this the kind of guy we want running the country? I sure don't.
Bush admitted the same too.

Really? Well shit. I guess I missed that. Of course, the last time Bush ran, I was 14, so I probably wasn't paying all that much attention.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-06-04 02:23pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:Why won't Obama fucking call her on her bullshit lie, please Obama shut her up on that popular vote line your going to lose voters because you accept that line unless you put forward the fact that she needs to use ROVE MATH(TM) in order to claim that bullshit.
The complication is that the last thing Barack Obama needs is to be jumping into the mud on a catfight over the popular vote, as it diminishes his own credibility, bolsters Hillary's, and gives the GOP ammunition to use against the Democrats. That Hillary is clearly too stupid to see this goes without saying but is a side-issue in consideration of what Obama's actions should be. Right now till August, he's walking a tightrope. This is especially tricky given that he's got to do everything to ensure he gets a solid lock on superdelegate support. Obama's best chance of that is to position himself as the dignified one while Hillary rages in her pigsty.

Exactly. Obama has the nomination but Hillary still has all of those convention delegates which means if she gets truly pissy then she will e able to wreck enourmous carnage on the process. Obama cannot come out and publicly say that he won't accept Clinton as his VP until he picks an actual VP candidate. In the meantime saying just about anything (other than praising her) does nothing but rile up animosity and get the Clinton people pissed at Obama. His job right now is to start attacking McCain full time while engaging in a lot of very quiet diplomacy with the Clinton camp.

The biggest thing is that both she and Bill are just unwilling to lose face. Its been the story of their whole career, they never back down publicly even when they should. The Gennifer Flowers and Whitewater deal could easily have been cleared up below the radar if they weren't both such stubborn mules. I acutally believe that she was ready to concede last night...until the news reported that she was ready to concede. She is mentally very capable of realizing she has lost but it has to be on HER terms and if somebody else tells her she has lost then just like a 2 year old child she will immediately say and do something to "prove" exactly the opposite. That's Obama's tightrope he needs to talk Clinton down but he can't do it publicly because then she will just dig in her heels and the people going to the convention as delegates will do likewise.

CaptainZoidberg · Post by **CaptainZoidberg** » 2008-06-04 02:45pm

What if Clinton threatened to run as a third party candidate in order to secure the vice-presidential spot? If she actually did run, I know quite a few people who would vote for her.

And what does Obama lose by making her VP? Sure, he loses out on having a competent and useful vice-president like Richardson, but Clinton might be a better choice for his November campaign. She polls strongly in a lot of the swing states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania).

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-04 03:02pm

CaptainZoidberg wrote:What if Clinton threatened to run as a third party candidate in order to secure the vice-presidential spot? If she actually did run, I know quite a few people who would vote for her.

That would be the dumbest political move she could make. Not only would it further divide the Democratic party and ensure McCain had a good chance at winning in November, it would mean she'd be exposed as purely serving her own self-interests, greater good be damned. She'd never hold an office of importance again if she tried pulling that kind of stunt.

And what does Obama lose by making her VP? Sure, he loses out on having a competent and useful vice-president like Richardson, but Clinton might be a better choice for his November campaign. She polls strongly in a lot of the swing states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania).

Considering the rhetoric she's used during the primary, a lot of voters who are rooting for Obama would be turned off by having her on the ticket. Hillary is anything but a unifying factor.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-06-04 03:10pm

CaptainZoidberg wrote:What if Clinton threatened to run as a third party candidate in order to secure the vice-presidential spot? If she actually did run, I know quite a few people who would vote for her.

It's been pointed out that the deadines for filing for a third-party candidacy in many states have already expired. But one Hillary supporter speaking on NPR late this morning talked about finding out each state's rules for write-in ballots.

And what does Obama lose by making her VP? Sure, he loses out on having a competent and useful vice-president like Richardson, but Clinton might be a better choice for his November campaign. She polls strongly in a lot of the swing states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania).

