Clinton to Richardson: 'Barack Obama Can't Win'

[Wags]

ABC News article - Candidate Clinton to Richardson: 'Barack Obama Can't Win'

Political Radar: Candidate Clinton to Richardson: 'Barack Obama Can't Win'

Excerpts from the article

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former President Bill Clinton are making very direct arguments to Democratic superdelegates, starkly insisting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., cannot win a general election against presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor's endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."

End of excerpts.

It appears that Hillary will be in the race until the end. Unfortunately her approval ratings are far more negative then Obama's and thus I believe that the Republican base would really unite in the national election if she was to be the Democratic nom·i·nee.

GOD BLESS US ALL

[retire@40]

Enough with this political copy and paste junk.

Go home.

[Notmuchlonger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by retire@40 Enough with this political copy and paste junk. Go home.

Wags is like the guy with the sign and bell.


"BRING OUT YER DEAD, BRING OUT YER DEAD"

YouTube - Monty Python-Bring out your dead!

[rachael24]

LOL...Im sick of the politics already too.

[Rivrider]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rachael24 LOL...Im sick of the politics already too.

I got sick of this election cycle last year. And we still have over seven months to go.

[EarlyRetiree1978]

Good gosh, Wags never stops. He seems to be riding on Obamas ****. We should put a temporary ban on politic threads for a while. Its getting old and annoying.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlyRetiree1978 Good gosh, Wags never stops. He seems to be riding on Obamas ****. We should put a temporary ban on politic threads for a while. Its getting old and annoying.

I disagree. Wags is polite, he knows Youtube like the back of his hand, and anyway, what thread this morning is more relevant to a US dweller's life than this one?

Nothing anyone on this board says is likely to make as much dufference to any of our lives as who gets sworn in next January.

Ha

[Wags]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlyRetiree1978 Good gosh, Wags never stops. He seems to be riding on Obamas ****. We should put a temporary ban on politic threads for a while. Its getting old and annoying.

Wrong this is the first thread which I have started in which Obama was mentioned.

I did not hear very much dissent from the forum when Obama was being thrown under the bus for his association with Pastor Wright and because of his speech on race.

Folks if you are tired of politics and you are advocating a temporary ban on politic threads then there is one simple solution do not read them.

The only thing that is getting old and annoying is the need by some to silence the viewpoints and opinions of others.

GOD BLESS US ALL

[Rivrider]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags Folks if you are tired of politics and you are advocating a temporary ban on politic threads then there is one simple solution do not read them. GOD BLESS US ALL

My earlier comment wasn't aimed at you or threads here. Not trying to ban anything. Just a general comment about the length of this campaign, which will two years long by election day. I will vote(I hope wisely), just wish it didn't drag on so long.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags I did not hear very much

Try listening.......

[retire@40]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags ...Folks if you are tired of politics and you are advocating a temporary ban on politic threads then there is one simple solution do not read them. The only thing that is getting old and annoying is the need by some to silence the viewpoints and opinions of others...

I don't read your spam since I have you on my ignore list. I clicked on this thread just to give you my opinion to cut the crap.

If there was a way to make you invisible on this forum it would solve the problem. I can ignore your posts, but unfortunately this forum software will not let me avoid seeing your thread headers, so when I click on "New Posts" I have to read through your spam every single time and I'm sick of seeing the thread headers for the political articles you copy and paste here.

Stop spamming this forum!

[Vincenzo Corleone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by retire@40 I don't read your spam since I have you on my ignore list. I clicked on this thread just to give you my opinion to cut the crap. If there was a way to make you invisible on this forum it would solve the problem. I can ignore your posts, but unfortunately this forum software will not let me avoid seeing your thread headers, so when I click on "New Posts" I have to read through your spam every single time and I'm sick of seeing the thread headers for the political articles you copy and paste here. Stop spamming this forum!

Good grief. I can't get over the intolerance of some of the people on this board. No one is putting a gun to your head to read the messages.

[retire@40]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincenzo Corleone Good grief. I can't get over the intolerance of some of the people on this board. No one is putting a gun to your head to read the messages.

You are just pretending not to understand what I wrote, right?

