Hillary Wins Texas And Ohio!!!!

[sister rose]

Just wanted to mention that.........:D

[Wildflower Fever]

Just wanted to mention that.........:D

Swoosh... In comes WFF as the devil's advocate.;) The Texas caucus vote
(1/3 of Texas Delegate count) isn't in yet, and Obama will probably still have the edge in total nationwide delegates. Unfortunately, I think this will go on nearly into the national convention, all the while with McCain campaigning as the repub nominee. I just wish this would all be over soon. That said, I will wholeheartedly support Hillary is she is the nominee, I'm just an Obama guy.:p P.S.- don't hit me...:o

[sister rose]

...and I will gladly support Obama if he wins (although that isn't going to happen.) ;)
Sorry...even with the caucus vote, Obama doesn't have a chance with Texas. Tonight, Obama gets Vermont and Hillary gets RI, Ohio and Texas. Get over it or I will put the wrath of Julianna on you! :p

[Wildflower Fever]

...and I will gladly support Obama if he wins (although that isn't going to happen.) ;)
Sorry...even with the caucus vote, Obama doesn't have a chance with Texas. Tonight, Obama gets Vermont and Hillary gets RI, Ohio and Texas. Get over it or I will put the wrath of Julianna on you! :p

Oh, pa-leeeeze don't tell her about the JIMB. We'll all be in trouble then!;)
(Obama '08:p )

[sister rose]

lol...I'm going to tell her you want her to join!
(Clinton '08 :p )

[DaveM]

I just hope the DFL can pull together a bit here....a split campaign running until fall is going to weaken the whole effort. McCain is "likable" enough to be a competitor, scary though that is. This needs to be a two-person race as soon as possible (let's leave Nader out of this for the moment). Perhaps the two DFL candidates can agree to be running mates and pull together instead of against each other.

[paularoid]

I will support the nominee whomever it turns out to be.
I make no predictions.
I declare no preferences.

Did I -really- just say that? :eek:
I must be ill.



:p

[Eva]

So if Hillary gets to be president, can Obama be vice-president? And if Obama gets to be president, can Hillary be vice-president? Sounds like a good team to me. Or am I saying things that really show I know nothing about US politics? :o

Eva

[Elliott]

It could turn out that way... but at this point, both want to be president. Maybe they could work out a deal where they work only every week! And take weekends off to play golf... that sounds like a winner to me!

[david uk]

I never understand why Hillary is universally referred to by just her first name, yet Obama etc are referred to by their surname. It can't be to avoid confusion with her husband, as it even happens in places like here, where it's obvious who people are referring to.

puzzled...

[Eva]

I never understand why Hillary is universally referred to by just her first name, yet Obama etc are referred to by their surname. It can't be to avoid confusion with her husband, as it even happens in places like here, where it's obvious who people are referring to.

puzzled...
Oh yes, now that you mention it... Barack is Obama's first name, right? (barack means peach in Hungarian, but you know that David :D ) Must be a woman - man thing? Like that men are the ones who provide surnames? I understood that if women get married in America they traditionally also even get their husband's first name? Like in Hungary, by the way. Here in the Netherlands luckily she gets called Clinton or Hillary Clinton. He gets called Obama or Barack Obama.

May the best person win.

Eva

[Judy]

David - point well taken on the way in which Clinton is addressed...that has bugged me from the onset. But then, Clinton herself chose to use her first name as her tag, so I guess that made sense to her.

That said, just wish that the Democrats didn't use their convoluted delegate formula in these races and just did a winner of popular vote take all. (Clinton would already have most of the delegate count she needs for the nomination, I think.) I thinks it's wrong that popular vote doesn't matter (2000 presidential election point in fact) and especially wrong during an election when you have so many young voters getting involved for the first time. They need to feel more empowered about feeling that every vote does count, not that their vote counts IF they are voting in a delegate rich area.

Judy

[GodSistah]

I will support the democratic nominee,
but not without some reluctance...

I just can't get past the Jim Crow-esque,
seperate but equal, stance they both have on gay marriage.

But with the threat of McCain on the horizon...

*sigh*

What I never understood was why people laughed
when Kucinich said he wanted a department of peace.

:rolleyes:

~Andrea~

[Bat]

The power behind the scenes was scared to death of Kucinich and his ilk and did their best to put the kibosh on him, hence the shabby treatment on the media coverage and everywhere else. I think there is a huge shadowy machine behind all politics in this country, and woe be to anyone who bucks it...sounds paranoid, I know, but every once in a while....

