Obama has won the nomination
 

Play with the Slate Delegate Calculator

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

With the knowledge that Obama has polled to win North Carolina, and the FL and MI re-dos are unlikely. Maybe one not both.

She can't win without superdelegates

obama's had the math for nearly a month. hillary simply can not win without, as the saying goes, obama being found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. Obama knows it; he's more worried about McCain at this point. Hillary's gonna be the last person in the country to realize it, I'll bet.

vote Ron Paul

even though his minions totally crowded the restaurant we ate ate last weds and made it a crowded and terse sit down instead of a relaxing Din Din with the Fammmm. I didn't hate the Ron Paul party as I can imagine i would have had they been blue blazered pubs or sweater wearing crats. seemed like normal folks.

this could be the perfect storm for a 3rd party to sneak in. or it could be that i dont know what the fugg i speak of. im politically stunted, after all. i smoked all that pot in my developmental years, that i just cant muster a poop about it.

oh well, if it gets too bad, i guess i'll just move out to the country and eat a lot of peaches

How long, you think, before we start to hear about the "Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" that prevented her from getting the nomination?

no it is still the vast right wing conspiracy screwing her over. they made her seem shrill. and manipulative. and pro war when it was popular but steadfastly anti war when the polls shifted. and they kept telling people she was a clinton. they conspired to hand the nomination to obama.

obviously a vast right wing conspiracy smear campaign in action...wait, what? oh you mean those were the true things? damn, how did she stay in it this long?

So the general election will be the far left vs the far right.... and I'm stuck in the middle with you, and most of the voters.

Just going to say what I've been saying all along...

There is no way the powers that be will ever let a woman get the presidential nomination in this country. No way, no day.....Maybe 200 more years from now...not sure.....Not any time soon. Heh. Not only that...she's blonde. Double trouble. She's an "aggressive female". No one likes that. It's funny to watch Martha get raked over the coals for the same thing. Watching Martha go to jail didn't leave the mark it was supposed to with "aggressive females" I guess........Looks like they are still trying to be powerful and live successful lives. It's an exercise in going everywhere but the absolute top.


Fail.

This is what a female president looks like. This is Corizon Aquino....Heh...Even a second world, catholic country trusts their women before this one.
http://encarta.msn.com/media_7015091...on_aquino.html

You mean the voters?

Including the women voters. They just hate her because she's a woman too.

"No one can clean house like a woman can!" - A Hillary supported I saw on TV :rolleyes:

No they hate her because she is Hillary Clinton. Big difference.

Thank goodness! Unfortunately, I'm left not really liking either candidate. She would not have changed this, but I am unhappy with the options......AGAIN.

I hate her for HER - nothing to do with her being a woman. I simply find her abrasive, annoying, belligerent and dishonest.

I don't "hate" Hillary, but I am certainly not a fan of hers for many of the same reasons. She comes off as a bitch. She keeps mentioning experience as though she's got a lot of it when she's been a Senator for 6 years. Does she think being married to a President makes her more qualified to be one or more experienced at being one?

She has a shady past with dirty and underhanded dealings where the witnesses all died mysteriously.

I don't think she's anymore qualified than Obama, I don't think she's as articulate, intelligent, classy, or witty as Obama. I don't think she belongs in politics at any level including the level she's already at let alone the office of President. She seems like an annoying shrew.

Also, she would have a harder time beating the Republicans than Obama.

Except for the "bitch" comment, I agree with everything Radar said. :eek:

As someone said, if Hillary Clinton can say she has White House command experience, Yoko Ono can say she was a Beatle.

To be fair, Hillary did go up to Capitol Hill as First Lady to push for health care reform. So she does have that experience of failing. You could argue that failing is good experience, because you can learn from it, but I'm not convinced that in her case she did.

I've often said that the best candidates lose in the primaries. (Or at least the ones I like. I was backing Tsongas in 1992 . . . )

Not havin' faith in the Obama. I hope I'm wrong.

Yeah, that was particularly galling. During the 1992 campaign, any comment or criticism about Hillary was strictly off-limits, because "She's not the candidate." Then, once Bill was in office, she's given the job of writing important legislation for the office of the President. Now, she wants to tacitly imply that her experience as First Lady counts toward her own Presidential run.

And now, I suppose, we're not meant to make any comment or criticism about Bill, since "He's not the candidate."

This kind of tag-team politics is silly, and it frustrates me that so many people seem to just accept it.

Honestly what frustrates me the most in the D nomination bid (and it will carry through the general election) is that race and gender card is played so easily. Hillary is going down in a tight race, so it is obvious that it is American sexism in action. America won't let a woman sit in the Oval Office, blahblahblah. If it had been the other way, people would be complaining that American racism was showing it's ugly face and we won't let a black guy into the Oval Office.

