CNN.com to broadcast Obama speech at 10:15AM- Page 5

[violet72]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:08pm

I am a democrat(and a women) and I voted to Obama mainly for one reason...he did not vote for the war....to me when Hilary and McCain say he is "not experience to answer the phone at 3am" I have to ask, what did their experience bring us? A war that has no end in sight...a war that has not made us safer, a war that is putting our economy in the crapper....a war that can't afford to take care of the VETS that come back from it....a war that is sending many of my friends back for a 3rd tour.....yes they say hind sight is 20/20 but if you go back to the months leading up to the Iraq war some brave senators urged the rest of the senate not to vote for the resolution and were called unamerican for it, that is why McCain and Hilary (along with other democrat senators) voted for this war, fear that they would be unpopular and called unamerican.

With the whole issue about what his preacher said....who cares? He wasn't in the audience when these comments were made....if this is what the reverand believes, so be it....you can't control what other people say amd he is free to say whatever he chooses......This country was founded on freedoms....freedom of choice, freedom of religion, and the big one that everyone seems to forget seperation between church and state.....so Religion should have nothing to do with our gorvernment or political system

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:08pm

"Nice to know that your problems with Hillary stem from her husband more than from her. "

This has nothing to do with her marriage. It has to do with her integrity and personal agenda. She can't seperate herself from this because they accepted the donation. I have plenty of problems with her outside of this. I just don't find her to be electable.

"All the polls I see show bammy and Hillary have an equal chance of beating McCain.
People will vote for the man or this woman. "

We need a landslide victory this time. We've done it too close in the past and these things can be taken.


Seriously guys I would have supported her had she gotten the lead in delegates and popular vote. I don't really much care for some of Obama's stance on things or his voting record. He has however won the popular vote in the democratic party and in amazing margins.

The talking point you use "they both need superdelegates to win" is a misnomer. Sure they can all go to Hillary and make her a winner, but that would deny the popular vote which is what the democratic party is supposed to stand for. This approach she is taking is divisive at best and at this point it points to her just attacking Barack.

Barack is the winner and he will get the nomination. That is unless she does something really stupid and "steals" it with super delegates. Otherwise her work from this point on is for McCain.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:10pm

"I am a democrat(and a women) and I voted to Obama mainly for one reason...he did not vote for the war."

And that my friends is how and all we need to win in NOVEMBER!

[tazber]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:11pm

But what makes you think Obama will win in a landslide?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:20pm

mejust - for the record, of Obama has both the lead in popular votes and delegates, then I also agree he should be the nominee.

And, we do not know what Obama would have done if he was sitting in the Senate when votes were cast. His position, when running for a state office in a very liberal district in Illinois, does not necessarily compare to the vote one makes when sitting in the US Senate. No one really knows how he would have voted (though I suspect he would have voted against the resolution authorizing Bush to use force if inspections failed).

Obama did not vote to go to war, nor did he vote not to go to war - he was not in the Senate at the time.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:25pm

It would NOT be denying the popular vote if one factors in Florida and Michigan.

And that's so sad that you care more about your candidate winning than the ACTUAL will of the people. When and if he pulls ahead of her in the popular vote that includes Florida and Michigan AND there is no way she can come back when the remaining votes are counted, THEN and ONLY THEN will you have a point.

LET ALL THE PEOPLE VOTE. THIS IS GOING TO LAST UNTIL JUNE.

And STOP with all the nastiness. Many of us have. We are DONE with this ****.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:26pm

Uh mostly I look at the way he caught up and overtaken a VERY popular Hillary Clinton in such a short amount of time. Delivered red states in amazing numbers, held blue states in tight margins with Clinton. Thousands show up to his "rallies" thousands have registered to vote, thousands have switched parties.

Media darling is always a good thing. He's qualified, intelligent, incredibly motivating and cute. He has years of experience and his main job to defend the constitution should come naturally as he is a constitutional scholar.

I think his stance on the war alone could/should take him to victory. But it is his ability to unite people from all walks of life and bring in many conservatives. I think if he was given and honest start here he would build this "landslide." The problem now is Hillary dividing these people for no good reason.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:28pm

If you count people, and not delegates, Hillary is behind by just about 0.2%. That's hardly a landslide. It is a count that could shift at any one of the next primaries.

Updated On: 3/19/08 at 01:28 PM

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:36pm

" No one really knows how he would have voted (though I suspect he would have voted against the resolution authorizing Bush to use force if inspections failed)."

I do, he would have voted for the war. He has voted to fund it every step of the way. The great thing though is that we can say he didn't when we're running against John McCain.

Obama did not vote to go to war, nor did he vote not to go to war - he was not in the Senate at the time.

"It would NOT be denying the popular vote if one factors in Florida and Michigan. And that's so sad that you care more about your candidate winning than the ACTUAL will of the people."

Oye. I never said this. The problem here is this system screwed those voters. I DO think there should be re-vote and they should count. The problem is that he WILL win in Michigan and he will at least tie with Florida. He has proven success in every other primary. You think I'm this rogue supporter but I'm not, I'm totally against caucusing which is how he won.

I just think that Hillary needs to step down. She can still be on the ticket but her numbers will not add up. The popular vote will not be overturned. It is math, simple math. This non-stop war on Obama from her camp is truly disturbing for our party. It makes fools like McCain look good.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:37pm

Yes, he has done very well, ALSO.

