Clinton says she's not ready to concede

Wednesday 21st May, 03:40 PM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 27 Total Comments Show All

USNinJapan2 at 11:34 PM JST - 21st May

Damax6

McCain, a whippersnapper? You obviously couldn't define the word 'whippersnapper' if your life depended on it. I'd leave politics alone if I were you; it's clearly not your forte...
usaexpat at 11:45 PM JST - 21st May

Sarge has it right on this one. Myself and most of my friends are center left independants and will vote for McCain as a no vote to senator empty promises. What does hope mean exactly? I hope being above the $70,000 wealth cap I'm not going to have to join the line at the soup kitchen to pay for all the have nots. I have heard not one thing that would make me vote for Obama, Hillary on the other hand would have had my vote before McCain. The Democrats will live to regret nominating an inexperienced senator with smooth moves and no policy ideas.
USNinJapan2 at 11:49 PM JST - 21st May

Damax6

My apology, I didn't mean to jump on you like that. I do wonder why you think McCain, who is 72, a retired senior military officer, and a senior senator, is a whippersnapper. Your obviously right that he is white, but he is anything but a whippersnapper. Obama is rightly characterized as a whippersnapper because he is only 46 and an inexperienced junior senator. Also, it's my personal opinion, but I think you're oversimplifying American politics, especially in regards to the role that race plays in it.
Alphaape at 12:35 AM JST - 22nd May

Even if Obama was to gain the entire Black vote, he still would not have enough. Blacks are only 14% of the population, so if all the eligible Black voters voted for him, it would only amount to probably about 30 million (based on the number of Blacks over 18, and still having the right to vote (if they are convicted felons, they loose the right to vote). So he would still need a vast majority of white voters to carry him over. What the primaries in states like KT, WV and IN and other places where Hillary won tell us that many Americans will not vote for him because of his race. Not saying that they are racisit, but that is just how they feel. Remember, people in America live in communities where they feel comfortable. So, whites with the same economic background (rich or poor) would still rather live among their own kind, and this is the same for Blacks, Asians, etc. And so it is the same when it will come to this election. Many whites probably have voted for Obama to show that they are not "racist" in the primaries, but will not vote for him in the general election, since in the end, they will probably stick to their old voting pattern (like their living pattern) of voting for their own kind.

Just my theory.
Alphaape at 01:00 AM JST - 22nd May

From my hometown newspaper back in the states, here is a snippet of why many believe that Obama is dividing the Democratic Party: "He and his supporters have systematically sacrificed the central constituency of the Democratic Party—the poor and working class—on the altar of constituencies who look to politics for reaffirmation of their identity: college students and childish Sixties neo-libs; some view the Obama candidacy as a narcissistic endeavor by a mediocre politician dividing Democrats along social vs. economic progressive lines; He’s forcing a choice between winning in 2008 and possibly saving Roe vs. Wade and promoting gay marriage vs. fighting for the poor and working class; I’ve decided I won’t help Obama and his personality cult transform the Democratic Party into an organization that represents only the interests of rich, social liberals."

That is the crux of many of the white (and other race) voters against Obama. I am not a shill for the Democratic Party at all, I vote for either party based on which is the best candidate. But he is doing a pretty good job at dividing the Democrats. Remember, all of the pundits in the cable news (especially MSNBC) where the ones urging Al Gore to concede the race in Florida back in 2000, and you know how that worked out. Today, Gore’s a Nobel laureate. George W. Bush, like Obama a uniter, not a divider, became the most unpopular, ineffective president in U.S. history. Ever heard any media princelings explain how they went so comprehensively wrong?

Good for Hillary (I can't believe I am saying that) for showing the elite media pundits that they don't decide American elections, the people do.
Everton2 at 01:56 AM JST - 22nd May

Alphaape- man don't believe everything you read. To say that Obama is now the main instigator of division within the Democratic Part is patently absurd. It looks to me that it is more like Hillery that fits that role. And i don't accept the notion that whites will not vote for Obama in sufficient numbers to win the election, that is just will full thinking on the part of closet bigots. Alphaape- if you don't vote for someone because of race it is racism and nothing else regardless of how you want to package it.
Badsey at 04:23 AM JST - 22nd May

Gore #2:

I am HilliaryBot, I will not be defeated.
SezWho2 at 06:56 AM JST - 22nd May

Alphaape,

The argument that the leading vote-getter, the leading winner in states and the leading money-raiser is somehow dividing the Democratic party will be a tough sell except among those looking for a reason to weaken an Obama candidacy.

Throughout this campaign, Obama has consistently adopted the more conciliatory tone. It is Hillary who has constantly impugned the judgment, experience and electability of her opponent, who has improbably cast herself as the friend of the working white poor and who has, over and over, played the gender card to garner votes.
Alphaape at 09:27 AM JST - 22nd May

Sez, I am not for any candidate, and I think that they are both pandering to get votes, but many people will not vote for Obama becuase he is Black. What is not really being said is that many Blacks are voting for Obama becuase he is Black. If you look at some of the Black media outlets and discussion boards, you will see many Blacks say that they will vote for him because of his race. Some of my own family members (I am Black) who were solid Clinton supporters for years (one member who was on the Clinton's bandwagon since his days as Governor of Arkansas (I have seen the candid snapshots at her house from her stumping days with him) is now fully on the Obama team, but was for Hillary at first until Obama threw his hat in).

