The Battle Between Hard Core Hillary Clinton Supporters And Obama

You're right Joe. These Clinton folks are nuts. If she took it away at the convention after conceding, the election is all but lost for the Democrats, unless McCain picks Cheney as his running mate.

My footnote: Every poll consistently shows Obama ahead by a small margin. Why does that mean it's deadlocked?

It's a shame for the democrats that Clinton and Obama ran the same year. Both are strong candidates, and I believe either one would make a better president than McCain, but the fact they both ran this time out has only worked to the advantage of the republicans. Furthermore, the idea that any democrats would refuse to unite behind the chosen dem candidate (Clinton or Obama) in some sort of petulant, breathholding episode is an idea utterly barren of logic... which unfortunately doesn't make it an idea that might not be embraced.

ChrisWWW--

It's way too early for the polls to be meaningful. But if you go to the Pollster.com aggregator, you'll see that Rassmussen is the only polling company consistently showing a very close race.

Having some trouble with that link--trying again.

Far far more people support Hillary than Obama. You must assume that middle-tending republicans who cannot stand McBush would make a Hillary choice in a heartbeat over Obama.

Her experience and middle stance wouldn't even have to win them over. It'd be a done deal.

And I hate to break the news to you but quite a lot of Obama people who just barely voted for him over Hillary are now disillusioned with his nebulous character and glaring inexperience.

Not all Obama voters have rabies for the guy. Many many Obama voters just barely voted for him over Hillary. For the sweep of "hope" and "change". Once they sobered up and saw Obama flip-flopping all over the place as a regular old politician they wised up and decided if we're going to get one of those anyway, we might as well get one with 8 years under her belt in the Whitehouse..

ESPECIALLY now...

And the Sinclair story hasn't even broken from The Conservative Voice starting gate yet...

And I hate to break the news to you but quite a lot of Obama people who just barely voted for him over Hillary are now disillusioned with his nebulous character and glaring inexperience.

Proof?

Chris,

Sil can't provide any proof of her delusional claims. We keep hearing about the insane Sinclair from her over and over again. The truth is that the Sinclair thing is so nuts and over the top that if the Republicans do try to use it the backlash from the independents who are sick of that kind of crap will doom McCain and quite possibly drag down other Republicans by association with the tactics.

If Hillary had run as well-organized a campaign and won the primary and caucus total at the beginning of June, then Obama supporters would no doubt support her. At least most of them.

However if Hillary finagles the nomination away from Obama in Denver then there is little doubt in my mind that a really large number of Obama supporters will not support Hillary in November. Obama is the presumptive nominee and his supporters have been helping their one time opponent pay off campaign debt.

If Hillary does get the nomination many voters, and not just Obama supporters, but independents as well, will believe rightly that Hillary practices old style politics. If that's the case then the line between McCain and Hillary becomes less distinct.

Personally I don't think Hillary is out to steal the nomination. I think her supporters will cast their vote for her in the first round. Not that I'm happy about that, but I can understand their desire to get in a word. It would be ironic if enough people wanted to cast a symbolic vote that she actually did get the nomination... And voters would suspect her usual "anything goes" tricks.

@ Chris

Uh the Reps hate Hillary even more than Obama. Where Hillary picks up in is among the centrist part of the Democrat base, those guys who ask "what has Obama done?" Also, your comments are incorrect about the "rabies". The liberals are the ones who got mad about the flip-flopping. Most people don't give a crap about not punishing telecoms for privacy invasions a few years ago. It's the extreme liberals who are upset. Some will vote for Nader, or they may stay home. They're not a big deal though. They are sure as hell NEVER going to vote for someone EVEN MORE centrist and flip-flopping than Obama.

I know quite a few of the PUMAS.

No, they don't expect Hillary to be elected or to wrest control from obama supporters. But they have turned completely against Obama and will stop at nothing to prevent him from getting elected.

If he doesn't going to get elected, it will be because he didn't effectively reach out to these voters and in fact averred he didn't need them. He may be right---I hope so.

But there are a lot of them out there---perfectly sane, ordinary people in other respects---who will do anything they can to prevent him from being elected. And since they blame the Democratic party (Brazile, Dean, etc.) for the Florida and Michigan voting problem, they couldn't care less if they take the party down with them.

This will be incomprehensible to all Dems who share Obama's dsimssive attitude to that segment of the Democratic party. It wasn't elitism; it was pure and simple hubris.

