Korean Job Discussion Forums

[citizen erased]

Hillary Clinton seems to be growing accustomed to the fact that she won�t be the main attraction at the next Democratic convention. Her legacy to women won�t be top tier as far as history is concerned, her impact on the social timeline will more likely be looked at as an extension of her husband�s legacy and not something that was created by her own thoughts or actions. Amusingly, in some ways, this is probably preferable from her husband�s perspective. A suggestion that he was ever more interested in strengthening his wife�s political career more than the memory of his own would catch just about anyone by surprise.

Like many others, she has seen her position as front-runner and seemingly inevitable choice become something that looks more like a delusional fashion trend that never should have happened in the first place. What were we thinking? Who knows.

The facts, though, make for an interesting discussion. Her argument for continuing a loosing candidacy has been strengthened by recent events. For a majority of the primary season she has been claiming that she is the strongest candidate, the person most likely to put the Democrats back in the White House. It seems unlikely that even she was able to believe these statements until she was able to stop the momentum of her opponent with a solid victory in another large swing state, Pennsylvania. Personal views aside, her arguments carry a lot of weight and the party�s chances in November could be damaged if they are ignored. The problem is that the party has no choice but to ignore them.

Clinton posted nearly double digit victories in nearly every big state. She lost Illinois, Virginia and North Carolina. Missouri was virtually a tie but Obama managed a victory there as well. Clinton managed to take California, New York, and Texas. More importantly, she wasn�t forced to concede in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

No one is arguing that Obama would lose California and New York in the general election. The argument for his viability against McCain, however, is seriously damaged by the fact that the Democrats won�t be able to use the candidate who was strongest in the states that matter most, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The situation becomes even muddier when we think about how Florida and Michigan could have factored into the equation had the delegates in those states materially effected the numerical outcome for both candidates in the earlier stages. No one could seriously suggest that Clinton would have lost Florida. Michigan has a heavier Black population but the numbers would have been skewed against Obama in terms of economic demographics. Clinton could have, quite feasibly, posted a win in both of those states and the momentum generated by these races would have undoubtedly cut into the long run of 12 state victories that Obama was surprisingly able to generate through the middle of the country (Kansas, South Dakota, Utah, etc). It is amazing that he was able to win at all in that region. A loss in Florida would have made those victories impossible.

So, it was a string of bad luck for Clinton in that it happened to be Florida that was again an issue in terms of voting irregularity. And what winds up being the outcome?

The Democrats, who generally seem to be their own worst enemy, have to put forward a candidate who is going to be weaker on a national level. At this point, it is up to the �superdelegates� to overturn what is a sure victory for the Obama campaign. There is no other way he can lose the nomination. The party knows it can�t overturn the outcome of the primary results. The will of these �superdelegates� is essentially useless, it�s amusing that they are factored into the outcome at all.

The die has been cast, as we say, and now it is up the the general voting public to see if the country is actually serious about electing a black man named Barak Obama to its highest office. When you look at the ways the Republicans will be able to use the Reverend Wright issue to its advantage and couple this with Obama�s weakness in the large swing states and the fact that he has very little experience on the national stage it is very easy to envision the ways the Democrats will manage to lose themselves another election.

For the record, I have been an Obama supporter from the beginning and have no doubt that he is the smartest and most reasonable person running. But I also think his chances are slim.

[djsmnc]

Hillary is the top Republican candidate I've seen this year!

[plus99]

Colbert did a thing on one of the Demz superdelegates. Much underappreciated little piece. He was this effeminiate 21-something who still lived in a dorm room.


Literally.

[Kuros]

[mountainous]

She is going to fight for Mich and Florida delegates, those disputes will be decided by the end of May. I don't like her one bit, but I commend her for plugging on, bleak and silly as it seems in some respects.

[TheChickenLover]

I'd personally vote for Hillary.

If not Hillary, then McCain

Obama is just a guy who hasn't really done anything & is a populist politician.

From what we've seen from those types, I'd rather have someone who's been around for awhile to be running the country. He reminds me of president Noh. All talk..no real substance.

Chicken

[Tiger Beer]

[Gamecock]

In my paranoid, conspiracy-ridden mind, there is really not much difference between Repubs and Dems at the end of the day. Neither accomplishes much of anything or really changes much of anything except advancing the corporate interests that have taken over Washington.

I suspect that the shadow powers behind the curtain were expecting Hillary to easily win the Dem nomination (an establishment candidate for sure...just look at the money she's taken from the Pharmaceutical and HMO lobbies shortly after failing to "reform" healthcare). I think Obama is a bit of a wildcard, because the Washington establishment isn't sure what to expect from him, and they surely don't want him in power. So when he started having populist success and essentially made it mathematically impossible for Hillary to win, rather than bowing out like any reasonable and logical person would, she "kept fighting."

So while the press has prattled on about issues like race and flag pins and pastors, things that don't really mean much, Hillary has attacked him relentlessly for months for NO reason. She CAN'T win. But she has made it possible for McCain to have a chance to beat Obama in November. She has been able to attack him in a way that a white male never could in our PC culture, because she is a minority as well. I am convinced the men behind the curtain have used Hillary for this purpose. I think they don't want Obama elected. Not because of his race, but because they can't really control him...YET.

