# Fork Hillary 3: The Final Forking **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2008, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726 "2008-03-18T00:01:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/161 "2008-03-23T18:51:51Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] In Florida, it was simply a power move that deliberately stomped on the Democrats. [/QUOTE] The Florida House [voted 115-1](http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=35049) for the bill. 34.7% of the yea votes were Democratic. It then went through the Florida Senate 37-2, then the House again for 118-0. Explain how this constitutes a power move by the Republicans? Were 40 of the 42 House Democrats bullied into voting for it? I’d love to see more evidence of Republican underhandedness, mind. But I’ve yet to see a plausible explanation for how it was all their fault when the Democrats happily participated in shooting themselves in the foot. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/162 "2008-03-23T20:58:22Z")
[UFCW Local 1776 Endorses Obama](http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/caitlinharvey/gGBn53) > [@](#): > > Plymouth Meeting, PA – The 23,000-member United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 has endorsed U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for President in the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary election. > > Wendell W. Young, IV, President of Local 1776, said the endorsement by the union’s Executive Board was “overwhelming.” > > Young said that while Local 1776 has “the highest respect” for Senator Hillary Clinton, “our Executive Board is convinced that Senator Obama is the best candidate to unite our country and move it forward for good jobs, affordable health care, retirement security, worker rights and worker safety.” > > . . . > > FCW Local 1776 represents 23,000 members throughout **southeast, northeast and central Pennsylvania** , northeast Maryland and southern New York who work in supermarkets, drug stores, food processing plants, manufacturing facilities, nursing homes, professional offices and Pennsylvania’s Wine and Spirits Shops. This could be HUGE for him in Pennsylvania. GObama! ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/163 "2008-03-23T21:26:22Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] **Stratocaster** , I appreciate your analysis, but I see daylight between your earlier position and your current one, as stated. I don’t think that was intentional on your part, so let me explain what I mean, and maybe you can clarify. I’m good with the superdelegates’ “chang[ing] the tide in an election with a razor-thin margin when their judgment tells them they should.” If the margin _is_ razor-thin, then there isn’t much of a tide to change, it isn’t clear _what_ the popular will is, and ultimately someone’s going to have to simply call the nomination one way or the other. But that’s different - to me, at least, from “That’s why the Dems have superdelegates–to overturn a popular sentiment they they, in their judgment, believe is leading to the wrong outcome.” If there’s a clear popular sentiment, then we aren’t talking about tipping the coin that somehow has landed on its edge. [/quote] I agree. And I see what you inferred, which was reasonable but not what I intended. Let me put it another way: Any margin narrow enough for the superdelegates to change is obviously one that the rules permit. But just because they can doesn’t mean they should. “Razor-thin” was perhaps an unfortunate wording on my part. In any election, if there is a reasonable argument to be made that the most electable candidate is not the one with the most delegates, or even the popular vote, then the delegates are there specifically to correct such a circumstance. Apologies if the scenario I described as a plausible one for the supers to act came across as the threshold. I’m not sure what that threshold is, though I would tend to agree with you that the larger the margin, the less plausible is the argument that the wrong guy has the lead. “Popular sentiment” as I meant it, as _I_ would exercise my judgment as a super, would likely be a reasonably slight lead. > [@](#): > > 1. _Overturning a popular sentiment they the SDs believe is leading to the wrong outcome._ > > I think I’d be OK with this ONLY if it was clear that a good chunk of the primary electorate had changed their minds since voting for the leader, and not just for a moment, but for enough time to make sure they weren’t likely to change their minds right back in a few days. > > Let’s say, for instance, that the Wright mess doesn’t blow over, and that for a several weeks running, Hillary runs 5-8 points ahead of Obama in the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls, and other polls taken along the way show similar results. At that point, I’d say it was the superdelegates’ place to decide whether to (a) swing the nomination to Hillary, or (b) decide that the sniper-fire lady’s also too problematic, and start brokering a deal for Gore or Edwards. Yep, this is the type of scenario I was envisioning, something where the tide had turned in voter’s sentiment, post vote. Call it buyer’s remorse, as some in the press did after Texas / Ohio. But if it were pronounced, and I were a superdelegate, I could well decide that Obama’s lead was not sacred. And though I gave the impression that 100 delegates and a certain lead in the popular vote was a clearer boundary than I should have, what I actually meant was the greater such a change in public sentiment (as evidenced by the polls), the greater could be the lead I would vote against, in my judgment. Again, an extremely large lead would require something like a scandal, in all likelihood, to sway me to vote against the leader. But I still could with a clear conscience. As a superdelegate, that’s what I’m there for. That’s what I guard against. > [@](#): > > 1. _What does ‘razor-thin’ mean?_ Hopefully I clarified. A better choice of words would have been “narrow enough” where “enough” is a function of a bunch of other factors–current polls, states won, etc. Does that make it clearer? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/164 "2008-03-23T21:40:47Z")
