Should Clinton bow out?

Hey Dingbat! The Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean got all candidates to agree not to campaign in either state. So Obama did the honorable thing and took his name off the ballot in Michigan. He was too late to do it in Florida.

Hillary on the other hand partied down in Florida ex post facto as if she won something big when no one was supposed to be campaigning down there. And now she's crying about the poor delegates that won't be seated in Michigan because she's behind. That's against party rules.

She went against party rules and should have been punished for it.

So, who's fault is it that Hillary is a slimey worm who can't follow her own party's rules? Hmmmm. Let me guess... Her name begins with an "h."

Okay so yeah LET"S just VOID all the voters VOICES in Michigan and Florida!!!!! YEAH lets just say to hell with them split the vote 50/50....you are the dingbat! Just get over it ,,Obama would lose those BIG STATES once again and it rattles you!!!! Yeah right,,im sure Barrack and Oprah would NOT have gone down to Florida if he had "won" right,,,give me a break!!

Only one comment to make on this thread for now...
Anyone who supports the idea of choosing McCain over Hillary if Obama doesn't get the Democratic nomination needs to get their heads examined.

We've been under Republican rule for the past 7+ years and the current administration has driven our country to shambles. Most people who support Obama are all about having a president who will bring forth change. How can you even see anything changing if we vote another Republican in office for four more years? McCain suffers from the same fate as Hillary, being one of the old names in politics (and we're not talking about his age). Hillary's policies are about the same as Obama's... compare Obama's policies with McCain and you'll see they're close to being polar opposites. Are you really voting on the issues by choosing McCain over Hillary, or are just jumping on the "Love/Hate Bandwagon"?

OK... maybe two comments. God, I hate politics! LOL!!!
People are so quick to belittle Clinton over her comments about offering Obama the VP seat. READ BETWEEN THE LINES. You do realize that a Clinton/Obama (or vice versa) ticket would be almost a sure win for the Democrats to take back the White House? That way you'd get the best of both worlds: A new face in office with new ideas, with the experience to back it up. Instead, Clinton & Obama supporters are too busy fighting each other trivial stuff while their policies are pretty much the same. Sometime I wonder whether or not everone is more obsessed about voting (or supporting) the winning candidate, instead of placing a vote that better serves the country.

Let's use some common sense during this election people. If you want change, you KNOW who you have to vote for and there's no need to fight & bicker over it!!

Change is good. Im just sick of politicians (ie Obama) offering up this cliche campaign change crap which really means nothing..has no teeth,,just some pie in the sky slogan spouted out like some meaningless blather that everyone rallies around like some cultish mantra. I believe people are finally sizing up Obama and finding out he really has no substance,,just fluff,,and thats why he has peaked now and is losing ground.

Change is good. Im just sick of politicians (ie Obama) offering up this cliche campaign change crap which really means nothing..has no teeth,,just some pie in the sky slogan spouted out like some meaningless blather that everyone rallies around like some cultish mantra. I believe people are finally sizing up Obama and finding out he really has no substance,,just fluff,,and thats why he has peaked now and is losing ground

Clinton/Obama is not a realistic possibility. He is leading in the delegate count and I doubt he would settle for being # 2, unless some serious questions about his elect ability came to light. In that scenario, he would still not be # 2 because either he will have become a serious political liability (like Spitzer in NY) or will choose to sit it out on his own accord. At this point the only options he has, imo, is to be the nominee or sit it out and wait.

Obama/Clinton would be a good ticket but I seriously don’t think he would consider it. He seriously is beginning to look like he hates her.

On the point of Obama supporters not voting for Hillary, you have to remember that his supporters are mostly Independents and cross-over republicans are voting for him (whether they truly believe in him or have bought into the hype, is not relevant) and McCain appeals to these people more than Clinton does. IMO, that is the risk in an Obama nomination- there is no guarantee that these independents and cross-overs will vote for him in November. Obama is presidential material (I think he needs a few more years in the senate or experience in the observatory) and if he is the nominee this will be his only shot. If he wins- great; if he loses there will be too many questions as to why? (Given the obvious swell of support) for him to ever get another shot at it.

I am still fuzzy about the "cross-over" appeal. I suppose that like you I have come across anecdotal evidence of it and picked up a few polls, but those polls change so often, and so drastically.

A number of organizations rank congresspersons on the liberal-conservative scale and their criteria differ.