Hillary is literally poison. Not only amongst Obama supporters but the red-meat Right Wingnuts who sustained the Clinton Hate Industry™ through eight years. For those reasons alone, Hillary is a drag on an Obama ticket.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2008-06-04 03:12pm

CaptainZoidberg wrote:What if Clinton threatened to run as a third party candidate in order to secure the vice-presidential spot? If she actually did run, I know quite a few people who would vote for her.

Not possible.

Firstly, the largest factor in Clinton's political strength is the powerful Clintonite machinery built up at the core of the Democratic Party--Clinton supporters and appointees in leadership positions, who make important calls, etc. It doesn't matter that they are pretty much shit at their jobs, they still play a big role in running the party. These people are the whole reason Hillary is even a contender, and her leaving the party would see them cast out of power, and cut her off from her own base of strength.

Secondly, leaving the party would guarantee that she never becomes president, ever. Even a third party candidate as immensely popular and vigorous as Theodore Roosevelt was nothing more than a spoiler. At best she would hand the election to McCain, and if her intent was to sabotage Obama it would be more sensible to do it from inside the Democratic Party, so she could run again in 2012.

Thirdly, it would definitely cost her all her committee seats, make her a political pariah (you think the GOP is going to take her in?), and thus render her a completely ineffective Senator for the state of New York, which seat she would almost definitely lose when it came up for reelection in 2012.

And what does Obama lose by making her VP?

Not much, but he gains a big damn target around which a lot of right-wing people who hate the Clintons could be assembled. Basically the GOP is this year in the position of having an extremely unenthusiastic electorate. Anything to mobilize opinion is good for them, and Clinton could get them a few extra votes here and there and give McCain ammunition.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-06-04 03:16pm

Putting Hillary as his VP would open Obama up to all the claims of 'party hack' and being browbeaten by every piece of the Clintons' dirty laundry the republicans and the media have.

He doesn't need that.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2008-06-04 04:01pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Putting Hillary as his VP would open Obama up to all the claims of 'party hack' and being browbeaten by every piece of the Clintons' dirty laundry the republicans and the media have.

He doesn't need that.

I think it will also loose independent voters for Obama. Clinton is the old party machine, as Pablo points out, and those tired of the old Republican machine and those tired of the old Democratic machine have, as I've seen anyway, flocked to Obama.

CaptainZoidberg · Post by **CaptainZoidberg** » 2008-06-04 04:02pm

I meant that Hillary Clinton would use the third party option as a form of mutually assured destruction. If she does run under a third party, Obama loses votes in areas where Clinton polls strongly - and therefore has a greater chance of losing the election, and Clinton loses any ability to run for office ever again. Both parties lose.

As for Clinton being VP, there's a significant risk that she would try to sabotage the campaign to set herself up for 2012. But aside from that, she makes sense as a running mate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... /ohio.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... orida.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... olina.html

She polls very well in all of the critical battleground states. You've pointed out that she'd alienate a lot of Obama supporters - but how many of those Obama supporters are going to turn around and vote for McCain? Would any of you seriously consider voting for McCain just because Clinton is on the ticket? Sure, it would be a hard pill to swallow, but I don't exactly see the Obama supporters switching sides over the VP choice.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2008-06-04 04:04pm

They make no sense as runningmates.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-04 04:11pm

CaptainZoidberg wrote: As for Clinton being VP, there's a significant risk that she would try to sabotage the campaign to set herself up for 2012. But aside from that, she makes sense as a running mate.

How the hell does she make sense if she's only going to try sabotaging the campaign? Your argument is nonsensical when there are running mates who could get swing states and not damage things, like Richardson.

She polls very well in all of the critical battleground states. You've pointed out that she'd alienate a lot of Obama supporters - but how many of those Obama supporters are going to turn around and vote for McCain? Would any of you seriously consider voting for McCain just because Clinton is on the ticket? Sure, it would be a hard pill to swallow, but I don't exactly see the Obama supporters switching sides over the VP choice.

There's a significant number who voted for Obama because they didn't want Hillary having a shot at the White House, but might've voted Republican anyway. Likewise there was a significant number who voted for Hillary because they figured she would be the weaker candidate in November against the Republicans. You do the math.