Seriously? When it is a field of white guys up there, what excuse should the runner up use? Certainly it can't be that enough people liked the other guy to beat him out.

Hillary is a woman. Deal with it. Early on in the cycle we were told to ignore the fact that she was a woman. We were told to believe she was the best candidate and move beyond that old way of thinking. Then the polls started looking a little less clear cut and we were encouraged to get behind our first female President because she was strong, experienced, tough, and oh yeah - a woman. Did we mentiont she'd be the first female president? Then the polls turned on her and words like shrew, cold, and calculating popped up. So she cried. Oh, now we have a woman we can identify with and she jumped in the polls again. When she was ahead we were supposed to ignore her gender, now that she's behind, it is because of her gender? No thanks.

Obama is a black man. Deal with it. We were told not to present him as a black man, but as a man. Cool, I can get on board with that. He ran his race as the "different" candidate. The one for change. And I think he believes in hope. and maybe even the future. We ignored his skin color until the polls got tight and then there were stories produced to show us that Obama was above using his ethnicity. IMO the dude was smooth. The stories about how he was above the issue popped up before any questions about the issue. He never once came up and addressed the issue, he simply let it play out behind the scenes so that the issue was upfront and in the open, but he could distance himself if necessary and point out that it wasn't him. BUT, if Hillary was in front right now, his camp would be dropping the "it's because he's black" card. People who don't like him must be racist.

That is what I'm not looking forward to for the general election. The R's have an old white guy, and the D's have a younger black guy. Does anyone believe that the race issue will not be well spun by the Obama camp while McCain feverishly tries to avoid the whole issue because he knows it is a minefield?

I tell you what - If we go all the way to the election without anyone in the cellar playing the "America won't let a black man be President" I'll drop $250 in the tip jar for November. Does anyone actually think I'll have to pay up?

Absolutely a black man can be president before a woman, if we're talking categories. Black men received the right to vote 50 years before any woman could vote. See you in 2058.

How about when McCain chooses Condoleezza Rice as his running mate? Like a cat dropped with buttered bread tied to its back, will all the "powers that be" simply implode with the cognitive dissonance of being unable to keep women out of the White House?

The people who fought that so hard are not dominant today. Look around you and realize these are teh people that vote, just like you. They might not like the female candidate because of her penis she doesn't have but because of the baggage she does have.

True, but they were only considered 3/4 of a person so only had a 75% vote. :)

If you criticize Obama, it's racism.

If you criticize Clinton, it's sexism.

If you criticize McCain, it's ageism.

If you criticize Paul, it's anti-Americanism.

Absolutely not - There is no way we'll make it thru the summer.

Nice one bro.

What if I criticize Radar?

anti-cellarite?

I thought criticizing a Libertarian was anti-wack-a-doodleism... . . . just kidding . . .

Then you're not in a very exclusive club.

Ok, I'll be the first one to say America won't let a black man be Pres. Ok, not that they won't let him, but its going to be very hard for Obama to win.
If you look at all the various polls, more show voters will vote for a black man BEFORE a woman.
Now, with that said...
Its OK to say a woman can't be President because she's weak, because the motherly instinct will kick in, women are over emotional... You might get glares from a few women, but the reality is people can say that openly on any talk show without it turning into a brawl or into the the lead story on CNN, and the majority of men will shrug and have a little smirk that says "I kind of agree", or at least "I know what your saying."
What you can't say is a black man can't be Pres. You can't be racist. You can't make that call into CSPAN without being hung up on. You can't say that on on any mainstream news outlet without it turning into a fight and front page news. With that said, there are a lot of racists in this country, there a lot of people who are not comfortable with a black man as Pres. Before I go on, do not take this out of context - its not my opinion, but the opinion of others. You can see it in some posts at online newspapers. These are things I've actually read on other forums - and after they post they are quickly called a racist and that ends the discussion. "Will Obama make it so we owe restitution to all the children of slaves?" "He has that preacher he's been listening to that is all about black power and taking away from the whites." "No African American mayor in the US has been successful - look at Detroit, look at DC, and then look at the African nations and how screwed they are, so therefore blacks can't lead..." [AGAIN - DO NOT TAKE THIS AS MY PERSONAL OPINION - ITS NOT - I'm just stating reality.]
I think a lot of people lie when they say, yeah, a black man can be Pres, but the reality is I think it will be harder for a black man to be elected than a woman.
Its nice to think were beyond that, but when the Obama camp makes statements like "Hillary's never had a cab refuse to pick her up before" they are validating the fact that there is racism alive and well in this nation.
Maybe another 50 years and racism will be less prevelant and an African American will have a much better chance.
On to McCain...
McCain won't have Rice as VP - she's WAY too connected to Bush.
Colin Powell - that's an option. But that only gets him more military votes, which he already has. I don't think Colin Powell garners the African American vote.
Romney - good for cinching people worried about the economy.

