I agree - I can't see swing voters going for Clinton, while on the other side, one of Obama's strengths is working with everyone, despite their party affiliation.

I can't think of a reason to support Hillary - she's got nothing going for her.  Obama has a lot going for him.

I saw CNN trying to play this up last night.  I just don't buy it.  It's very hard for me to imagine anyone who's supporting Clinton or Obama pulling the lever for McCain in November, especially based on spite.  I think a lot of Democrats learned their lesson about voting out of spite in 2000. 

****

If you really want to see your candidate (either Obama or Clinton) in the White House, there is a tactical reason to vote for McCain or to not for Democratic nominee. If Obama or Clinton wins the presidency, then whoever lost the nomination doesn't get another shot until 2016 (Obama or Clinton would have to have had a disastrous first term for the Democrats to allow a primary challenge to an incumbent -- and even then, it's really hard to beat the incumbent). And in 2016, Obama or Clinton's VP would be a strong contender. I doubt Sen. Clinton wants to wait 8 years. She'd be pushing 70 and as political tides go, this is her best shot.

If McCain wins, whoever *lost* the Democratic nomination would probably have smooth sailing to the nomination in 2012. Generally, the guy who lost in a general election doesn't get another shot -- at least not right away.

Well, that's been the word on the street about what Hillary is up to - that she's sabotaging Obama's chances so she can run in 2012 instead of waiting for 2016 - at which point, she'll be too old, by the way.

It's like I say - it ain't over till the bad lady destroys the democratic party...

Well, that's been the word on the street about what Hillary is up to - that she's sabotaging Obama's chances so she can run in 2012 instead of waiting for 2016 - at which point, she'll be too old, by the way.

**************

Yeah, that's a viable move from someone who probably has no other shot -- she's not about to wait until 2016.

However, I think it will look *too* obvious to Democrats that this was her goal. She could become the Nader of her own party.

In fact, she might have to worry about keeping her current job in 2012 rather than running for president. I could see New York Democrats turning on her or at least making her weak enough to be beaten by a Republican or even Bloomberg if he decided to run.

However, I think it will look *too* obvious to Democrats that this was her goal.

--------------------------------------------------

Four years is a long time to forget.  Look at the nimrods we re-elect.

Normally I wouldn't comment on U.S politics to americans, mainly because I find a lot of canadians can be rude and condescending and I don't think it's our place to comment on other countries internal politics. I would (and do) hate it when an american starts to tear down my country's political parties and leaders. One of those things where I can criticize a member of my family but if you criticize a member of my family I would take personal offense to that even if I agreed with what you said.

That being said, I don't understand the choice between Clinton and Obama. One is by all measures a great speaker, a good person, a good politician and a good candidate/campaigner. The other is a poor speaker, could be a good person but does not come across as a good person, a good politician, and a poor candidate/campaigner. My mind just goes good candidate/bad candidate whenever I see the two of them together.

I truly do not understand how Clinton ever found herself as the frontrunner. Bill Richardson seemed to be a better candidate but couldn't get any traction against Clinton or Obama and that made no sense to me. Was it money? Media attention? A friend of mine postulated that the reason Clinton was the frontrunner was because Democrats were so pissed at the Republicans that they were looking for a candidate that would make them angry. Was it that simple or am I not seeing something in Clinton that got people excited about her as a candidate?

Understand, I am a conservative in that I believe in smaller government and lower taxes, however in the American system I could see myself voting across party lines. In this election I could see myself voting for Obama, though I do not like his policies, but there would be no chance that I would vote for Clinton even though her policies are closer to mine. The main reason is because I believe that he means what he says and she says what she thinks people want to hear and will govern differently if elected.

I know it's strange but I can take policies I disagree with as long as they come in the front door but when somebody tells me one thing and does another, completely opposite thing I think it makes a fool of democracy in that nobody ever believes what candidates say during the elections. It devalues the voting of the citizens to such an extent that I can't blame anyone who chooses not to vote.

If people are going to campaign to do one thing, when you know they don't actually want to do that thing, it makes it hard to respect the process.

Steve - this is just my opinion, and take it with a grain of salt - but here's why I think Clinton has been frontrunner for so long:

Because the media wanted her to be.

I've been hearing about a Hillary Clinton Presidency since Bill first took office - at first it was only from the right wing fringes - Rush Limbaugh and his type were harping on it back in the 90s, but after her Senate win she was just refered to, like it's a done deal, that she would be the next President - in all media - left and right - though, I'd like to note - the left media seemed to not be happy about it.

So, that begs the question - Why?  Why were they pushing for a Hillary Clinton Presidency?  I have nothing on that - I have some theories, that I'll air here, but I note up front that they're just ideas - I have nothing to back them up, and they're just based on calculations in my head - but...

Like, I think there's little difference between Bushs and Clintons, with the exception that Clintons are better at managing money, so it's possible that corporate and big business interests have some sort of vested interest in keeping them in power to maintain the status quo...

Which leads to my other thought - that moronic news types think it's a clever story to have Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinto n/ and so on.... Hillary then Jeb then Chelsea then Neil then Roger then Jeb's crack-head daughter, etc...  someone thinks it's "cute".  (which should make every red-blooded American citizen take up arms and march on Washington - the idea that our nation is ruled by a "cute" idea!) but that falls in with the corporate presidency idea - they're happy to keep things as they are - keep government out of business, but heavily involved in the private lives of citizens - it's the perfect Bushclinton citizen - one with no freedoms that exists only to give money to corporations..

And here's the kicker - that's why Obama's rise is so great - yes, there have been other good Democratic candidates - I agree about Richardson, and I think a few others were worth a nod - but they all suffered from not being winnable - Obama is smart and works well with others and is a natural leader, but the most important part is that he CAN win - that charisma and speach-making powers and everything else that the Clinton's deride - those are important things - anyone can be a great candidate - but you need that extra oomph to get you in.

I find it refreshing that Americans can see past the media hype and hear Obama's message and come out and support him - it honestly gives me renewed hope and faith for America.  All too often we hear that people can't be bothered to get involved or to vote - that we have some of the lowest voter turn outs of any free nation, and so on - and when we do vote - we're motivated by fear and prejudice (see the "homosexual" strategy of 2004)  - but this is the real thing.  Clinton was the chosen anointed media approved candidate, and Obama, with a funny name and dark skin and imperfect background came out from behind and showed that we still have free will and can still be bothered to get up from the bark-o-lounger and put down the beer and bong and chips and remote control and take control of our own destiny!

I am terribly proud of Obama, and his continued success make me so proud to be an American.