Mr. T · Post by **Mr. T** » 2008-06-04 04:14pm

CaptainZoidberg wrote:

As for Clinton being VP, there's a significant risk that she would try to sabotage the campaign to set herself up for 2012. But aside from that, she makes sense as a running mate.

Yet John Edwards being a useless running mate in 2004 didn't help him any in this primary. If the ticket does lose, and Hillary is attached to the losing ticket, I don't see how that's an argument in her favour. She'd be in a better position if she wasn't on the ticket, and it lost so she could run the 2012 "I told you so" campaign.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-06-04 04:15pm

Hillary as VP is wrong on many levels-- it nullify's Obama's platform of "change" because Hils and Bils are both deep-inside Washinton political players. Bill comes with way too much baggage and questionable connections, and I feel he'd constantly be trying to butt in and run things. Hillary would not be content to play second fiddle, either, an Obama-Clinton office would be bogged down in conflict as Obama constantly had to keep fending off power grabs from the Power Couple.

A good VP choice might be Wes Clark-- a good old white boy with grey hair and a lot of military experience to shore up Obama's one soft spot. He's also been a strong Hillary Clinton supporter.

Another choice would be to bring in Kathleen Sebelius as VP and use Wes Clark as SECDEF. Sebelius adds executive experience and crossover appeal (popular Democrat governor of a rural Republic state) and of course there's the whole gender thing for the hard-core so-called "feminists" whose only criteria for leadership positions seems to be having ovaries. She brings more than that, of course, but it'll help mollify the Hillaryistas (somewhat).

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2008-06-04 05:14pm

I also like Bill Richardson as VP. He's Latino enough to bring in the Hispanic vote, but with a name like that he won't alienate the white vote. He's awesome in terms of energy policy, supporting some pretty high CAFE standards, and has a considerable amount of executive experience. Though he would also be a good pick for a cabinet post.

CaptainZoidberg · Post by **CaptainZoidberg** » 2008-06-04 05:14pm

General Zod wrote: How the hell does she make sense if she's only going to try sabotaging the campaign? Your argument is nonsensical when there are running mates who could get swing states and not damage things, like Richardson.

I'll give you that. Richardson would be a good choice, although I've never seen a head-to-head Richardson vs. McCain poll so its hard to know how well he really would pull states.

There's a significant number who voted for Obama because they didn't want Hillary having a shot at the White House, but might have voted Republican anyway. Likewise there was a significant number who voted for Hillary because they figured she would be the weaker candidate in November against the Republicans. You do the math.

How can you measure the size of operation chaos?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-04 05:17pm

CaptainZoidberg wrote: How can you measure the size of operation chaos?

You are aware of the polls indicating what percentages of Obama or Hillary supporters would vote for McCain if their favorite candidate's opponent won, yes? It's not too hard to extrapolate a guesstimate from there.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2008-06-04 05:25pm

CaptainZoidberg wrote:She polls very well in all of the critical battleground states. You've pointed out that she'd alienate a lot of Obama supporters - but how many of those Obama supporters are going to turn around and vote for McCain? Would any of you seriously consider voting for McCain just because Clinton is on the ticket? Sure, it would be a hard pill to swallow, but I don't exactly see the Obama supporters switching sides over the VP choice.

They don't have to vote for McCain. They just have to go "fuck this bullshit!" and sit out the election in disgust. There goes a shitload of votes and McCain gets a huge opening to wrap up the election.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-06-04 05:39pm

Adrian Laguna wrote:I also like Bill Richardson as VP. He's Latino enough to bring in the Hispanic vote, but with a name like that he won't alienate the white vote. He's awesome in terms of energy policy, supporting some pretty high CAFE standards, and has a considerable amount of executive experience. Though he would also be a good pick for a cabinet post.

Plus, if Richardson is VP that Dave Chappelle sketch about the first black president getting assasinated would be even funnier.

Invictus ChiKen · Post by **Invictus ChiKen** » 2008-06-04 06:40pm

Watching CNN Wolf Blitzer just announced she will drop out Friday.