This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

I hope Hillary drops out so it can just end this madness and bickering.

She should not have to drop out when she has many more primaries in her favor, will get the momentum, and is leading McCain by more than Obama

For stupid reasons like she's destroying her party and she's behind in the delegate count and popular vote and because she's not going to be in a much better position after the primaries. John McCain isn't scared of her....please. To whom does she look more formidable?

It's so lame and like you to refer back to Obama's bitter comment for which he's apologized many times. Especially when he said it was a poor way to phrase what he was trying to say.... as if that doesn't happen to people everyday....maybe not to you though. How does that come off as selfish? You seem to reach an awful lot in your defense of all things Hilary Clinton. But that's quite a stretch. I mean obviously when he uttered those words he did it with the intent of hurting people and gaining what exactly for himself?

She is not destroying the party if she wants every person to vote in the remaining primaries and they should vote. Dropping out means they won't vote...she is behind in the delegant and popular vote counts for now. I never said McCain is scared of her but she is beating him right now-more than Obama.

Don't pull this "it's so lame and like you..." BS because that borders on bashing (also shows you as an arrogant know it all) and you seemed to do that earlier on in this thread and I called you out on it. When I refer to his bitter comments, it is to show where he loses points with certain people and those remarks will hurt him for much longer...they are still fresh in people's minds. I would not say people misstate things every day but yea it can happen...he knows he is in a position where he should choose his words more carefully. I will defend Hillary if I see some assertions against her that I find are unwarranted and unreasonable....I never said he meant to hurt people with the bitter comments. Don't put words into my mouth.

And, some of us may have gotten the idea she could win NC from her.......because that is what her camp kept saying. The "Game Changer" was NC.........and now that she's lost, not only was he supposed to win because all the black folks who voted for him, but she never was supposed to win it in the first place?

I think she meant that the game changer thing was more that she would get as many votes as she could and that she would not lose by as much as polls predicted.

thank you thank you All My Children for supporting me ...lol..what i said was not to be mean or anything i was just angry how CNN is portraying Obama as the 1st choice the new pres placing him high up in a pedistool while Clinton has been kicked to the curb. if anyone watchest SNL they will see what i mean...they see what i see... i wasnt implying that americans were stupid so thanks for putting words into my mouth.

LOL not a problem. I just think he was being unreasonable by reading into your post something that was not there. I did not see you as bashing but he seemed to border on bashing me but I will leave that up for him to explain.

In the last 5 weeks, if I would have had a nickel for every time someone on CNN had said Rev. Wright or talked about it.......I could have taken two weeks off from work.

This also includes MSNBC, who had a one hour special on the Rev. Wright crap just this past weekend.

Now......I can't remember either network having any specials on Hilary for some of the things she's said or some of her actions.

So......we'll just have to see this differently.

Just two weeks? LOL

I think the media still beats to death things related to Hillary Clinton since she takes a beating from this press. That is enough to fill a special broadcast and people know what she has done and said.

So.......the worse you lose a state, the more momentum you have.

More like you get more momentum when you make ground in polls showing you to lose by a lot.

She's got 5 years on him. So, she has alittle time on him.

4 years

but she has been in the white house and knows how to move when the lights arnt on at 3am

and do a lot more...she was heavily involved in policy enough for some to consider her co president

She and her co-president husband used sleep deprevation as the excuse why she lied about that Bosnia trip.

I don't see it as an excuse but more along the lines of explaining why she did something...and I think I heard her apologize for her comments on Bosnia

And, if that's the case.......Laura Bush should run for higher office as well.

If she wants, she can...but I don't consider her years as First Lady experience the same way I do Hillary Clinton. Hillary was heavily involved in foreign affairs and policy while Laura has not

If the situation were completely reversed, and Obama would have lost last night, and his campaign was in debt to the point that he had to loan it money........the same people saying Hillary should be giving the nom now would be saying Obama should think of the party and drop out.

I don't think either one should drop out because they should stay in and make sure everyone votes

By the logic of Hillary's supporters, there is no point in having the election in November. Polls show Hillary is up front today so she gets to be the Democratic nominee. Of course she was down a month ago, she should have dropped out then I guess. If there is no point in honoring electoral outcomes, I guess there is no point in having elections. Let's just go ahead and re-write the constitution for Hillary. Rules don't matter when you are a Clinton any way.