[Vincenzo Corleone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlyRetiree1978 Good gosh, Wags never stops. He seems to be riding on Obamas ****. We should put a temporary ban on politic threads for a while. Its getting old and annoying.

And so you read the message because?........

[FinanceDude]

There's really only one question I will ask with all seriousness:

Is the USA MORE likely to vote in a woman first or an African American man first to the Presidency?

That's not a race or gender question, it's a societal one.........

[Texarkandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude There's really only one question I will ask with all seriousness: Is the USA MORE likely to vote in a woman first or an African American man first to the Presidency? That's not a race or gender question, it's a societal one.........

My answer to the question: I'm not very excited about the woman (W), the black guy (BG), or the old white guy (OWG) - which is what it seems this election is being boiled down to - race, gender, & age

I'm fairly confident the OWG will probably try to not let the tax cuts expire, whereas the W & the BG are pretty much a guaranteed tax hike.

And then there's the war ...,

I'm not confident that the W or the BG will find it practicable to extract us from the mess in Iraq very much sooner than OWG - despite their campaign "promises" (maybe a little sooner, but not as soon as they are tyring to make people think they can)

I don't entirely agree with any of the 3 candidates current & former positions on "the war" -
I was OK with going to war over there in the first place but only to accomplish two things (with a definitive congressional declaration of war)
1. knock off their dictator &
2. satisfy legitimate conerns about chemical weapons & suspected nuclear program,

but - I ALSO think we should have left as soon we did those two things & left them (the Iraqi's_ to their own devices to clean up the mess (with a promise to come back with our shock & awe & break all their toys again if they get out of hand with that stuff again.)

So - do I waste my protest-vote on Ron Paul? Vote Libertarian? Stay Home? Flip a Coin?

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texarkandy I'm fairly confident the OWG will probably try to not let the tax cuts expire, whereas the W & the BG are pretty much a guaranteed tax hike.

I seems to me that an even stronger reason to favor OWG (McCain) is that he has been one of the handful of Congress critters who has been consistently a spending hawk. As you know ultimately we pay for wasteful government spending. Reasonable people can disagree which is worse, prescription drugs for seniors, massive subsidies for farmers and Ag companies, overpriced tankers from Boeing, bailout for JP Morgan; greedy lenders, or deceitful and deadbeat folks taking out crazy mortgages. But what is clear is that the countries credit card bills will have to be paid off, and the old OWG has history of being opposed/skeptical of all these things. BG and W can't wait to start up new programs.

Quote:

And then there's the war ..., I'm not confident that the W or the BG will find it practicable to extract us from the mess in Iraq very much sooner than OWG - despite their campaign "promises" (maybe a little sooner, but not as soon as they are tyring to make people think they can) I don't entirely agree with any of the 3 candidates current & former positions on "the war" - I was OK with going to war over there in the first place but only to accomplish two things (with a definitive congressional declaration of war) 1. knock off their dictator & 2. satisfy legitimate conerns about chemical weapons & suspected nuclear program, but - I ALSO think we should have left as soon we did those two things & left them (the Iraqi's_ to their own devices to clean up the mess (with a promise to come back with our shock & awe & break all their toys again if they get out of hand with that stuff again.) So - do I waste my protest-vote on Ron Paul? Vote Libertarian? Stay Home? Flip a Coin?

I agree with you that neither W or BG our going to get us out of Iraq particularly fast. Although, I suspect that BG will withdraw troops by the end of his turn regardless of the situation. Hillary will probably carefully weigh the security interests vs political points, and do what makes the Clinton's look the best.

OWG will do everything he can to win the war. I understand your view, of declaring victory and leaving. Perhaps it is possible that it might have worked out ok. although I'd say Lebanon, Afghanistan (after 79), Somalia, Haiti, argue that chaos would have occurred. Realistically I don't think we could have done so anymore than leaving Germany, Japan, South Korea, Bosnia, Sinai, the Philippines etc. after 5 years. Not all of our peace keeping/civil war interventions/nation building efforts worked out well. However, the consequences of our failures are bad for the US, and devastating to people we left behind.

