U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
A group from my school will be going up to PA the weekend before the primary to campaign for Obama. Time to really roll up the sleeves and hit the pavement.
Irvine511 said:the Clintons would rather have a Republican win, than for the Democrat be not one of them.
U2isthebest said:I've read a few posts here now about some kind of falling out between the Clintons and the Gores supposedly caused by the 2000 election debacle. Could someone give me some background info. on that? I'd never really heard about it until I read something about it here a few weeks ago. Sorry to go semi off-topic.
Irvine511 said:
i'm opposed to another 4-8 years of the Clintons for very different reasons, but i do agree that this would be a very powerful ticket.
joyfulgirl said:
I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."
Vincent Vega said:
In "For Love of Politics - Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years", author Sally Bedell Smith makes some claims how Hillary Clinton worked against Al Gore and how Gore since then feels she was in part reason for him not winning the election.
"As a sitting president, Bill was in a unique position to boost his vice president's candidacy by scheduling White House events to highlight his achievements. But in 1999 those resources were diverted from Gore to Hillary "in a big way," said one member of the Gore team. "The Clintons come first. That was their basic framework."
Further, by hiring Terry McAuliffe for Clinton's senate race and asking donors to give to her, it is claimed that Al Gore did receive less money for his campaign. At dinners, it is said, Hillary appeared instead of Al Gore, promoting her Senate candidacy, but not his Presidential race.
And Bill Clinton should have been mad at Gore for distancing himself during the Lewinsky scandal and is accused of sabotaging Gore's campaign with remarks about Gore's stiffness and a page one interview in the NYT where he not too subtly criticised Gore.
According to the book, Gore is making the Clinton's responsible to at least adding to his defeat in the 2000 election
And the question is if there might have been some calculation that it would be easier for Hillary to run in a later election if it was preceded by a Republican president than by a Democrat.
I'm taking this information from a Spiegel article reviewing the book. Alas, it is only available in German, and the only page I found where quotes from the book can be found is this page:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011116.php
phanan said:She was speaking in the context that, in recent history, whoever has won Ohio has won the general election.
Irvine511 said:a Clinton/Obama ticket would, indeed, crush a McCain ticket
U2isthebest said:That's great Hillary, but there's 49 other states besides Ohio, and a great deal of the ones that have already spoken don't want you.
deep said:
They are saying Ohio is a bell-weather state.
In recent times, no democratic candidate that loss the Ohio primary and went on the get the nomination became president. Lose Ohio = lose to the Republican in November.
check it out, for yourself.
deep said:People who say they want a Democrat win in November
and make emotional arguments for Obama are missing some very important facts.
U2isthebest said:
Can you please point out who among us is making "emotional arguments" for Obama?
U2isthebest said:That may not be the case, but the average voter could easily see it that way.
U2isthebest said:Can you please point out who among us is making "emotional arguments" for Obama?
U2democrat said:A group from my school will be going up to PA the weekend before the primary to campaign for Obama. Time to really roll up the sleeves and hit the pavement.
deep said:
This information really is not directed at the average voter
it is directed at future Democratic Primary voters.
We are in a campaign season.
As for hurting the eventual candidate down the road.
I do recall watching Obama on television awhile back.
He said, "I know Hillary voters will support me in the general election. My voters will not support her."
Of the two statements, which one do you believe is more damaging?
deep said:
They are saying Ohio is a bell-weather state.
In recent times, no democratic candidate that loss the Ohio primary and went on the get the nomination became president. Lose Ohio = lose to the Republican in November.
check it out, for yourself.
deep said:
They are saying Ohio is a bell-weather state.
In recent times, no democratic candidate that loss the Ohio primary and went on the get the nomination became president. Lose Ohio = lose to the Republican in November.
check it out, for yourself.
Irvine511 said:
you are right about the elderly, though. there's enough residual racism amongst 60+ voters to argue against Obama.
U2isthebest said:
Jack Nicholson and my grandparents, FTW.
U2isthebest said:
I'm surprised such a statement wouldn't garner more media attention, though.
joyfulgirl said:
I remembered hearing Obama say, that, too and looked it up. The exact quote according to one source was:
"I am confident I will get her votes if I'm the nominee," Obama stressed. "It's not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/01/629273.aspx
I think he's right but it was a divisive comment.
U2isthebest said:
I agree. It was a divisive comment, and I'm disappointed he said it. Which is worse, though, a divisive comment or a divisive campaign?
U2isthebest said:
I agree. It was a divisive comment, and I'm disappointed he said it. Which is worse, though, a divisive comment or a divisive campaign?