[QUOTE=DSeid] A little bit of me-too with **RTF** but **Stratocaster** you said it yourself Popular vote? Very few superdelegates will count MI as is, since he wasn’t even on the ballot. Recent polling puts it about even there and they’s probably count that as a split. Counting Florida she is currently [behind by](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html) over half a million votes, over 400K even not counting caucus states, and over 800K counting all the states that count by the rules. The possibility of bringing to a “virtual tie” here is a remote possibility if you allow that the supers will choose to count Florida and not the caucus states and she blows him away from there. But possible. [/quote] Agree with your assessment. I’d only add that if MI and FL seemed like Hillary states (and with all the other moving parts considered that I mentioned to RTFirefly), however narrow the margin, this gives Hillary two more large states with lots of EC votes (“gives” in the sense that a super could assess them as such). Of all the things f’d up about the Dem’s primary processes, the most ridiculous may well be the proportionate assignment of delegates. This seems to be so foolishly “fair” to the loser that it ignores how the actual general election will be conducted. A superdelegate can and should weigh this disconnect. Of course, this brings into play whether a given state is safely the Dem’s under any circumstance. But, again, my point is just that the evaluation the superdelegates need to make is–and should be–a bit more nuanced than seeing who has the most delegates or popular vote. > [@](#): > > Getting the pledged delegate count to within a hundred? Winning PA big, a few others moderately and keeping her loss in NC narrow might get her up by as many as 30 delegates from here. Say she does twice that good by some unimaginable miracle. She still hasn’t come within that 100 cut off that you, rightly I believe, use as an outer limit for the supers to think about going against. This one is beyond a remote possibility without both real votes in both Florida and Michigan and her winning both of those by blow-outs. Since those have both been eliminated that is now removed as even a remote possibility. 100 is a nice round number, and probably a reasonable boundary as far as it goes. As I mentioned, though, I used that as an example (and didn’t offer it very clearly) when what I should have said is that there are plausible arguments for the superdelegates to cast a vote for Hillary, despite a lead for Obama in delegates and popular vote. As I said to RTF, the greater Obama’s lead, the less likely such an argument would hold water, save for an emerging scandal or some such incident. > [@](#): > > Obama’s polls tanking? The supers have seen that this hardest hit yet against Obama was weatherable. He bottomed out quickly and is apparently already making up for lost ground. Zero reason to believe that he will totally tank in the national polls. Bleed some maybe. Tank, no. > > You’d need all three of those to get supers to consider going against the pledged count and then you’d need to get more than two thirds of them convinced of it, another improbablilty given that some leadership (as represented by Pelosi but certainly not her alone) believe that the pledged count should rule. And others who would be horrified at how badly doing that would effect various Congressional districts even if they somehow believed it would help win the Presidency. > > There is no real chance of this occuring. Barring say video evidence of Obama giving a Wright sermon while in bed with a dead boy and a live girl. I’m not as sure as you, though time may prove you right (as preliminary polls may well too). The Wright issue could end up carrying more weight, depending upon how Clinton plays it, than we currently perceive. But maybe not. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/165 "2008-03-23T22:06:44Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Tell me, are candidates, certain nominees at that by a frequent assertion here, who can’t even find a way to influence a state organization of their own party ready to be President of the United States? :dubious: [/QUOTE] Well, that’d rule out Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/166 "2008-03-23T22:08:03Z")