The other little trip is that it seems like a lot of republicans have voted across party lines for the one who seems least likely to win against McCain... and they think Hilary has the least chance, apparently. Come November, they will again go back to being republicans and cast their votes for McCain, which they hope will give him the election. Dirty politics at its best.
Woe to the ordinary Americans who have come up from the grassroots to support Obama...as usual, we will probably get the short end of the stick again, as he is not in the picture approved by the shadow powers, and they're going to try every trick in the book to eliminate him. Paranoid or not, it seems to hold true, unfortunately. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope the voices of the 'little guys' can drown out the big money.

[DaveM]

Quite agree, Andrea....it's going to be an "anybody but McCain" year. At least we seem to have a chance of the choice not being "the lesser of two evils".

Not sure how anyone who does not support, without exception, equal rights for all can truly claim to support equal rights for anyone.

[Wildflower Fever]

Stop the parade, silence the band. Word is out today that at the behest of repub troll Rush Limbaugh, droves of repub men crossed party lines in Ohio to vote for Hillary- their favorite candidate to run against. They believe they are best positoned and well practiced at beating her, due to her negatives in the conservative community. Redjack, can you attest?;) Also, Texas was very close, and when all was said and done, Obama still leads in delegates, despite Hillary's edge in shady super-delegates. Nana-Nana-Poo-Poo!!!:p

[Eva]

Redjack, are you running for president too?

Eva

[Oak Kitten]

There is absolutely no way to prove that Republican men crossed party lines to vote for Hillary. That's just more talking head right-wing bloviator BS. For that matter, most of the TV talking heads across the political spectrum don't have any more insight into this race than anyone else. So much for their predictions that Obama was going to knock Hillary out of contention yesterday.

While I am supporting Hillary, I will support whomever gets the nomination. I just don't want to see the Party rip itself apart in the process. There is still time for this to work out before the convention, it probably won't have anything to do with delegate math, something else will happen to tip the balance and knock one of them out of the race.

As far as your questions Eva about Vice President, I don't think either of them would want to be VP. You can have a lot more influence over the long haul as a Senator than as a VP. Dick Cheney was given unprecedented power as Vice President, unfortunately, but I don't think that will happen again any time in the near future.

Your question about married women taking their both their husband's names; if you use the title "Mrs." addressing a woman, the proper form is to refer to her as Mrs. John Smith. It is not technically correct to use the term "Mrs." and then use the married woman's own first name. "Mrs." is like a possessive.
The only reason I know this is because I read a lot of "Miss Manners," and as an historian, I have noticed in newspaper artcles dating up through the 1960s, that Mrs. is always followed by the woman's husband's name. So Pat Snyder could be "Mrs. Janis Ian," but Janis can't be. Do I have you thoroughly confused now?

Anyway, the whole "Mrs." thing is pretty out of date these days. The only people who use it are the older generation.

Ms. Oak

[Wildflower Fever]

There is absolutely no way to prove that Republican men crossed party lines to vote for Hillary. That's just more talking head right-wing bloviator BS. For that matter, most of the TV talking heads across the political spectrum don't have any more insight into this race than anyone else. So much for their predictions that Obama was going to knock Hillary out of contention yesterday.

While I am supporting Hillary, I will support whomever gets the nomination. I just don't want to see the Party rip itself apart in the process. There is still time for this to work out before the convention, it probably won't have anything to do with delegate math, something else will happen to tip the balance and knock one of them out of the race.

As far as your questions Eva about Vice President, I don't think either of them would want to be VP. You can have a lot more influence over the long haul as a Senator than as a VP. Dick Cheney was given unprecedented power as Vice President, unfortunately, but I don't think that will happen again any time in the near future.

Your question about married women taking their both their husband's names; if you use the title "Mrs." addressing a woman, the proper form is to refer to her as Mrs. John Smith. It is not technically correct to use the term "Mrs." and then use the married woman's own first name. "Mrs." is like a possessive.
The only reason I know this is because I read a lot of "Miss Manners," and as an historian, I have noticed in newspaper artcles dating up through the 1960s, that Mrs. is always followed by the woman's husband's name. So Pat Snyder could be "Mrs. Janis Ian," but Janis can't be. Do I have you thoroughly confused now?

Anyway, the whole "Mrs." thing is pretty out of date these days. The only people who use it are the older generation.

Ms. Oak

Oak, first off, I'm not a Hillary hater. I do however find her campaign tactics lately to be from the right's playbook, and I'm a little disappointed in her and Bill (who I used to place on a pedestal). That said, if she gets the nod, I will support her 100%. I think it's coming down to the convention and that super-delegates will play a role, just my opinion. As for repubs crossing the line in Ohio, that's partially speculative on my part, I'll agree. However, this is a right-wing tactic that they tried to communicate en masse, and I have a friend in Cleveland,Ohio (repub unfortunately) who told me that he and his associates were going to do just that. The thought was that McCain doesn't need their vote at this stage, so why not help Hillary win. I think you'll agree that one thing that isn't limited to speculation is that they would prefer to run against Hillary. My ulimate hope is that whomever gets our democratic nod, that it's decided sooner than later so they can fight McCain instead of each other.:)

[DaveM]

This is a bit off-topic, but if you look closely on the credits of the original "Frankenstein" movie, one is: "based on the novel by Mrs. P.B. Shelley". Can you believe it?