I think OWG is smart and wise enough to figure out a way of turning Iraq into an imperfect democracy, instead of breeding ground for America haters. More importantly I am terrified of the consquences of failure.
I remember watching the humilation and human tragedy when South Vietnam fell and helicopters abandoned millions to a horrendous fate. The suffering that the OWG went through in the Hanoi Hilton were pretty much par for the course for million of South Vietnamese. I went to Cambodia 30 years later and saw the 20' high x 50' in diamater cylinder filled with human skulls of men, woman, and infants, victims of Pol Pot's communist regime. We probably could have stop the Killing Fields, but having being defeated in Vietnam there was no way in hell the American people were going back. If we leave Iraq we will never go back.

It is worth a lot to me to see that deaths of so many Americans and Iraqis did not die in vain.. That's why I am going to be enthusiastically voting for the OWG. I hope in Nov. you agree.

[Texarkandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude There's really only one question I will ask with all seriousness: Is the USA MORE likely to vote in a woman first or an African American man first to the Presidency? That's not a race or gender question, it's a societal one.........

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texarkandy My answer to the question: I'm not very excited about the woman (W), the black guy (BG), or the old white guy (OWG) - which is what it seems this election is being boiled down to - race, gender, & age I'm fairly confident the OWG will probably try to not let the tax cuts expire, whereas the W & the BG are pretty much a guaranteed tax hike. And then there's the war ..., I'm not confident that the W or the BG will find it practicable to extract us from the mess in Iraq very much sooner than OWG - despite their campaign "promises" (maybe a little sooner, but not as soon as they are tyring to make people think they can) I don't entirely agree with any of the 3 candidates current & former positions on "the war" - I was OK with going to war over there in the first place but only to accomplish two things (with a definitive congressional declaration of war) 1. knock off their dictator & 2. satisfy legitimate conerns about chemical weapons & suspected nuclear program, but - I ALSO think we should have left as soon we did those two things & left them (the Iraqi's_ to their own devices to clean up the mess (with a promise to come back with our shock & awe & break all their toys again if they get out of hand with that stuff again.) So - do I waste my protest-vote on Ron Paul? Vote Libertarian? Stay Home? Flip a Coin?

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp I seems to me that an even stronger reason to favor OWG (McCain) is that he has been one of the handful of Congress critters who has been consistently a spending hawk. As you know ultimately we pay for wasteful government spending. Reasonable people can disagree which is worse, prescription drugs for seniors, massive subsidies for farmers and Ag companies, overpriced tankers from Boeing, bailout for JP Morgan; greedy lenders, or deceitful and deadbeat folks taking out crazy mortgages. But what is clear is that the countries credit card bills will have to be paid off, and the old OWG has history of being opposed/skeptical of all these things. BG and W can't wait to start up new programs. I agree with you that neither W or BG our going to get us out of Iraq particularly fast. Although, I suspect that BG will withdraw troops by the end of his turn regardless of the situation. Hillary will probably carefully weigh the security interests vs political points, and do what makes the Clinton's look the best. OWG will do everything he can to win the war. I understand your view, of declaring victory and leaving. Perhaps it is possible that it might have worked out ok. although I'd say Lebanon, Afghanistan (after 79), Somalia, Haiti, argue that chaos would have occurred. Realistically I don't think we could have done so anymore than leaving Germany, Japan, South Korea, Bosnia, Sinai, the Philippines etc. after 5 years. Not all of our peace keeping/civil war interventions/nation building efforts worked out well. However, the consequences of our failures are bad for the US, and devastating to people we left behind. I think OWG is smart and wise enough to figure out a way of turning Iraq into an imperfect democracy, instead of breeding ground for America haters. More importantly I am terrified of the consquences of failure. I remember watching the humilation and human tragedy when South Vietnam fell and helicopters abandoned millions to a horrendous fate. The suffering that the OWG went through in the Hanoi Hilton were pretty much par for the course for million of South Vietnamese. I went to Cambodia 30 years later and saw the 20' high x 50' in diamater cylinder filled with human skulls of men, woman, and infants, victims of Pol Pot's communist regime. We probably could have stop the Killing Fields, but having being defeated in Vietnam there was no way in hell the American people were going back. If we leave Iraq we will never go back. It is worth a lot to me to see that deaths of so many Americans and Iraqis did not die in vain.. That's why I am going to be enthusiastically voting for the OWG. I hope in Nov. you agree.