Sadly for Obama, the more other Dems make fun of them or call them out, the angrier and less rational the discourse gets. They're as bitter toward Obama's supporters as much as they are towards him.

That's why Obama will announce that Clinton will be his VP at or immediately before the convention. I'm a crazy guy so let's bet some virtual chips on it ladies and gents!

I guess I'd still take that bet, T_Steel, but I would no longer put as large of a stack of chips on it. Evan Bayh still looks to be the more likely choice, but if Obama's team has allowed themselves to get frightened by the early poll numbers, they may still bolt down the rabbit hole and give the nod to Hillary at the last moment. Probably the straw to break the camel's back, of course, since nothing will energize the GOP base like having a Clinton on the ticket.

By definition, it's impossible for Obama to deal with any segment of the party that wants to destroy the party.

And IF HRC somehow wrests the nomination from Obama, where on earth does she think any money to run her campaign towards November will come from? PUMA?
Obama supporters? Who's left to chip in? Not to mention the money she's still in the red on from before.

FYI, Hillary has $80M dollars in her war chest for the GE. Of course, you are aware these monies cannot be used for the debt she accrued in the Primary...yes?

Anyway, Obama has never been vetted. No one knows if he is even a Natural Born Citizen and is qualified for the presidency according to A2. Everything about Obama is secret.

You seem to dismiss the fact Hillary WON the last 5 Primarys and if the DNC had awarded her the delegate count in full from FL and MI...she would be the presumptive nominee.

You also seem to dismiss the fact Obama and his wife are Black Separatists as is The Trinity Church they belonged to for over 20 years.. The Church that promoted hatred for Whites and promoted the teachings of Farrakhan and MalcolmX.

No way is Obama suitable as a candidate for the US presidency. If you think Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning the presidency, why is the Obama camp so afraid of having her name on the ballot at the Denver Convention?

Mrs. Smith,

"No one knows if he is even a Natural Born Citizen and is qualified for the presidency according to A2."

Ummm...a simple search would tell you different. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. Try Wikipedia--amazing sometimes.

"You seem to dismiss the fact Hillary WON the last 5 Primarys and if the DNC had awarded her the delegate count in full from FL and MI...she would be the presumptive nominee."

You seem to dismiss the fact that Obama rolled her on Super Tuesday. Oh, and that whole FL and MI thing--I seem to remember HRC signing something that said those delegates would be stripped. Add that to the fact that Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in MI; I mean, how fair is that?

"You also seem to dismiss the fact Obama and his wife are Black Separatists as is The Trinity Church they belonged to for over 20 years.. The Church that promoted hatred for Whites and promoted the teachings of Farrakhan and MalcolmX."

This may work at World Net Daily, or TownHall, or RedState, but it certainly isn't going to fly here. If you can find me anything, such as a quote or a profile, that would prove me wrong, perhaps I'd be willing to entertain it.

"No way is Obama suitable as a candidate for the US presidency."

Why is he not suitable? What exactly makes HRC suitable? It must have been all of that sniper fire she faced...or maybe it was her failed attempt at Healthcare...or better yet, maybe it was having to go through all of the crises with Bill and his women on the side. You know maybe that last point would qualify Edwards' mistress to run for the POTUS...

Mrs_Smith, Hillary's own people helped write the rules on MI and FL way back when and Hillary herself said that MI and FL would not matter. Were you upset that Hillary dismissed the importance of those two states last October before the primary and caucus voting began?

Is Sil now writing under the name Mrs_Smith?

Obama has lost some of his base support due to his flip-flops such as campaign finance, FISA, Iraq war, drilling, etc. Many are having buyers remorse. Look at the polls to see this. Hillary supporters that had went ahead and supported Obama has dropped off as well due to all the flip-flops.

I find it interesting that there is some truth to the charge that Obama is a cipher, a blank slate for people's projections. I see it particularly happening on the negative side, where his opponents tend to accuse him of their own biggest failings. Here we have John (Keating Five, "The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should," Straight Talk) McCain accusing Obama of being an empty suit of little ethics or accomplishment.

Before that, there was the consistent message that Obama wasn't actually a Dem, he didn't care about the Democratic party and his followers were part of a cult of personality who cared more about their candidate than Democratic principles. Hmm, I wonder who that's true of? (hint: "they couldn't care less if they take the party down with them.")