We have come far, but as always, the journey is far from over.

[Bat]

The only time a married woman who chooses to call herself "Mrs. John Smith" would use "Mrs. Jane Smith" is after John had died, according to the old school. Then it would be correct to do so, indicating she is a widow.

[lucille]

I sent an email to hillaryclinton.com a few days ago suggesting she declare that if she wins the nomination, there would be no way that Obama would be VP. I think everyone thinks that a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton partnership would be great, but of course the VP would have no say or power in the administration. Cheney has been an unfortunate exception to this situation.

I can't tell you how disappointed I am that the women of America aren't 100%behind Hillary Clinton. I've always felt that supporting one's gender is far more important than race, creed or colour. I just don't understand this particular American anomoly.

As for "titles", I am sick to death of being asked what my title is. I know, I have said this before, but my usual response to this question is: "would you ask a man this?" I now have many applications for goods and services addressed to me as MR Wendy Maguire. This is because many online applications won't accept your request unless a fucking title is ticked. In some cases I have put in "Lady" if it is listed.:D I never used my ex-husband's (yes I had one:p ) family name, and until I had to renew a passport, it was no problem. To get a passport in my REAL name, I actually had to change it by deedpoll from my husband's (yes I had one:p ) family name. What is so important about gender when applying for credit cards, or hotel accommodation, or anything for that matter?

[paularoid]

It shouldn't be about gender. It shouldn't be about what party. It shouldn't be about youth or age. It shouldn't be about experience. It shouldn't be about religion. It shouldn't be about patriotism.

It SHOULD be about RACE!..... the HUMAN race!

[lucille]

Well, fair 'nuff Paul, but I would like to see which way the world would go with a female leading the way. So far, the males haven't done a real good job, and I count Maggie Thatcher as one of them,:D but she was after all, a conservative, as is the current German chancellor. The other two of note are both dead.

I think that generally, women do think differently to men. The majority of males on this board are the exception.:D

[paularoid]

The BEST one of course is Kucinich, followed by Edwards. Any arguments to the contrary will not be entertained by me. My mind was made up about that a LONG time ago and I refuse to let anyone (but they themselves) change it for me. 'nuff said.

[RedjackRyan]

Stop the parade, silence the band. Word is out today that at the behest of repub troll Rush Limbaugh, droves of repub men crossed party lines in Ohio to vote for Hillary- their favorite candidate to run against. They believe they are best positoned and well practiced at beating her, due to her negatives in the conservative community. Redjack, can you attest?;) Also, Texas was very close, and when all was said and done, Obama still leads in delegates, despite Hillary's edge in shady super-delegates. Nana-Nana-Poo-Poo!!!:p

I've heard the same thing Ben, wasn't me though.. I believe in the old adage, be careful what you wish for.

[Judy]

As to Limbaugh directing Republicans to vote for Clinton...It would seem to me that if he yielded as much power as he seems to think, then Mitt Romney would be standing where McCain is right now.

[Colefan]

It shouldn't be about gender. It shouldn't be about what party. It shouldn't be about youth or age. It shouldn't be about experience. It shouldn't be about religion. It shouldn't be about patriotism.

It SHOULD be about RACE!..... the HUMAN race!

Sorry Paul, but as a member of the human race it is about gender for me amongst many other things. My conscience wouldn't have it any other way.

I am voting for Hillary.

[lucille]

There are so many issues concerning women that men just cannot or should not legislate on. As I've said before Gloria Steinam's comment about 'abortion would never be an issue if men could have babies' illustrates this exactly. It's so easy for a man to say what is good for women, but they don't and never will "walk a mile in our shoes". Go Hillary.

[Eva]

The only reason I know this is because I read a lot of "Miss Manners," and as an historian, I have noticed in newspaper artcles dating up through the 1960s, that Mrs. is always followed by the woman's husband's name. So Pat Snyder could be "Mrs. Janis Ian," but Janis can't be. Do I have you thoroughly confused now?

Anyway, the whole "Mrs." thing is pretty out of date these days. The only people who use it are the older generation.

Ms. Oak
Thank you Oak. It's not confusing at all. It's the same in Hungary. Although older generation women like my grandmother kept referring to themselves as mrs. husband's-first-name-and-last-name. Even if the husband in question had died many years ago.