Nonetheless, both Barack and Hillary always rank as firmly "liberal". They are certainly nowhere near the center, where I believe Bill Clinton excelled. I am not sure McCain / GOP couldn't demolish that notion of "cross-over" appeal by simply pointing at the consistent voting records of both candidates.

I think it's time for Hillary supporters to put up or shut up.

Let the voters of Michigan and Florida have real primaries and we'll see who wins.

Scared?

Sorry the Reagan Administration onward, including the Clinton Administration, has depressed salaries in my field such that I qualify for Section 8 (public housing) where I live because I make below my county's poverty line doing the healing work necessary to help our nation's youth become productive members of society. Therefore I cannot even hope to dream of owning a house.

Oh, and house prices are so over-inflated because after the Clinton Internet Bubble bust, the Clintons then the Bushes created easy credit to make the next boom/bust cycle: housing, in a vain attempt to "save the economy" for the rich. So, owning a home is only for the rich now, especially here in California.

But some people will still continue to vote for the same old crap politics that have kept us stuck since 1980 and back a candidate who has no integrity but plenty of ambition like, Hillary Clinton. If she wins I'm sure I'll still be below my county's poverty line, working with a masters degree and 4 years of Internship with eventual licensure helping to raise the "throw away generations" from the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush years without any real assistance from those with power who should know better.

So, basically, if I had it to cough up, I would, gladly.

And it's not my fault, nor is it the DNC's fault, that Michigan and Florida Democrats decided to against the Party's rules such that they made their primaries invalid.

simcha: To be honest, I'm not sure what line of work you're in to continually have your wages dropped. All I know is that by the end of the first Clinton era we actually had two gains made towards paying the National Debt in a row (United Stated National Debt), and I had the highest paying job of my life, which was over $60K in the computer field. My soon to be partner also purchased his condo in New York, and he's not rich by any stretch of the imagination. The internet crash started in 2001, and the war started soon thereafter that. That's when I started to meet the financial decline that I've been recovering from ever since and that was under the current Bush administration. Currently, I bring home about $25K, which is almost 1/3rd of what I used to make. Bill Clinton didn't support the whole "trickle down" theory of economics, nor were we ever rushed into a war that costed us tons of money and the Nation's reputation. How can anyone look at Clinton's "politics" when it comes to the economy and think they're the same as Reagan or Bush?

No, I don't agree with that conclusion, because I don't believe Hillary has the resume to back up her hype about how experienced she is. She takes credit for a lot, and her record has been examined to have been an exaggeration.

Most of all, Hillary would certainly undermine Obama in the oval office.

I think Obama&Edwards would be a better fit, because Edwards was carrying the working class democratic vote over Hillary (look at Iowa, she came in 3rd).

Vinyl: you don't think the industry created that job market? Since when have the Clintons have any IT or computer science in their background?

This is what I mean by taking credit for a lot.

You talk about balanced budgets...

Al-Qaeda grew more powerful under the Clinton Administration. We were attacked 4 times under that administration and Clintons continued to cut defense/intelligence spending. The WTC hit first time in 93, blackhawk helicopter shot down the same year in Somalia, 1996, Al-Qaeda published a declaration of war against us and car bombed 4 US embassies in Africa.

Clinton's own secretary of Defense, William Cohen warned him we were stretched too thin in 99 and if a major conflict broke out, our military readiness would be in jeopardy.

2000 the USS Cole was hit and Clinton bombed an empty training camp. His excuse for not getting BinLaden in that air bomb was that "at the time the intelligence was so good, that is location we had for him."

The intelligence wasn't so good, the intel budget was so thin and we lost linguists and imagery personnel.

What do you think our surplus would look like if universal healthcare had been passed? Medicare/Medicaid is 30 percent of our deficit alone.

Nor should the DNC pay for it.

I feel for the voters in FLA and Michigan, but this because of their governors/legislators fuckup. The DNC established rules for all states. If they are allowed to be seated, the next election, every other state will ride roughshod and move their elections up to whenever.

Let them do a re-do but their legislatures put them in this scenario, not the DNC.

Voters should be holding the governor's/legislators feet to the fire on this.

They did not have candidates campaigning in their states and in some instances, names were not on the ballots.

Their state legislators/governors disenfranchised their votes, not the DNC>

In an interview on NPR, Geraldine Ferraro(admittedly a Hillary supporter, and whom I don't otherwise hold in high regard) said that the date of the Florida primary had been set by the republican legislature and administration, for their own convenience, without any participation in the decision by the state Dem organization.

If this is true, it does not seem fair to refuse to seat them.