I will leave you with McCain's thoughts on Sex Ed:

“Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. <b<Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

If the democratic party is destroyed, they have only themselves to blame. They once again have selected an elitest candidate, ignoring the middle class. They have subverted the democratic process, going against the will of the people by strongarming the superdelegates to pledge to Obama when Hillary won the popular vote. They have gone so far as to break the "rules" by actually taking 600 thousand votes from people who voted for Hillary and decided they know better and gave them to Obama. Is this democracy? Pumas will not support a democratic party who does not support democracy and the "party" has only themselves to blame.

I don't worry about the pumas and other anti-democratic groups -- their influence is really way too small to make any impact whatsoever. They have about as much of a chance of having an impact on the Democratic nomination process as the Paulites have a chance of impacting the Republican process. Both groups have about the same level of legitimacy. They only seem to be much larger because they are making such a loud hissy fit and the media plays up the conflict because conflict makes for great news.

It's safe to just ignore the puma nutjobs. Let them build their little sandcastles in their playbox.

For me, refusing to vote for Obama is a matter of morality. I believe that the Dem Leaders pulled all kinds of backroom deals to get Obama where he is. (As one recent example, see bloomburg.com: Pelosi 'facilitated' Obama's nomination.) If I vote for him, the Party pays no price for its chicanery.

I had hoped to vote for a Democrat this time around to reset the foundation of this once fair land. However, as I see it, the Party has abandoned the principles I admired and Obama is all over the place. There is no telling where he will wind up. So, it is time to re-establish party morality. If you recall, it's the Republican Party which espouses lockstep compliance, eg. Party first.

If you recall, it's the Republican Party which espouses lockstep compliance, eg. Party first.

So Pam, who will you be voting for?

Here's how I see it: the popular vote doesn't count -- delegate votes do. That wasn't a mystery. All of the candidates understood that from the beginning. The DNC also established rules determining when states could schedule primaries or caucuses. And likewise, everyone knew what those rules were ahead of time. Florida and Michigan broke the rules. It's unfortunate, but it is as it is. And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Harold Ickes instrumental in establishing the rules? And didn't all of the candidates agree ahead of time to play by them?

Obama played by the rules. His campaign's organizational and strategic skills resulted in him gathering up more pledged delegates than Clinton. He did not, however, gather up enough to put him over the top without the help of superdelegates. And that, I presume, is where the supposed "chicanery" charge comes in.

According to the rules agreed upon ahead of time, Obama bested Clinton by about 150 pledged delegates. And yet the PUMA argument is that he doesn't deserve the nomination. How so? One argument is that he didn't garner as many popular votes. But even if that were true, the fact remains that was never the objective. To suggest after the fact that it was negates the rules that everyone played by -- not to mention negating the role of caucus states. Another argument is that Florida and Michigan should count. But to suggest they should changes the rules after the fact again.

Obama bested Clinton because he out-maneuvered her, out-organized her, and generally out-strategized her. He did that to Hillary Clinton! Which is to say against supposedly insurmountable odds. And yet somehow he's supposed to be an inexperienced, lightweight empty suit type. If that were true, I'd say that speaks very poorly of Hillary Clinton. If she can't out-fox a lightweight nobody, how would she do against more worthy adversaries?

I reject that interpretation though. Rather, I'm inclined to think Obama really is a formidable opponent. I think the fact that he was able to out-maneuver, out-organize, and generally out-strategize a very formidable, highly intelligent, and highly qualified opponent speaks well of his skills rather than ill of hers. You claim the support Obama has garnered among superdelegates is the result of "facilitation" or "chicanery". I suggest there may be other considerations involved. I suggest that though he has a silver tongue, there is obviously more to him than that.

It's inconceivable that even Hillary and Bill Clinton would engineer a "coup" -- even the 2000 attempt by the Dems to steal what they lost (the White House) is far, far more real than the "convention coup" scenario (dream, fantasy).

http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_DConv0...

Jchem.. are you referring to the counterfeit Birth Certificate put up by Kos? hahaha!
You really are allergic to real evidence aren't you..

Do you really believe Obama can Win against McCain? I'll answer for you...yes!
When Obama should be surging in the polls, at best, he's tied with McCain. Obama isn't a good enough or strong enough candidate to beat McCain.

I will be very happy to see Hillary Clinton as the Dem Nominee at the Convention. She is the Peoples choice NOT the DNC's selected not elected choice.

PUMAS will Rock YOUR World!

Thank you for underestimating PUMA POWER!

I agree with Ricorun.... and here's an interesting piece I on CNN that I came across today- about Hillary's disorganization and unwillingness to make up her mind on important issues within her own campaign....

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/11/atlantic...