Members Jess Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 The difference is that Obama won NC by 14 percentage points, That is well over 100,000 votes I believe. There was no question that he would win. Hillary won IND by 22,000 votes, right at 2 percentage points. Nobody knew who would win until the very end. It was too close to call. I don't like the media much either. However, it wasn't the fault of the guy with the map that the race was close Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 And Fmr. Senator George McGorvern has switched his allegiance from Clinton to Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 Did McGovern make an endorsement as a superdelegate or was he leaning towards her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wales2004 Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 The article I read doesn't indicate that he's a delegate. It says that he supported her early on and is now backing Obama and would like her to get out of the race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wales2004 Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 Is Hilary Clinton basically saying that the results of the primaries mean nothing unless they're results in her favor because she intends to take over the White House regardless? I know they're spinning that she's lending her campaign money because she is so dedicated to the fight for the American people but the flip side of that is that she's ambitious and wants power. Grabbing power is fine and dandy for those who like that sort of stuff but trying to disguise it as for the people is a little ridiculous when one is willing to destroy one's own party to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 Okay thanks Wales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ryan Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 you Wales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 Well I don't blame Hillary for being power hungry. Dubya and Cheney have done everything they can to destroy hers and her husband's legacy and she wants to get back into the position she is fighting for to restore some of that legacy. She also is staying in this race to make sure everyone gets a chance to vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tylerbo20 Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 im canadian and im going to go to oregon and start campainging for her...this is getting stupid...she was the favourite with the media until obama came from nowhere...truley you guys want someone with no experience runnning the white house??? running your country...it will be a country run by advisors and people he asskes what should i do lame.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wales2004 Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 Protecting a legacy is a personal conquest and it's all good that you feel she is trying to give everyone a chance to vote. It doesn't negate the fact that when the results aren't the ones she wants then it doesn't matter to her. She's still willing to rip the party to shreds to get what she wants. That's fine for people who applaud ambition but it's not doing the Democrats an ounce of good and America is not the personal playground of Bill and Hilary Clinton. It's not like she's staving off a takeover of a corporation, She's saying that the White House belongs to her and she'll mow down anyone standing in her way and the rules should be rewritten to make it happen for her. It's an at all costs mentality that is destructive because it's saying that certain voters votes don't count when they're not for her. It's extremely divisive and she's beginning to look more like a dictator than someone who embraces democracy. Under other circumstances her tenacity might seem great but it isn't when it looks like it's more about some sort of entitlement. She's not the model of a unifying force right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 That is what I think she needs to see. It's not about what is in her best interest......I thought it was about the country, as she has said many times before. If she is only getting back in there to get back at people or for the reason that she deserves to be president and nothing else...... 1. She has been selling a bill of goods to the people, and..... 2. She is no better than the current occupent of the OO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wales2004 Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 And you're implying that none of the presidents of this country have had advisors. You think all of the leaders of this country did it all on their own? Does she not have a team helping her? I hope you have fun in Oregon and maybe people from all over the world should come over and campaign for whoever they want because clearly the American system isn't working. Do you realize how insulting you sound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 For the most part, some of the results do not matter because Obama is winning states that we have no chance of getting in November. What matters to her is having momentum and maintaining a higher lead over McCain than Obama to get the nomination. They are also both about doing what they can to get into The White House. That is true of anyone who runs for president Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 Where do you get this idea that he thinks the American system isn't working? In some ways, I agree it is not because I want the electoral system gone and abolished since they do not always guarantee the winner of the popular vote is the president (a la 2000) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wales2004 Posted May 7, 2008 Members Share Posted May 7, 2008 You can try to put them on equal footing as much as you want but he's not trying to destroy the Democratic party or have rules rewritten to get him the nomination. She's on a whole other level when it comes to that. In fact, he would have been long gone had their positions been reversed. If he's winning in states that won't matter in November then what you're saying is the primaries are a waste of time. What's the point in using the argument that she wants everyone to get a chance to vote if you then get to pick and choose what counts and what doesn't? Why not declare the Democrats a dictatorship and let her have it? If having momentum matters to her then she's lost it and after your accurate polls worked so well to predict yesterday's results, I just know you are not suggesting to me that any of them saying she has a higher lead over McCain means something that people can bank on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.