So far, only half-reasonable argument I've heard for Obama (paraphrase): "We've been calling for change, so if there's a candidate running that says he stands for change, I'd feel like a hypocrite if I didn't vote for him, and then later on was still complaining about needing change."

They won't count Condy Rice if she's selected as VP - she's far too conservative to be consider a "woman" or "black", in the way those terms get used by feminist and racial power brokers in the political world.

Condaleeza is black, and a woman; but she's not black, or a woman, in the way that counts. Which shows that there is something else ...

I wouldn't say "There's something else that matters more to people"
Its kind of like bill Clinton was the first black President. He interacted with more African Americans than any previous President, and not just interacted - but understood and participated in the "black" culture. I highly doubt Rice interacts much with the African American community. She's not really "black" - even though that is her skin color.
She's from Colorado - a fairly white/Hispanic state. I'm from there. She went to my high school about two decades before me. A private girls only elite Catholic high school. Almost all white. She's more "white" than "black" in attitude and culture and upbringing.

Less than 24 hours.

Couldn't resist the bet... lol Why wait until summer?
BTW, did you read his speech about race and the reverend? Uninspiring.

Yep, very well written smooth speech. It won't begin to quell the issue of why he sat in a church pew listening to that shit for 20 years, but typical smooth Obama speech.

It was polished, but not inspiring. And it really didn't answer anything. Not that there are any answers.

When I initially heard about the Reverend's comments, I thought "McCain has Haggee... candidates can't help that people are for them that they don't agree with all their views". Then I read that it wasn't just an occasional church attendance on Obama's part, but 20 years, married him and Michelle, baptised his kids, spiritual advisor... There is no way to distance himself. I know the fiery speeches weren't every Sunday, but in 20 years you can't say Obama didn't know (nor has he claimed that). It kind of comes off like "if your not black you won't understand and his comments are taken out of context." I understand fiery speeches to get the masses moving, but his went above and beyond.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/op...e55&ei=5087%0A
Clinton already had my vote, baggage and all.

That's what I see: all smooth but never really saying anything.

Bush is the complete antithesis of smooth, and people have hated the fact that he was apparently a moron. At least Obama's smart.

Carter was smart. No thanks.

I'd prefer competent.

I read the transcript before I saw any clips of the speech. I can understand you saying you disagreed with what he said, I can understand you saying you didn't believe what was said or didn't believe that he meant what he said. I do not, however, believe that anyone can argue that 'nothing was said'.

I am undecided at this time, but that speech was the most concise appraisal of the current state of race relations in this country I have read in a while. It is fortunate that it is during an election, because it has received an audience that it would have lost if it had been given from a pulpit or on C-SPAN. After I read the speech, I saw a 10 second clip of Obama giving it. For all that he is considered a good speaker, I think his delivery did not live up to the words because the words were that good. It really is one of the better contemporary speeches I have read in a very long time.

I can understand your not liking it, but even many of his critics admit that it was a good speech. Consider where we are right now, the largest prison nation in the world. Our current president has done nothing to address this. Reading his speech, I can see that at least he articulates the issue instead of ignoring it like every other candidate.

If you didn't see anything, then you must have been keeping your eyes closed.

Bush is neither. He's also dishonest, smarmy, hypocritical, an asshole, and is guilty of several counts of high treason.

I'm no expert, nor thoroughly up to date in politics or blah blah blah write me off as a dumb college student, lack of real world experience as I have been written off before.

But it was an awesome speech.

I have to agree it looks much better in print than I sounded like on TV.
But even reading it, brings one question to mind.... What are you going to do about it?

Oh that's right, Change.

I'd like a little more detail.

don't forget the hope bruce. i hear he believes in it.

Just read the transcript. That's a great essay. For me, at least, it takes the issue of his paster being nuts off the table. Now if only he had the slightest bit of sense when it comes to economic issues.

That kind of thinking may satisfy you, but it comes far from satisfying me: actually trying to win a war, one started by whom, again? after how many tries and how many years, again? -- and carrying that war to the enemy abroad, does not and cannot rise to high treason. I cannot respect thinking of that kind: go suck a wet rock (sedimentary, igneous, or metamorphic, your call) and your thumb, in alternation. Meanwhile, let our self-made, pathologically aggrieved foes reap the whirlwind and be blown to Sheol where they won't bother democrats and other good people.

As for me, I prefer to avoid frothing and raving, especially in political matters.

Dishonest and smarmy -- goodness, no one currently in politics can pull any of that away from those Clintons. They take the entire cake -- frosting, plate, and server. They had to be shamed into returning $28,000 in White House furniture in '01, remember. Those two have a disconnect in their brains that way.

Hypocritical would actually require, I think, to do something very much at variance with what one says. Looking at what Bush says and what he does -- they mesh pretty well, and perhaps rather better than in the usual run of national politician, no? Looks to me like what you see is what you get. That sort of thing set the cat among the Beltway pigeons with Reagan, too.

