RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Hillary in 2008

I would not put anything past Hillary and her political aspirations. It can be argued that she'd have more impact for a longer period of time as Majority Leader in the Senate or as a Supreme Court Justice...2 possiblities floated once she quits the race and helps Obama win. It seems like she wants the title more than the position



I might agree that neither WV or KY are going to be winnable in the general. As I said, I think he should have at least made more than a token appearance in both states rather than just totally cede them to Hillary. However, I think that both of those states are tough for him even if he'd campaigned everyday for 2 weeks. I am extremely familiar with WV as my wife is from there. I've spent considerable time there over the past 19 years. I can say without question that Obama's race is a negative factor in that state. Since all reports I've heard or read about Kentucky suggest that it is very similar in terms of racial make-up, education and economic factors as West Virginia, it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't win the state in November.

As far as the other swing states go...he can win Ohio. He will win Pennsylvania. He could truly contest Florida. I find the arguement that he can't or won't win the swings in November to be ridiculous if only because I think that many Dems will vote party line just to keep the idea of a continuance of Bush's policies out of office.



Have they actually coronated him or are they simply reporting that, mathmatically, Hillary has no chance? Is that the media's bias or yours that's showing?



Ok...let's say that he doesn't win Georgia...though he has a better than 50/50 shot. Lets say that he doesn't win South Carolina...though he probably has at least a 40% chance. Same with Virginia. Are you honestly going to tell me that a socially liberal Democrat won't win California, New York and Massachusetts? These are the states that Hillary says he can't win cuz she won them. C'mon, MEM. Try to look at this objectively.



Umm...even if they seat those delegates, Hillary still can't win.



Given that ALL the candidates agreed that FL and MI would not count because those states knowingly broke the rules set up by the DNC...given that he doesn't need those states to win the nomination...given that Hillary has had almost no chance of winning even if the dlegates were counted since before the Pennsylvania primary...given that Obama didn't campaign in either state and it has been proven that when he campaigns he closes and/or eliminates any lead held by Clinton...I don't see why it would matter to him one way or another if the delegates are seated or not. In fact, the only reason to seat them is just to avoid those delegates causing trouble at the convention. This helps the party...not just Obama.




If he were to lose, there is no way that he would make another attempt so soon. It would make more sense for him to wait until 2016 or even 2020. Your (and most people's) biggest knock against him is the experience factor. He's a relatively young man. I think he's smart enough to bide his time, build a more accomplished record in the Senate, possibly even run for Govenor of Illinois...and THEN run.

To be honest with you, I think he ran this time without expecting to win. I think he wanted to get his feet wet, get his brand out there, build a national presence to help fund raise and be better prepared for a run in 2012 if Hillary (the assumed nominee since 2005) lost or in 2016.

Face it...if Hillary had had a better campaign strategy beyond "I'm Hillary, dammit!!" and actually had an been organized after Super Tuesday, she would have definitely won the nomination. How can you really get angry that he campaign was out-hustled by Obama's?