[QUOTE=DSeid] [Obama and the DNC could alternatively reward Florida and Michigan for ignoring the DNC’s authority [/quote] Be careful with terms here. By “Florida and Michigan” do you mean the state committees or the voters? If the latter, do you mean “rewarding” as a synonym for “treating equally with the other states”? > [@](#): > > That is not leadership. The long term good of the party would be served poorly by giving in to such bratty behavior That approach to the argument requires clarity of terms even more. \*Who \* exactly is being “bratty” here (\*not \* just “Michigan and Florida”)? And do you think of engaging in counterbrattiness as leadership? > [@](#): > > if the party needed to risk losing a general election in the process. (Which I do not believe it does.) We’re looking at only a few percent difference in the head-to-head polls with either candidate. After the last election, where the same opinion was just as widely held, I think a little more caution is called for. Other people don’t necessarily vote the way we think they should, or consider the same information or follow the same thought processes in making their decisions. It’s too soon to have forgotten that. > [@](#): > > No candidate controls state actors all that well in a short term. Their actions will have implications for the long term however. Do you send a message that any state organization can do whatever it wants no matter what rules they had agreed to ahead of time or do you support the authority of the national organization? Which action is more appropriate for a President to take? Excluded middle. Many other alternatives do exist, including tossing the whole fuckup and doing it over. As you know. So why is that not an option - if it’s because of the risk your guy would lose, then it’s Florida 2000 all over again, except with Obama playing Bush. > [@](#): > > Those ends are all served by recognizing that the voters have spoken Except the ones in Florida and Michigan. You don’t want their voices to count. And that gets back to the topic of clarifying just what principles should be followed - unifying leadership in the cause of advancing our democracy and our national image by following the voice of the voters, or just your guy winning. What’s all this about Obama \*not \* being a “traditional politician”, then? > [@](#): > > there is no realistic way for Hillary to win That ignores the fact that Obama needs the supers’ votes _too_. It ignores their role and its purpose, which **Stratocaster** has just explained well. In short, that assertion is unsupported. **merkwur** , perhaps _you’d_ like to take a shot at answering the question about what a unifying leader would do here. You do have some thoughts beyond what you’ve provided us here, I trust. **tom** , don’t they call themselves “Mishugginahs”? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/167 "2008-03-23T22:11:05Z")
[QUOTE=kidchameleon] Well, that’d rule out Clinton. [/QUOTE] Depends on what you think has been going on behind the scenes. She’s proposed do-overs, she’s even proposed sharing the ticket, but we know of nothing Obama has done but stall and brush off. Maybe that shows his influence with them really is stronger? ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/168 "2008-03-23T22:20:25Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Depends on what you think has been going on behind the scenes. She’s proposed do-overs, she’s even proposed sharing the ticket, but we know of nothing Obama has done but stall and brush off. [/quote] Both of these have already been covered. Do-overs cost money. She was offering the vice-presidency despite being in second place which she later rescinded because Obama hadn’t passed the commander in chief test. **Again, what “leadership” could Obama show that would resolve the issues surrounding a possible re-vote, particularly cost.** ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/169 "2008-03-23T22:36:42Z")
Yes, it will cost money. What doesn’t? Still pocket change for parties _that actually want to do it_. IOW, another phony obstacle that a \*leader \* would look to overcome, and could do so easily. So what exactly has Obama \*done \* to try to \*resolve \* the problem, to repeat the question yet again since it appears to be necessary? Got anything \*positive \* you can point to yet, sport? Or, for that matter, ya got any other alternatives of your own to present, besides stall-and-rationalize (and denigrate), that is? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/170 "2008-03-23T22:37:38Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] **tom** , don’t they call themselves “Mishugginahs”? 😃 [/QUOTE] Only in Oak Park, Southfield, Birmingham, and West Bloomfield. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/171 "2008-03-23T22:43:31Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Yes, it will cost money. What doesn’t? Still pocket change for parties _that actually want to do it_. IOW, another phony obstacle that a \*leader \* would look to overcome, and could do so easily. [/quote] So where does the money to overcome this phony obstacle come from? Leadership? > [@](#): > > So what exactly has Obama \*done \* to try to \*resolve \* the problem, to repeat the question yet again since it appears to be necessary? Got anything \*positive \* you can point to yet, sport? Hard to believe but I’m actually not adressing Obama here. I’m simply talking to you about how the inability to hold a revote specifically hurts Obama’s leadership. You seem to be of the mind that if Obama threw his weight behind a new primary, it would just happen. Not to mention I said a ways back that I was disappointed that Obama didn’t encourage a re-vote. Unlike you, I just think it wouldn’t have done much good in Michigan. > [@](#): > > Or, for that matter, ya got any other alternatives of your own to present, besides stall-and-rationalize (and denigrate), that is? I’ve done none of those things. I’ve asked you a question and you’ve replied that leadership would fix it without actually answering how that would work. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/172 "2008-03-23T22:56:18Z")