But she wins in rural areas--that's how you take some of these red states. The red state cities will vote Dem regardless. He does hold a strong chance of winning other red states as he did so well there. But the fact is--most of the states he won are going to go for McCain no matter what.

If his momentum was so decisive, why didn't he win the primary in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island? Why is he so far behind in Penn? If the revotes happened, he is behind in those states?

I'm not saying any of this to attack Obama. But, I've never belittled that he has done well and deserves to be in this race. I am, however, forced to defend why Hillary has done well and deserves to be in this race.

It's just BS to say otherwise.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:40pm

"I just think that Hillary needs to step down. She can still be on the ticket but her numbers will not add up. The popular vote will not be overturned. It is math, simple math. This non-stop war on Obama from her camp is truly disturbing for our party. It makes fools like McCain look good. "

Oh you are going to have to agree to disagree with me, too then.

And now that you have made all your points (late to the party I might add) PLEASE stfu so we can all wait patiently as possible for the PROCESS to end and then rally behind whoever is OUR nominee.

[madbrian]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:41pm

"But the fact is--most of the states he won are going to go for McCain no matter what."

I completely disagree with this statement. In my opinion, the Dems have a unique opportunity to 'steal' some traditionally Republican states with Obama as their candidate. His ability to get new voters out, and attract Republican voters and indys, gives him the possibility to win some states where Clinton stands no chance.

[TheHumanTorch]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:45pm

i've not seen a discussion of this on the board, but I was wondering everybody's thoughts on Clinton's exaggerations of her foreign policy experience during her husband's presidency.

I think, regarding "electability" this will become a HUGE problem if and when she faces John McCain in the general election. Does anyone think the GOP will NOT hold her almost humorous exaggerations against her in the general election?

I think this blatant adjusting of the truth would be a huge reason for her to step down from this race, especially if the delegate count will not go her way without the superdelegates...

I think this idea of the Clintons being willing to do "anything to win" is a valid point and is a general concern rather than divisive fanaticism from Obama supporters... what are everybodys thoughts?

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:47pm

"if you count people, and not delegates, Hillary is behind by just about 0.2%. That's hardly a landslide. It is a count that could shift at any one of the next primaries. "

Are you talking about the popular vote? Do you have a link to this? Not sure where you are getting that number.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:48pm

"And now that you have made all your points (late to the party I might add) PLEASE stfu so we can all wait patiently as possible for the PROCESS to end and then rally behind whoever is OUR nominee. "

Meanwhile I get to read/see the Obama bashing on here and in the media. Right. I'm going to Pennsylvania this weekend to rally. Yes we can y'all!

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:52pm

realclearpolitics.com.

I chose the one that includes MI and FL because that is what will likely stands at the end. It puts Clinton behind by 80,642 votes. Now, if you don't include either, Obama is ahead by 2.6% -- a margin that is STILL easy to overcome in these last primaries.

[madbrian]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 1:58pm

"I chose the one that includes MI and FL because that is what will likely stands at the end."

Are you giving her 40% of the Michigan vote, but nothing for him since his name wasn't on the ballot? In what way is that reasonable?

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 2:04pm

"Obama is ahead by 2.6% -- a margin that is STILL easy to overcome in these last primaries."

Yea, I thought you included MI and FL. Obama has not even campaigned in either state. He does not lose supporters he gains them. He will take MI in record numbers and at least tie in Florida. This business that Clinton won either of those states is a huge disservice. I understand the need to make sure their votes are counted, but the problem now is time. Hillary's only campaign strategy is attacks. If she is going to lose (and she will) then why doesn't she play nice?

The popular vote and the delegates will go to Obama. She has to win in Pennsylvania and Florida with at least 75% and it's just not going to happen.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 2:04pm

"And that's so sad that you care more about your candidate winning than the ACTUAL will of the people."

If the will of people were the deciding factor, Al Gore would be our president right now.

The whole system is f*cked.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 2:05pm

then he carries a stunning 25% - maybe - of the white vote against johnny mac, goes down in flames, the country is declared racist as riots and all-out race wars decimate the larger cities. way to unite america, democrats!

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 2:05pm

Like it or not, that's how we count votes. You can't attribute phantom votes to someone who we don't know would've received them. If you remove your name From the ballot, and that ballot ends up counting...you didn't make a smart decision, and that's how popular votes are counted.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 2:07pm

"Like it or not, that's how we count votes. You can't attribute phantom votes to someone who we don't know would've received them. If you remove your name From the ballot, and that ballot ends up counting...you didn't make a smart decision, and that's how popular votes are counted."

Um Barack will win either way.

[madbrian]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 2:09pm

"Like it or not, that's how we count votes. You can't attribute phantom votes to someone who we don't know would've received them. If you remove your name From the ballot, and that ballot ends up counting...you didn't make a smart decision, and that's how popular votes are counted."

Your prior posts have made some valid points, but this statement makes no sense whatsoever. If the Dems decide to seat Florida and Michigan based on votes where everyone agreed the results would not count, they will alienate people in droves.

[DG]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 2:10pm

"the country is declared racist as riots and all-out race wars decimate the larger cities"

I seriously wonder if a version of this would occur simply if Hillary is nominated.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 3/19/08 at 2:11pm

Hillary still wont win the popular vote or the delegates.