As I said in my previous post, people tend to live among people that are like them. In relation to this, people will work with others who are not like them, but as long as they can go to their "homes" and be around like persons, they will do so. In regards to the Presidency, I think this applies somewhat. Not just along the racial lines, of the majority wanting to at least see that one of "them" is in charge, but also along political lines and beliefs. Like it or not, most Americans have a conservative lean towards them. So some of the proposals that Obama is campaining on many don't feel comfortable with. He still has not really sat down with the political opposition and discusses his plans for America, just basically taking easy interviews (Larry King, the View) and trying not to say anything controversial.

If he wins, he will probably be another Jimmy Carter.
skipthesong at 11:41 AM JST - 22nd May

All this talk of race. To Damax6, please enlighten all as to why SHOULD all whites vote for Obama? You paint a very sick picture of white as being inbred (I really don't think you know all that much about US history, but they are not the only ones who are said to have been inbred). You are basically trying to force people to vote for Obama and if you are a supporter of Obama, I would stay home and keep your mouth shut because people like you are like bug repellent - you will keep the whites away from him.

Now, Alphaape puts this real good. So let's boil this down a bit. Obama has charisma and charm. I he still young, good looking, and most of all that I like about him is that he is in shape - unlike 90% of our politicians (I hate the fact that he is a smoker though). He is hip for the 20 somethings and sensible for the 30 somethings but from the 40's on up and for lower to lower middle class whites he is missing something.. He wants taxes to go up, provide a health care package to the poor and he is asking the very people who have not earned a whole of money and who have struggled to keep their heads above water with mortgages and college costs. He wants to allow illegals to stay in country (all three candidates do), thus having an economic effect on wages and for people who are bearly making, can't find a part time job or a job to get them by until they find another job that was lost due to a factory moving overseas. This is just a few things that I am finding in my conversation with my family members, some who are just like Alphaape on the half. My mother and her siblings, who are now Americans do voice their concerns about Obama but they all end with the last statement - given the three candidates, Obama is really the only one is making sense at least 25% of the time... and that is more than Hillary and McCain.
Alphaape at 02:03 PM JST - 22nd May

Whatever the outcome, with Hillary now saying that she will continue on until the Democratic convention to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, it will be a pretty interestin summer. The only thing I can say is that the Dems have come up with all of these plans to count votes instead of the Republican way of the person with the most votes wins and gets the delegates rather than the formula that the Dems have used, have screwed themselves. With Bush with the lowest approval ratings ever, and a Democratic controlled House and Senate, it should have been a shoo-in for the Dems. But their petty infighting and trying to change the rules to fit everyone has cost them. That is what I see in Obama, he tries to be everything for everybody, and it will cost him the nomination by not being able to stand on an issue. Yes McCain panders too as does Hillary, but I think Obama leads the pack on that.
skipthesong at 03:57 PM JST - 22nd May

Dems have come up with all of these plans to count votes instead of the Republican way of the person with the most votes wins and gets the delegates rather than the formula that the Dems have used, have screwed themselves."

Can you explain that in detail? You mean to tell me a delegate can vote against a popular vote?
Alphaape at 04:59 PM JST - 22nd May

skip, here is how the process worked in Texas for their primary: "The Texas Democratic Party uses a combination of two processes to select delegates and determine how they will be allocated to each presidential candidate. First, the Party uses the results of the primary process to determine how 126 of its 193 pledged delegates will be allocated to each candidate. Second, the Party uses the caucus process to select its delegates and also to determine how many of the remaining 67 pledged delegates will be allocated to each candidate. Many states require that candidates receive at least 15% of the total votes to receive delegates. The Texas Democratic Party only applies this requirement to the primary process and the final step of the caucus process since those are the only two occasions in which the Party allocates delegates to candidates." For more info look here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TexasDemocraticprimaryandcaucuses,_2008)

Needles to say, that is pretty confusing. Whereas with the Republicans, in most of the states, if you get 51% of the vote, you win all the delegates. Some states do divide the delegates in proportion to your standing in the election results, but nothing like the Democrats have.

Also, it was the Democratic party both on the national level and state level that caused this mess with the FL and MI votes. They wanted those states to all vote in a block, and penalized them for moving up their primaries, and both campaigns and states agreed that their delegates would not be seated. They were all in the rush to be at the head of the line as far as news coverage. But now, look where it has landed them. All parties are at fault to me. If Obama is going to get the go ahead by superdelegates, then they should go ahead and seat the delegates from FL and MI. At least it will make it look like it was a fair race.

And, the Republicans don't have "superdelegates" which if you look closely are nothing but "political hacks" that can be bought off to insure the position to the highest bidder, and they don't have to go the way their state voted.
skipthesong at 05:42 PM JST - 22nd May

alphaape: thanks for that info and you are right it is confusing. Honestly, it doesn't seem fair. What ever happened to the one person one vote? Basically, if I read your post correctly, a superdelegate can be offered a nice spot in a new administration and vote that way even though the voters don't want it.
Alphaape at 08:51 PM JST - 22nd May

skip, that is correct. There was a recent story of how one of the superdelegates told the press that he would sell his vote for $20 million dollars that should go to an organization that helps reister Mexican-American voters in California, New Mexico, Florida, and Colorado ( http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/08/california-superdelegate-wants-20-million-for-his-support/)

So you see the Dems have built a system that is convoluted and easy to corrupt, and by their own incompetence will blow this election, and will get on the band wagon of bashing the Republicans for cheating and not playing fairly.

I think this summer will be a good one for politics.