But i could be wrong. Perhaps Hillary is just delusional, which is not to be commended in someone who wants to run the country.

[poet13]

I think Hillary's campaign was doomed from the moment it began, but not because of her. From the very beginning, Hillary was lauded as the Democrats candidate, all others ignored. The primaries were pro forma, really just a victory lap, basking in the adoration of the Democratic party prior to smashing the loutish RebulblicanTs in the fall.

Then along came this 'Bama fellow.

Maybe Hillary had a chance when her campaign pulled out of it's collective group hug love-in and realized that he was catching up.

But, and it's a big but, I think she along with hubby admininstered the coup-de-grace to her campaign by the tone she took. I think they killed their chances at living in the white house again by dragging into this color, and by lying her face off. Their chances. Saw that huh? I bet it's a toss-up which one of them wants to be back in the white house more.

Misspoke about Bosnia? Misspoke? What the hell is that? Misspeaking is when you speak rashly, or innapropriately. Misspeaking is when you something wrong, catch it, and correct it. She didn't misspeak. She lied, and lied again, and then lied about the lie. And when she was called on it, she tried to make it seem like she was misunderstood or micharacterized. She lied. Plain and simple. She needs to have her mouth washed out with soap.

Her hubby, Bill, is another of the same ilk. I used to resepct him. I even defended him for the cigar-in-the-stank incident. After all, he's just a guy, and guys, whether you like it or not, can be dogs.

Hillary is a poor card player. She has broadcast her hand. her cards, in order, are;

Queen of diamonds. - In it for herself. Not for the country, not for the party. It's all about self.

King of clubs. - Bill wants the house again because he gets the power by association back. Whaddya wanna bet that he dashes overseas to visit his buddies on Air Force One less then 90 days in office? Imagine that boys club!

Short-eye Jack. - There is no truth in that clan. There may have been at one point in time, but just as the ring absorbed the character of the Gollum, so has power sapped the ethics of the Clintons.

Ace of spades. Or clubs....anything black. They were popular with blacks, but I think they are as or more race-conscious than anyone ever should be. It started with Bill, and more recently with Hillary and her claims of support among "hard working whites". Yassuh boss lady, poh niggas juss wan dat welfare check so's dey can buy some chitlins and sit on duh porch. I would love to be a fly on their wall when they talk privately about black people.

Joker. - Wild card. As transparent as we think she is, we really don't know what would happen if she were in power. Health care? Big fuckin' deal. Terrorism? So what. That's just spewing populist policy talk. I think her time in power would be spent ensuring her influence and income for after her reign. But you never know.

VP? I cannot imagine how more terribly wrong Obama could go by allowing her on the ticket. I think it would hamstring his presidency from day one. Bill would be running amok from the get go, and Hillary would be pissing all over the furniture and door jambs trying to defend her self defined power block...I mean, territory.

GOBAMA 08.

[Kuros]

[Suwon23]

[poet13]

Arguments for Obama? The phenomenon of Obama might be in part a case of "Joe Clark" syndrome. Canadians might remember the fellow named Joe Clark who was elected Prime Minister of Canada in 1979. The Toronto Star or Sun (I think) ran their headline the next day as "Joe Who?" There was a lot of opinion that people didn't so as vote FOR him, but that they were voting AGAINST the other players whom the Canadian public in general was disgusted with. His party was defeated in a non-confidence vote less than a year later. It might have something to do with him pissing off on vacation for a couple of months immediately after being elected.

Obama is change. He doesn't just espouse it, preach it, or make populist let's-be-happy-together speeches about change; he seems to be an entirely different creature, one I think the American public is well more than ready for. If the republicans..make that Bushee, hadn't dragged America into Iraq with non-evidence and reason that will likely be remembered as something near criminal, I don't think Obama would have his day. I think it took the country being in a giant clusterfuck for the people to say enough is enough, give us someone new.

I think that's Obamas strength. Now let's see if he can be that man.

[Kuros]

[poet13]

A little reactionary? Well, the first paragraph described a reactionary process that occurred in Canada almost 20 years ago. I am suggesting that in part, Obama's popularity IS reactionary. It's reacting against what has been status quo politics in America. The reaction is people standing up and saying "enough!".

I also don't think it's much of a stretch to equate one person's popularity with another person's failures.
FOr example, if a business screws up enough, people go elsewhere for the product or service.

So what do YOU have to say?

got as class right now....

[Tiger Beer]

I thought of KERRY more as reactionary last election.

With Obama, I think its just that most Americans love to listen to a very articulate person who has visions and plans of what many people would like to see happen - healthcare, some hopeful closure to Iraq, and a hopeful new face that is well-respected and someone that brings back pride to be an American again. Every since he spoke at the Democratic National Convention four years ago, he just had 'superstar' and articulation and a vision that people really love to hear - The 'we are ONE America' speech.

This is quite a contrast from Hiliary who seems to preach a 'democrat' lets sock it to the Republicans vision, and McCain's 'Iraq looks good to me' lack of a plan parallel with Bush thinking.