**Elvis** the same arguments repeated over and over again become tiresome. Face the facts, Florida and Michigan both had elected leadership that chose to run primaries in a way that they knew would not count yet they did it anyway thereby disenfranchising their voters. They declined the offer to come up with alternatives. And they have expressed a solid disinterest in running real primaries or caucuses now. There are two paths from here. The primary process can continue forward until enough supers decide to put their support one way or the other to put one or the other over the top be that before the convention or during it. Or one or the candidates concedes and the other allows the Florida and Michigan delegations to be seated as is. Obviously Obama is not going to concede with his lead. And he has a way to go to collect enough supers outright. It could take a while and the prospects for a party victory both in the presidential spot and in various congressional districts could get hurt in the slow and bloody process. But a Hilliary victory in the former case would require a circumstance in which the supers were convinced by a two to one margin that going against a very solid pledged delegate lead, and a very probable popular vote lead no matter how you slice it, was in the best interest of the party - not only for winning the presidency, but for winning the most congressional seats and for future election cycles. To call that a hard sell is an understatement. To call that impossible is closer. What I suspect will happen is that supers will start to move increasingly to Obama’s camp and that the pressure for Hillary to concede with some appearance of grace will build. At some point some combination of Reid, Pelosi, Gore, Edwards, Dean, and Carter will visit her and make it clear that she either concedes with some grace or they all come out against her and paint her as the spoiler that she threatens to be. Will some go public before then? Maybe maybe not. We will see. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/173 "2008-03-23T23:22:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **ElvisL1ves** > > So what exactly has Obama \*done \* to try to \*resolve \* the problem. . ? Why, exactly, is it incumbent upon Obama to _do_ something to resolve a problem he a) didn’t create and b) has no control over? If Obama had won those two states, would you be this frothing about demanding that Hillary _do something_ to resolve the problem the states and their legislatures created, with no fault of her own? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/174 "2008-03-23T23:24:51Z")
You know, **Elvis** , I have to admit to a grudging admiration for your continuing to fight what you obviously view as the good fight here, but honestly, things are to the point now where Hillary has no realistic chance of gaining the nomination barring a superdelegate mutiny against the will of the voters, an occurrence that seems less likely with each passing day. Wouldn’t it better - both for your blood pressure and in a practical sense - to give up the fight, good or not, and begin to focus your attention and passion on the upcoming election within the context of Obama as the Democratic nominee? ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/175 "2008-03-23T23:48:53Z")
A fascinating endorsement: > [@Doug Kmiec](#): > > Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights. > > . . . > > This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents. The endorsement will likely supply no strategic advantage equivalent to that represented by the very helpful accolades the Senator has received from many of high stature and accomplishment, including most recently, from Governor Bill Richardson. Nevertheless, it is important to be said publicly in a public forum in order that it be understood. It is not arrived at without careful thought and some difficulty. > > As a Republican, I strongly wish to preserve traditional marriage not as a suspicion or denigration of my homosexual friends, but as recognition of the significance of the procreative family as a building block of society. As a Republican, and as a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement. As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law, and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the Court within its limited judicial role. As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below. As a Republican, and the constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square. > > In various ways, Senator Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them. > > No doubt some of my friends will see this as a matter of party or intellectual treachery. I regret that and I respect their disagreement. But they will readily agree that as Republicans, we are first Americans. As Americans, we must voice our concerns for the well-being of our nation without partisanship when decisions that have been made endanger the body politic. Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen. In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment. Today, I do no more than raise the defense of that important office anew, but as private citizen. > > -[-more–](http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/endorsing-obama.aspx) _[About Doug Kmiec](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Kmiec)_ ``` * Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, Professor Kmiec was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame. ``` Bravo, and thank you Professor Kmiec. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2008, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/176 "2008-03-24T01:02:21Z")
