Off Topic · Hillary on Iran (page 3)

I'm not really sure what the question means. To me that a bunch of 'ass kissing' that your talking about. This is about having the top job in the U.S. Nothing's fair. Especially in this campaign

But as far as Hillary putting herself above her own party? Your wrong about that Bonn! You either don't understand the momentum factor in a traditional Democratic party campaign or your trying to twist this around on me, in the eyes of others.

The way it goes is 'once a campaign begins, from the beginning a candidate tries to convince voters that he's the guy to vote for. As the campaign goes along, something, at some point happens that is significant. Traditionally, voters start to jump on one candidates band wagon and soon the supers see this and go piling on also. Before you know it, the campaign is finished within a few months.

it's a no brainer that, that' candidate will get to the 2,025. Agreed? Now, with that said, were is barack? He's way too short of that goal.

In saying this, Hillary has every right to still be running and it's not her fault that he's not getting to the promised land. You gotta remember, he never had great momentum to begin with and when that happens, the foe will keep running. And also remember people, Hillary had momentum and the lead overall until the end of super Tuesday. Then came the rural states (or overwhelmingly black populations) for awhile. The little things he was projected to pick up.

And if your so concerned about 'the party's health' then why didn't you ask why obama was putting himself above his own party at the time, when Hillary had the lead? It almost looks two faced.

And after super tuesday came and went, then came the obvious dynamics that no one knew about and kept him in the lead. What I'm getting at though is, if he was so lovable, so convincible, then how come he hasn't been nominated by now? And Hillary should drop out??

For anyone to accuse her of 'ruining' the campaign would be like me saying Donald Trump has billions of dollars (as if there was something wrong with that) or that barack is ruining the campaign by being in the campaign. Those are ridiculous assumptions. Hillary has as much right to still be running as obama. She's even challenged the voters that 'if you want him then close the deal'! They obviously didn't want him.

I'll ask you this. 'Why doesn't obama quit the campaign? He's obviously ruining the Democratic party! He hasn't been nominated and is dragging Hillary down with him'!

See how stupid that sounds?

If you want to blame anyone, blame yourselves for running a negative campaign, and turning off potential barack voters, like myself and blame all of the people, in all the states who voted for her. But don't blame her. She's only' running for President.

And if your so concerned about 'the party's health' then why didn't you ask why obama was putting himself above his own party at the time, when Hillary had the lead? It almost looks two faced.

Hillary NEVER had the lead (unless you're talking about polling before the primaries even began--but I'm going to assume you can't possibly be asking that!)

She had the lead all the way past super tuesday, in total delegates and still has the lead among supers so far. I hope you didn't forget or even worse, some how missed it.

One of the best sites to follow the numbers is at CNN Election 2008.

Posted by 4949:

She had the lead all the way past super tuesday, in total delegates and still has the lead among supers so far. I hope you didn't forget or even worse, some how missed it.

That's if you count *unpledged* superdelegates, and it makes no sense to count them since they're unpledged.

How can I count un-pledged supers if I don't know who their for?

Posted by 4949:

How can I count un-pledged supers if I don't know who their for?

If you're counting only *pledged* superdelegates, then Hillary never had the lead (and your question earlier about Obama dropping out would thus make no sense). The CNN count you're referring to was likely counting the pledged delegates and their (CNN's) *guess* as to how each unpledged delegate would vote. Hillary never had the lead among pledged delegates, among total states won, or among popular votes earned. It just isn't her year.

Posted by Bonn1997:

It just isn't her year.

Well there's the big slap in the face I wasn't looking forward to. This is one vote you lost and if you make me feel bad enough, it just might be one more vote for McCain if it comes down to it. Why not? obama backers have threatened to boycott Hillary so It's too bad you's couldn't of been more reasonable about it.

Posted by 4949:

Posted by Bonn1997:

It just isn't her year.

Well there's the big slap in the face I wasn't looking forward to. This is one vote you lost and if you make me feel bad enough, it just might be one more vote for McCain if it comes down to it. Why not? obama backers have threatened to boycott Hillary so It's too bad you's couldn't of been more reasonable about it.

If you want 45 million left without health insurance and want to be in Iraq for another 100 years, McCain is the perfect choice for you. No one who was a Hillary supporter wants what McCain supports. I can't think of a better way to dishonor Hillary and the causes she has fought for than to vote for McCain over Obama. (And I don't think any Hillary supporters seriously would vote for McCain. They're just speaking in the heat of a hard fought battle.)

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-27-2008 07:26 AM]