So she was co-president? Well she definitely lied about that when she was in the White House because she often said she was not. It was a criticism of Clinton that his wife, who was not elected, appointed or subject to senate confirmation, exercised so much power. In a representative democracy having an unelected person serving as president is a bit offensive. Also, and again I know that rules don't apply to Clintons, I guess Bill gets to be co-president too if she is elected. So what if he should not be. Of course, he says that he won't be co-president. She said she wasn't co-president either. Oh those Clintons.

The bottom line is Hillary, by continuing in this race is embarrassing herself. She also putting a lot of party officials in a position of having to tell her, as Bill Richardson and others already have, that they are not backing her. You are going to start seeing a lot of the "superdelegates" in her column switch because she has gone too far with this.

She should be the nominee if she is beating him by more...would you rather have the one who is beating McCain by a slimmer margin with the possibility of losing be the nominee than the one who comes off more formidable than the opponent? I would say that having her as the nominee is honoring outcomes since the Democrats who voted want the person beating McCain more to be the nominee....some who voted for Obama see Hillary is winning against him by more and will want the person the most likely to win to be the nominee.

I consider her a co president since she was involved in foreign policy and policy...she had a huge influence on the way things happened so yes she is the co president. I don't care if she said she was not or whatever...the point is many people thought she was.

If so many superdelegates are switching, why did she just get a couple right now? They are going to commit to whoever they want and she just got some good scores of SDs recently. Continuing this race is not embarrassing her but making sure everyone gets a chance to vote.

Obama should have blown Hillary's socks off more in NC but he did not...that says something. He was winning in some polls a couple of weeks ago by a good 20 or so percent but he got it at 14. She gained ground and cut into the lead. That is how I see it

LOL not a problem. I just think he was being unreasonable by reading into your post something that was not there. I did not see you as bashing but he seemed to border on bashing me but I will leave that up for him to explain.

This is funny. I didn't even bash the op because I didn't call the person names or any such thing. All I did was make an inference that by saying he was coming to Oregon, USA to campaign for Hilary Clinton and implying that Americans were voting for an unqualified candidate that it makes Americans but more specifically Obama supporters stupid. That's deductive reasoning not bashing. But "victims" spin however they choose.

I seem to border on bashing you. I'd love to know how and then maybe I can offer an explanation as to why once you tell me how. Then again I recall that there was some discussion about the meaning of obliterate and another word and you took them to be the same so there's no telling what bashing means to you and there's no doubt that it means something else to me.

Neither one really won Missouri since it went 50/50 and they got the same amount of pledged delegates for that state...and he is doing well with white men and women as well.

I saw some Rasmussen and Survey USA polls with him having at least 20 points ahead in North Carolina

If that is the case, she didn't win Ind. He had more votes at the end of the voting here......so did he win it or not? I'm just trying to go by your logic. See, they tied in Missouri, even though he had more votes. So, by your logic, they tied in IND. because she had slightly more votes, right?

And......I saw NBC News polls which had them winning by the exact amount they won by in each state. I don't put any stock into Survey USA......they apparently were WAY off the mark.

And she said the game changer would be the fact that she would win NC......she said it, and her people said it. Now it's something different.

I also agree with Adam....she should think about calling it a day when she is behind in the popular vote......AND PDs.......and states won.......and he is catching up in SDs.

And......the polls don't mean anything, but the do when they show her winning?

What?

Once again, for everyone in the cheap seats........if she is gievn this nomination after trailing in almost every single category, don't say one word when Obama's supporters stay at home or vote for McCain in November.....

Because she will have brought it on herself.

This is funny. I didn't even bash the op because I didn't call the person names or any such thing. All I did was make an inference that by saying he was coming to Oregon, USA to campaign for Hilary Clinton and implying that Americans were voting for an unqualified candidate that it makes Americans but more specifically Obama supporters stupid. That's deductive reasoning not bashing. But "victims" spin however they choose.

I seem to border on bashing you. I'd love to know how and then maybe I can offer an explanation as to why once you tell me how. Then again I recall that there was some discussion about the meaning of obliterate and another word and you took them to be the same so there's no telling what bashing means to you and there's no doubt that it means something else to me.

I never said you bashed him but that you maybe read something into his post that was just not there. Him going to Oregon to campaign for Hillary means he supports her...He feels people are voting for someone who is not qualified but that is more of criticism on the voters part and not bashing. Again, I never said you bashed him but that you bordered on bashing me (see earlier post)

I do not need to explain to you about bordering on bashing because I now made it clear to you that I do not think you bashed him. The discussion was obliterate and attack and yes I said they are the same...what that has to do with bashing I will not know.