[QUOTE=Starving Artist] a superdelegate mutiny against the will of the voters, an occurrence that seems less likely with each passing day. [/quote] Do you believe that will still be true after the next few, post-Wright primaries? Obama had given up on Pennsylvania even before that. You’re still assuming your conclusion, ya know. > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t it better - both for your blood pressure and in a practical sense - to give up the fight, good or not, and begin to focus your attention and passion on the upcoming election within the context of Obama as the Democratic nominee? Thanks for the condescension. Now then, wouldn’t it be better for \*you \* to focus \*your \* attention on making sure the Democratic nominee is someone America can support with pride? :dubious: > [@Shayna](#): > > Why, exactly, is it incumbent upon Obama to do something to resolve a problem he a) didn’t create and b) has no control over? Because that’s the kind of thing leaders _do_. That’s most especially what people who wish to establish their credentials as leaders who can unite people _do_. You’ve made the point, many times, quite emphatically, that that’s who he is - well, this is a great chance for him to demonstrate it to the still-unconvinced, isn’t it? This is identically a great chance for him to \*disprove \* that assessment, too. _That’s_ what makes it “incumbent” upon him. **DSeid** , you continue to see the same arguments being made to you because you’re still refusing to address them - except, that is, under the \*assumption \* of an Obama victory. Can we save time and just take it as read that simply winning, just like “traditional politicians”, is indeed your highest goal? ---
**Author:** ![vison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/e47774/32.png) [@vison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vison)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2008, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/177 "2008-03-24T01:10:25Z")
Elvis1ves, if this question has been asked of you previously, I apologize, but I want to know: if the situation was exactly reversed and it appeared that Ms. Clinton was a lead pipe cinch to win, would you be expecting the same from her? ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2008, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/178 "2008-03-24T01:18:49Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Because that’s the kind of thing leaders _do_. That’s most especially what people who wish to establish their credentials as leaders who can unite people _do_. You’ve made the point, many times, quite emphatically, that that’s who he is - well, this is a great chance for him to demonstrate it to the still-unconvinced, isn’t it? This is identically a great chance for him to \*disprove \* that assessment, too. _That’s_ what makes it “incumbent” upon him. [/QUOTE] And what exactly would this accomplish? You’ve still not answered this question. You insist that Obama is holding up, stalling, preventing the re-vote. How would his leadership overcome the other obstacles facing the states that would want to redo their primaries? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2008, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/179 "2008-03-24T01:20:31Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Thanks for the condescension. [/quote] No, actually I was being sincere. I’ve genuinely started to feel sort of badly for you lately, given the tremendous amount of time and energy you’ve devoted to banging your head against the wall in these Hillary threads to no good end. [QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Now then, wouldn’t it be better for \*you \* to focus \*your \* attention on making sure the Democratic nominee is someone America can support with pride? [/QUOTE] Apparently you’ve forgotten some of our past wranglings. I’ll be focusing my attention on making sure the Republican nominee gets elected. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2008, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/180 "2008-03-24T01:44:47Z")
If you now admit to having \*been \* a “wall” in our discussions, then progress in THe Fight has been made. You only want the Republican to get elected, and \*not \* to be somebody America can be proud of? That does clarify other matters as well. **vison** , sorry for missing the question earlier - but yes, I would. Democracy as a principle matters more to me than any election. I believe that’s required of citizens if a democracy is to thrive. **HW** , it’s disappointing that you still won’t discuss the larger picture. If, however, the only obstacle you can see to doing the right thing is to get $9M somewhere, then one approach would be to tap the DNC campaign budget, and another would be to call George Soros. Satisifed now?:dubious: Okay then, why ain’t it happening? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726.md?page=10)