Well stated clifp - & I'm thinking that's the case the OWG is going to have to make to the independents to win the election - if he doesn't I guess it'll be the W or the BG

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp I seems to me that an even stronger reason to favor OWG (McCain) is that he has been one of the handful of Congress critters who has been consistently a spending hawk. As you know ultimately we pay for wasteful government spending. Reasonable people can disagree which is worse, prescription drugs for seniors, massive subsidies for farmers and Ag companies, overpriced tankers from Boeing, bailout for JP Morgan; greedy lenders, or deceitful and deadbeat folks taking out crazy mortgages. But what is clear is that the countries credit card bills will have to be paid off, and the old OWG has history of being opposed/skeptical of all these things. BG and W can't wait to start up new programs.

Let's face it, OWG is a "safe" vote......something Americans voters are known for choosing. W is a safer vote than BG, but they both have more risk than OWG.

In 2004, it was pretty easy to attack GWB on his military experience..........I doubt W or BG are going down that road with OWG.........

Quote:

I agree with you that neither W or BG our going to get us out of Iraq particularly fast. Although, I suspect that BG will withdraw troops by the end of his turn regardless of the situation. Hillary will probably carefully weigh the security interests vs political points, and do what makes the Clinton's look the best.

Carrying the mantra of a quick withdrawal from Iraq is a political tool to get elected, nothing more. If Congress was truly convinced things had to change, they would pull funding for it. And since the Dems control Congress and that's not happened, it's just rhetoric...........

Quote:

OWG will do everything he can to win the war. I understand your view, of declaring victory and leaving. Perhaps it is possible that it might have worked out ok. although I'd say Lebanon, Afghanistan (after 79), Somalia, Haiti, argue that chaos would have occurred. Realistically I don't think we could have done so anymore than leaving Germany, Japan, South Korea, Bosnia, Sinai, the Philippines etc. after 5 years. Not all of our peace keeping/civil war interventions/nation building efforts worked out well. However, the consequences of our failures are bad for the US, and devastating to people we left behind. I think OWG is smart and wise enough to figure out a way of turning Iraq into an imperfect democracy, instead of breeding ground for America haters. More importantly I am terrified of the consquences of failure. I remember watching the humilation and human tragedy when South Vietnam fell and helicopters abandoned millions to a horrendous fate. The suffering that the OWG went through in the Hanoi Hilton were pretty much par for the course for million of South Vietnamese. I went to Cambodia 30 years later and saw the 20' high x 50' in diamater cylinder filled with human skulls of men, woman, and infants, victims of Pol Pot's communist regime. We probably could have stop the Killing Fields, but having being defeated in Vietnam there was no way in hell the American people were going back. If we leave Iraq we will never go back. It is worth a lot to me to see that deaths of so many Americans and Iraqis did not die in vain.. That's why I am going to be enthusiastically voting for the OWG. I hope in Nov. you agree.

This is a tough crowd, but OWG is a pretty safe vote, he is a moderate who can work with both parties.........

[Wags]

ABC News - The Note: Storm Before the Calm -Clinton Supporters Send Tough Messages, As Obama Picks Up Superdelegate Support

ABC News: Clinton Backers Increasingly Nervous

Excerpt from the article

For the lay of the land, ask former President Jimmy Carter, or Sen. Bob Casey, or Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver, or Gov. Jon Corzine, or Rep. John Murtha -- all of whom have, in their own way, delivered a different blow to Clinton's chances in recent days. "Superdelegates are jumping to Barack Obama's camp or signaling that's where they are headed, including such prominent figures as former President Jimmy Carter," Peter Nicholas writes in the Los Angeles Times. "Some superdelegates who back Clinton have begun laying out scenarios under which they would abandon her for Obama."

End of excerpt.

It appears that Ms. Clinton is losing support and she will have to win all the remaining primaries by huge margins in order to secure the Democratic nomination.

Bill must not be taking the news very well.

GOD BLESS US ALL