Isn't it Time that Clinton Drop Out?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:21 am

LINK

Making judgments about Clinton's decision not to step aside for the party's long-term interests involves assessing the stakes: What is she really fighting for? Certainly, if Clinton were a liberal civil-rights advocate taking on a conservative Democrat uninterested in civil rights, the cost-benefit analysis would be different, as the soul of the party would be at stake. Or if she were a hawk facing a dove, or vice-versa, then I could see the argument for her scorched-earth campaign.

But in this contest, despite all the passion and excitement, the two Democratic candidates see almost eye-to-eye on every issue. They care about the same things and want to carry out almost the same set of policies. To me, then, Clinton's whatever-it-takes tenacity is about one thing and one thing only: herself. Check that, two things: herself and the family dynasty.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:20 am

What would happen if she gets the super delegate vote despite obama winning the actual popular vote? Effectively it would render the whole election process a farce with a party machine making the real decision, would beg the question why bother voting. Could Obama stand as an independent presidential candidate? If he did and won what then.

US politics seem bizarre- looks like mccain will get in by default of all the obama supporters don't vote in disgust at being ignored.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:04 am

Obama could run as an independent or sponsored by another party. It's happened before. The way American politics describes it is that one of the only two legitimate parties gets split which allows the other party to win. Then the losers chastise each other for throwing away their votes.

This Clinton/Obama rift is half of what I wanted to happen. The other half was that Ron Paul would stay in the public light. Now THAT would have been fun. A four-way race.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:39 am

That was kinda my point, rj. There's no discernable difference between Clinton & Obama, yet their fight of personal sniping continues ad nauseum. The DNC chairman (brain-farted the name) said this morning that the important thing is that the Dems choose the candidate who can beat McCain. I thought it was interesting that he was less concerned with picking the one who best can be president, but I guess that's because of his job.

As long as those two keep fighting for the nomination, we won't hear anything of substance.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:54 am

rjwould;848325 wrote: It's our responsibility to have the discussions and then pick the one who best reflects our philosophical view and personal needs. It shouldn't matter what the media is feeding us or what any other pundit is saying.
True. I'm on record. None of the frontrunners are going to do the country any good, imo. I'm battening my hatches for the next four years or so and pushing for gridlock.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:23 am

rjwould;848339 wrote: Records are made to be broken.

I'm curious if any information or perspective from others has altered any of your positions at all. Are they open to change? I have a tendency to remain steadfast in my political positions and have to constantly remind myself to be open to others. I think its conditioning. I dare not admit to wrongness, because that might translte into weakness, and I'm learning that its not a uniquely American dis-ease.

I have to admit that some of my thoughts have been influenced through this and other forums.
I learned humility long ago, and I generally try to come into any conflict trying to figure out if I went wrong somewhere. It forces me to constantly examine my beliefs and makes for a really strong foundation, I've found. That ain't to say I'm as consistent as I try to be or that I don't have fun yanking the occassional chain, but when I think it's important enough to focus I make the effort.

I've changed quite a bit on the Iraq conflict, and the global warming arguments are dragging me closer to the fence, which looks like a pretty comfortable place to sit.

On gov't issues in general, the more I discuss it, the farther from the mainstream I find myself; it's pretty frustrating when the main stream is only a babbling brook.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:32 am

The decision as to who the Dems will finally choose as their candidate will be based mainly on who they think can beat McCain irrespective of who has the most popular vote or delegate numbers.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:00 am

True but if they keep this up I will be voting for McCain myself as this is getting neither of them any where in my eyes.

[QUOTE]The decision as to who the Dems will finally choose as their candidate will be based mainly on who they think can beat McCain irrespective of who has the most popular vote or delegate numbers.[/QUOTE]

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:39 pm

You don't quit if you think that 'your answer' is the best answer to the issues and that you are the best qualified person to lead the country toward your answer. You don't quit if you believe that what you think is best for the country is more important then what may be best for your party.

I don't think that anyone has any obligation to drop out. The most recent primaries indicate that most americans agree with this sentiment. They voted for Hillary even though the media is telling them on a daily basis that she doesn't really stand a chance.

The democratic presidential hopes died with Florida and Michigan this year, IMO. If they seat those delegates, you lose the black vote. You don't seat those delegates, you lose two states before the first vote is cast in November. Probably several other patriotic type folks that aren't from either of the states will be just as outraged and not vote for you.

If they are able to arrange a convincing Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton unified and healing ticket, it will be a miracle. If Obama makes the mistake of choosing a 'substitute' female or Clinton a 'substitute' black running mate, McCain will be handed the easiest slam dunk of his life.

But then again, what do i know...

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:42 pm

You know a lot Floppy and you have it nailed in my opinion we shall see. :-5

[QUOTE]If they are able to arrange a convincing Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton unified and healing ticket, it will be a miracle. If Obama makes the mistake of choosing a 'substitute' female or Clinton a 'substitute' black running mate, McCain will be handed the easiest slam dunk of his life.

But then again, what do i know...[/QUOTE]

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:06 pm

Totally agree with Floppy and you can't go wrong with a lineup like that. Either way it would make a great ticket, imo. Now, who is McCain looking at for a V.P.? I know he was looking at Condalizza Rice, but ugghhh!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:32 pm

ugghhh what?

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:35 pm

Don't you think we've had enough of Bush & Co.?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:38 pm

qsducks;848553 wrote: Don't you think we've had enough of Bush & Co.?
Sure. Too much Bush & Co., Clinton Inc., empty platitudes, and living in the past.

But this group owns the electoral process, for now.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:44 pm

Blah, I know. My guy dropped out and I think mainly because the media was so caught up in a woman/african american running for the top job, they ignored him.