Eva

[paularoid]

I may be completely under the wrong impression here and I freely admit that, but I get the impression that many people would vote for Clinton just because she's a woman. It almost seems that's the only reason. I'm led to ask, if it were,... say,.... Ann Coulter running would they vote for her just because she's a woman? She's (supposedly) just as concerned and worried about her country and the running of it as Clinton is and she -is- a woman.

I'm not trying to stir anything up here believe it or not, it's just that I perceive that with many people they'd vote for her just because she's a woman and I think that's sad and very misguided.

I might vote for her myself actually but it will not be for that reason. I'm still on the fence between them but I won't vote for either one because of gender or race. I may just do what I've spoken about before anyway and write in Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards just to cast a vote for whom I'd -really- like to see in office.

[DaveM]

I'd love to hear what Rush Limbaugh would have to say about Ann Coulter if she were running. He'd probably have a heart attack.

Must say that Hillary Clinton has disappointed me on several fronts. Past observation led me to expect that she would run a dignified campaign and present the appearance of someone both confident and capable (which I believe she is). Of late, however, and I suspect it is the result of advice from strategists/handlers as much as anything else, she has begun to come off more than slightly like a spoiled child who is angry because of a belief that she was "entitled" to the nomination. I expect better from her, and hope we will see it once again.

That said, I find Barack Obama to be long on rhetoric and short on specifics. He often appears to be performing more than campaigning, in ways uncomfortably similar to both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. I expect better than that, too.

I will most definitely NOT vote for John McCain. But both of the candidates on the Democratic side of the fence will have to develop some depth and some restraint before either of them wins my confidence. I did not expect to feel this way at this point in the campaign, and I must say it's uncomfortable. And it does not make the Democrats look like leaders, no matter how many people on both sides throw the word "leadership" around.

Really do not want to see the Presidency end up in Republican hands again because the DFL spent half of the campaign self-destructing. But how many times have we seen it happen before?

[lucille]

If I could vote over there I would vote for her because she is a woman, and has intelligence and experience to do the job. She also has a woman's insight and knowledge of the inequalities women have faced since time immemorial. Unless you are a woman, you could never know how prejudice affects us. There will be a lot of people who will NOT vote for her because she is a woman too. It seems to me that Obama is getting the majority of black votes - men and women, and black first time voters at that. Obama's speeches are getting uncomfortably like fundamentalist TV preachers to me. I would never vote for a right wing bible bashing nutter like Anne Coulter. And, I hear she is a female impersonator anyway.:D

[DaveM]

That's the phrase I was looking for, Lucille--he's taking on the affect of a TV evangelist. And I find that a bit scary. It's a bit as if he almost hypnotizes audiences....and the substance behind the style may or may not be there.

Hillary Clinton has, as you say, maturity, experience, intelligence....everything needed for the job. I'd like to see those qualities more aggressively on display. I want to see people voting for a leader, not for a woman or for a man. I would never vote for anyone based on gender.

When the day comes, I will vote for the person who, all things considered, seems most qualified for the job. And that person's reproductive system won't be one of the things I will consider. To say that I would vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman would be as great a disservice as it would be to say that I would vote for Barack Obama because he is black.

[Judy]

With Obama picking up 90 percent of the black vote, I think there can be little doubt that the vote is racial. Actually, since I've no stomach for any kind of racism, I have to say that I haven't been happy about those numbers.
My support for Clinton is not gender motivated, although I suspect many vote for and against her are motivated in that direction. I just think she's the smartest candidate we have and she's not a Republican!)

[Oak Kitten]

Hillary's gender is not the primary factor influencing my support for her. But Wendy has also made several valid points about how issues affecting women will never get the attention they deserve until women occupy the highest echelons of power. The idea of women with power scares the bejeesus out of a lot of people. Not only misogynist males, but a lot of women with traditional views about gender roles. They perceive any advances made by women as denigrating their choices to focus on being wives and mothers. Hey, if that is what you want, go for it, but don't hold the rest of us back with your insecurities! It is not a zero-sum equation.

BTW, Wendy what Gloria Steinem said was, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Oak

[lucille]

BTW, Wendy what Gloria Steinem said was, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Oak

Sorry Oak, I was sort of paraphrasing, but the phrase does deserve to be quoted verbatim - it makes it much more powerful.

[DaveM]

I've always believed that if sex did not cause pregnancy, there would not be an abortion controversy. Some folks may well have genuine qualms about the abortion procedure, but I think far more are interested in controlling other peoples' sex lives and in enshrining the idea that women are to be "punished" with pregnancy for the "sin" of having sex.

A great reason to bring a child into the world, isn't it?