OK, rich, I'll put it another way: I didn't like it because he does not resonate sincerity with me. Though that may be on my end, he may be the most sincere person out there, I'm not feeling it.

He is a great speaker, he is smart. I think we could do a lot worse. Smart counts for much with me. It was a beautiful speech. Now, what is he planning to do?

Bush, when he decided to invade without any justification? (answer: yes)
Well, he tried to find an excuse from his first day in office, so a couple at least...

I thought it was a pretty good speech.

I agree with Shawnee - it lacks sincerity. It was a good polished essay. At times it was close to inspired. But not sincere.

Of course, I read it, and only "heard" a few sound bites. It doesn't take the issue off the table for me of the Reverend. Why?
At one point he essentially says, we've all listened to our pastors say stuff we don't agree with. Well, no, not really, not on something this huge. And secondly, as a leader, if you disagree - you do something. Not just sit there for 20 years, and never have a conversation with him that you disagree with his statements. He's his ADVISOR, but Obama states that he is divisive and stuck in the past. And he knew this. Seriously, if you really don't agree with him, why have him as your advisor? If you are all about not being divisive, why have someone that divisive in your life? If you are about change, why keep someone stuck in the 1970s?

I do believe on a lot of the race issues, Obama said things we all think. I think he articulated things we all know. Some blacks feel this way because of this. Some whites feel this way because of this. And he hit the nail on the head. He said it for all to hear, and for all to go - you know, that's what I've been thinking. And its a good thing. But he didn't address the way I feel. Affirmitive Action didn't hurt me. I didn't like it because I knew it hurt others, but I understood the reason why. I saw both sides as a viewer, not a participant. For me, my core states (and I've put this in other posts) - anyone can become anything if you try. Get out and work - at MacDonalds if you have to. I didn't see this feeling addressed. Maybe its that I'm a minority in this issue. I am also in line with Bill Cosby - the black community is its own worst enemy. If you want your local schools to be better - do something! Don't just complain that its a racial thing and do nothing. But I digress. The speech didn't 'speak' to me. It didn't clear the air. Although he definitiely didn't justify the Reverend's comments, he didn't tell me why he sat there for 20 years and did nothing. He can't answer that truthfully and still win. Agent of change my arse.

Started solely by America and America's puppet the UN. The United States has a DEFENSIVE military that may be used legitimately (legally) only when America is attacked, and then only against the NATION that attacked us, and then only when a formal declaration of war is made by Congress (Not an authorization for the use of force in support of UN resolutions) The United States had no legitimate justification to invade Iraq in 1991, in 2003 or at any time before or since. The first gulf war was illegal and blatantly unconstitutional, bombing Iraq for 12 straight years was illegal, the cease-fire agreement was illegal, the no fly zones were illegal, the embargos were illegal, etc.

Aside from starting an unconstitutional war and murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and getting thousands of Americans killed unnecessarily, Bush also deserted from the military during war time (high treason), and he openly admits and actually champions another act of high treason (spying on Americans)

Yes, you prefer to avoid anything remotely resembling the truth, facts, logic, reason, or plain old common sense.

The Clinton's didn't knowingly lie to the American people to start an unprovoked, unwarranted, unreasonable, and unconstitutional war of aggression against a nation that posed no harm to America at any point during America's history as Bush did. They also don't address the United States with a smirk, while looking like a chimp the way Bush does. They also didn't violate habeas corpus, the 4th amendment, etc. the way Bush did.

Bush is a hypocrite in many ways. He claims to be a Christian, yet he practices murder. He claims to want to protect American freedoms, yet he attacks them every chance he gets. He claims to want to balance the budget, yet his deficit spending has sent the dollar into a tail spin, he was a drunken college flunky who got into Yale only because of his father, who barely made it through college, and who used cocaine but supports a drug war. He says he wants to use cleaner energy and help America to stop being dependent on Arab oil, yet he's seen holding hands with members of the Saudi Royal family and his unconstitutional war has tripled the price of gas during his administration and given oil companies record profits year after year.

I think he made a nice speech. The guy connects with me probably because he's about my age and shows a willingness to understand the entire picture. As smooth said he'll screw up when it comes to the economy, but so has every president from Hoover on.

For me, the White woman versus the Black Man thing plays out this way. Obama is a Black Man who can be elected. He is not Al Sharpton. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is Al Sharpton. She's always been a divider. Getting women to the point of national prominence has been a problem, but the right woman will eventually do it. My State Rep is one, she comes out of the resturant business so she knows something about keeping books and people happy. Anyway, it seems to be about who we believe, which is pretty dangerous territory when we're talking politicians.

Hillary is Al? Srsly?

Does that make Bush Spitzerian or Spitzer Bushian?