Here is why Obama would want Hillary to stay in

kinggovernor · 05-08-2008, 10:12 AM

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Primary; DEMOCRATS REBUFF CLINTON IN THE CONNECTICUT PRIMARY AS BROWN WINS A CLOSE VOTE
By ROBIN TONER
Published: March 25, 1992

Democratic primary voters in Connecticut served notice yesterday that they were less than overwhelmed by their party's new front-runner, Gov. Bill Clinton, handing him an embarrassing second-place finish to former Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. of California.

The voting was a jarring message for a man who was widely predicted to be on a clear path to the nomination after former Senator Paul E. Tsongas left the race last week. It heightens the importance of New York's primary on April 7, and it signals that Mr. Clinton still has considerable work to do to build and consolidate his support among Democratic primary voters.

It was also one more sign of the unpredictable mood of the voters in this season of economic anxiety and deep discontent with politics and politicians. Outpouring of Anger?

Mr. Brown, whose anti-establishment campaign has proved far more dangerous to Mr. Clinton than many had expected, asserted that the day's voting was an outpouring of anger at the powers that be. "It's not about me," he said, campaigning in New York. "It's about a process that hasn't been working."

Mr. Clinton told a rally last night that the outcome in Connecticut was a "small setback" but that he had only begun to fight. "Nobody's going to take this election for granted. We're going to work hard and we're going to win it," the Arkansas Governor declared. "I've always been told New Yorkers like a good fight."

With all of the vote counted, Mr. Brown had 37 percent, Mr. Clinton 36 percent and Mr. Tsongas 20 percent.

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Primary; DEMOCRATS REBUFF CLINTON IN THE CONNECTICUT PRIMARY AS BROWN WINS A CLOSE VOTE - New York Times

It would be embarassing to Obama if Hillary withdrew and then beat him in several states.

A_C_E · 05-08-2008, 11:03 AM

Last time I checked, Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992, right?

Sooooooooo.............

kinggovernor · 05-08-2008, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Last time I checked, Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992, right?

Sooooooooo.............

yea but it was embarassing when Clinton lost primaries against guys who had already dropped out. Also Obama will not have the benefit of Ross Perot running

David Octavius · 05-08-2008, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yea but it was embarassing when Clinton lost primaries against guys who had already dropped out. Also Obama will not have the benefit of Ross Perot running

I think he would take that trade off - losing some primary elections and then winning the general

kinggovernor · 05-08-2008, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I think he would take that trade off - losing some primary elections and then winning the general

of course, anyone would. My point was this is not 1992 and there will not be a 3rd party candidate siphoning votes from the Republicans. Even if he does run, I don't see Ron Paul having a Perot-like effect, Bloomberg isn't going to run etc.

David Octavius · 05-08-2008, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

of course, anyone would. My point was this is not 1992 and there will not be a 3rd party candidate siphoning votes from the Republicans. Even if he does run, I don't see Ron Paul having a Perot-like effect, Bloomberg isn't going to run etc.

Well Bill ain't Obama, this election does not compare to 92 - we are in a war that has no support

kinggovernor · 05-08-2008, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Well Bill ain't Obama, this election does not compare to 92 - we are in a war that has no support

the point of this thread, was that Bill Clinton was embarassed when he lost a primary to someone not running. Perhaps Obama would like that not to happen.

TankRizzo · 05-09-2008, 08:52 AM

If it appears like Hillary is forced out the door then there will NOT be a smooth, warm and fuzzy transition to partisan love like they say will happen. It's their MO to not hurt anyone's feelings, so they'll let her ride it out until the bitter end and hope she knows when enough is enough.

shultz · 05-10-2008, 07:20 PM

Spread the word. Obama is the new evil.

Hitler in 1930s Germany was fascinating speaker promising big changes in difficult times and got majority of the people attracted to him even they could not logically tell what is the cause for that attraction. He was rising fast to the political power. We all know he ended up the worst dictator of the modern history. Do you people see any similarity between Obama's unexplainable attractiveness to a lot of people and Hitler's qualities? If Obama wins and implements all what he says in his speeches that would be a major overthrow to the American society (revolution in some sense). But believe me nobody wants to live through the revolution! If Obama just b/s people about big changes coming with him then he is even worse then any other politician b/c he is outright more cynical then any of them. In any case he is a very bad and even dangerous choice for the country.
America needs evolution but not revolution!

Scrum · 05-10-2008, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by shultz

Spread the word. Obama is the new evil.

Hitler in 1930s Germany was fascinating speaker promising big changes in difficult times and got majority of the people attracted to him even they could not logically tell what is the cause for that attraction. He was rising fast to the political power. We all know he ended up the worst dictator of the modern history. Do you people see any similarity between Obama's unexplainable attractiveness to a lot of people and Hitler's qualities? If Obama wins and implements all what he says in his speeches that would be a major overthrow to the American society (revolution in some sense). But believe me nobody wants to live through the revolution! If Obama just b/s people about big changes coming with him then he is even worse then any other politician b/c he is outright more cynical then any of them. In any case he is a very bad and even dangerous choice for the country.
America needs evolution but not revolution!

David Octavius · 05-10-2008, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by shultz

Spread the word. Obama is the new evil.

Hitler in 1930s Germany was fascinating speaker promising big changes in difficult times and got majority of the people attracted to him even they could not logically tell what is the cause for that attraction. He was rising fast to the political power. We all know he ended up the worst dictator of the modern history. Do you people see any similarity between Obama's unexplainable attractiveness to a lot of people and Hitler's qualities? If Obama wins and implements all what he says in his speeches that would be a major overthrow to the American society (revolution in some sense). But believe me nobody wants to live through the revolution! If Obama just b/s people about big changes coming with him then he is even worse then any other politician b/c he is outright more cynical then any of them. In any case he is a very bad and even dangerous choice for the country.
America needs evolution but not revolution!

First it was Obama=Osama now its Obama=Hitler?

Well at least its new