mooky
2008-06-05 15:56:41 UTC
If you think the superdelegates stole the vote - they did no such thing. Clinton started up approximately 200 superdelagetes over Obama in January before the race even really started, is that fair? No, that's politics, and Obama had to come from behind in every category and by every measure, and reality says Clinton was not going to win 85% of the remaining superdelegates on 06/03, so the argument is disengenuous. Give the man his dues. Both candidates fought hard, it's just he came out on top. He out fundraised her which was a big part of it. Her biggest strategic gaff was she put all her chips on super Tuesday and when she didn't come out of it the clear front runner, she had used up all her war chest, and had no backup. Obama was picking up donor steam, and her inability to attract and recruit new donors that were not maxed out was her downfall. Also, Obama won the most voter delegates in primaries and caucuses, regardless if you count Florida/Michigan half or whole, whether you give Clinton those supposed Michigan delegates her campaign says she was deserved, which is again disengenuous. She knew Edwards and Obama were removing their names from the Michigan ballot, so her campaign made a strategic decision not to, figuring the logical conclusion would be that those that still came to vote, and some would since there were other ballot initiatives on the ballot, would vote for the only viable candidate ON the ballot - her. All sides (Clinton, Edwards, and Obama) had strategic reasons for their stances in Michigan, so to say that anyone really has a clear factual knowledge of what the results would have been if all things hd been equal is not telling the whole truth.
He won, and I'm sorry your candidate lost, but seriously, grow up, and look at the bigger picture. McCain is weak on economy self admittedly, strong on supression of freedom (he's flip-flopped on and now supports touture bills, despite his personal past) and weak on foreign policy, makiing major policy gaffs daily, unable to keep Hamas straight from Al Queda straight from Shite militia's. McCain is pro-life; good bye a woman's right to choose; there is a good possibility two liberal memberes of the supreme court might retire in the next four years. How can you vote for a man that even the right wing neocons have been only tacitly embraced. McCain doesn't stand for anything, he flip flops depending on his audience. He is a decorated veteran, worthy of our thanks and praise, but that does not make him qualified for or the ideal man to be president. If a war hero is your criteria for executive leadership, I remind you this country elected an actor named Ronald Reagan as president as well; and was 18 million supporters were willing to give a former first lady with only four more years Senate experience (disregarding Obama's Illinois State Senate experience) the opportunity. I beg of you, what is the criteria that makes a candidate worthy of holding the highest office?
This is Obama's record, which is a good progressive record. http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm
One of my favorite Obama initiative is has co-sponsored the now passed and in force "Governement Accountability Act", which is a big win for transparent government.
Read the facts, and get your emotions in check. Obama himself has done nothing wrong to Clinton, it's time to realize being spiteful punishes all of America.