Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton: nomination?

windyman · February 28, 2008

It's between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both of whom said they'll renegotiate NAFTA and both of whom are opposed to the war on Iraq. Who do you want to win?

maldon_road · February 28, 2008

I think we are past that. The combatants have been set for November - an old white guy vs a young black man.

RB · February 29, 2008

What's this - it ain't over yet and I am backing Clinton totally

If Clinton is NOT nominated, the next democrat of choice is McCain

Borg · March 1, 2008

Either one is a very poor choice.

Borg

August1991 · March 1, 2008

Where is the selection: I don't care? How does one say that neither will win in November?

bush_cheney2004 · March 1, 2008

Either one is a very poor choice.
Borg

A poor choice for who...you?

BubberMiley · March 1, 2008

How does one say that neither will win in November?

You mean another way to say it, seeing as by your own count you've said it more than umpteen times?

Topaz · March 1, 2008

I've heard more people talk about the death threats on Obama and if he wins he better be in body armour! Do you know that alot of the people the Clintons knew in the past are dead. Alot of them were shot in the head, had car accidents, suposely comitted sucide in other words questionable reasons how they died. You can find the list on the web. Even Clintons bodyguards when he was Governor are all dead. Perhaps they knew too much about the relationship with Bush sr and the activities they shared.

March 1, 2008

Do you know that alot of the people the Clintons knew in the past are dead. Alot of them were shot in the head, had car accidents, suposely comitted sucide in other words questionable reasons how they died. You can find the list on the web. Even Clintons bodyguards when he was Governor are all dead.

You can also find the disclaimer to that list on the web.

Edited March 1, 2008 by American Woman

BubberMiley · March 1, 2008

You can also find the disclaimer to that list on the web.

Damn truth always gets in the way of those internet rumours.

jbg · March 2, 2008

It's between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both of whom said they'll renegotiate NAFTA and both of whom are opposed to the war on Iraq. Who do you want to win?

The promise to renegotiate NAFTA will go the same way as Chretien's; lost and forgotten. It's the flavor of the month for Ohio.

sharkman · March 5, 2008

So the big day is upon us with Texas and Ohio up for grabs. Apparently Clinton can thank Canada for a late surge in polling numbers, due to Obama back pedaling on NAFTA.

The thing is, this is setting up for a voting irregularity conspiracy theorist's fantasy. The two are neck and neck in the polls and any outcome will be hotly contested, already both sides are claiming "voting problems" in Ohio. It will be interesting to see how bitter this gets, since they can't blame republicans over it. Not that it will stop them...

RB · March 5, 2008

I am crossing my fingers for Hillary... I just got in from my classes and didn't catch the news as yet - so please report here if you have the good news about Hillary.

jdobbin · March 5, 2008

I am crossing my fingers for Hillary... I just got in from my classes and didn't catch the news as yet - so please report here if you have the good news about Hillary.

NBC reports she has won Rhode Island and is the projected winner in Ohio. Obama wins Vermont.

Texas is too close to call.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23463159/

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton threw up a roadblock to Sen. Barack Obama’s path to the Democratic presidential nomination by winning the giant Ohio primary, NBC News projected Tuesday night.
Clinton, D-N.Y., and Obama, D-Ill., split the smaller Rhode Island and Vermont primaries, according to NBC News, leaving Democrats to wait for Texas, the second big prize of the night, to provide clarity to the tight campaign. Results from Texas remained too close to call Tuesday night, NBC News projected.

jbg · March 5, 2008

NBC reports she has won Rhode Island and is the projected winner in Ohio. Obama wins Vermont.
Texas is too close to call.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23463159/

This passes for a good night for Hilary. She may well get the nomination with the help of PhonyDelegates from Michigan and Florida and the so-called "Super-Delegates". If it plays out that way, this is 1968 all over again. An establishment figure wins nomination but has scorched playing field and loses election. If the "non-establishment" choice wins, it's 1972 all over again.

Neither a good choice for the Democrats.

maldon_road · March 5, 2008

This passes for a good night for Hilary. She may well get the nomination with the help of PhonyDelegates from Michigan and Florida and the so-called "Super-Delegates". If it plays out that way, this is 1968 all over again. An establishment figure wins nomination but has scorched playing field and loses election. If the "non-establishment" choice wins, it's 1972 all over again.
Neither a good choice for the Democrats.

And John McCain just sits back and smiles watching the Dems tear themselves apart.

Bad night for the Dems, good night for the GOP.

Dog · March 5, 2008

Three more months of Hillary going after Obama , i dont think he can stand it . Their best bet is a combined ticket but i dont think their egos could handle who was going to be on the top of the ticket . John McCain looks pretty good rght now if you were betting .

UShaditComing · March 6, 2008

Hillary to win because the chance of a Hillary/Barack ticket is more likely than the other way around. But nobody should be hoping for an end to the Iraq war because that is not promised and is not in the cards. It is absolutely essential for the US to bring it's Iraq war to fruition. Not to mention that their Afghanistan war needs to be won too in order to consolidate US control over the entire ME. With Canada's help as we are being duped into believing that we're there to help the people, blah, blah.

We are there in Afghanistan to appease the US and prevent more trade sanctions against Canada of course and because we won't take part in Iraq because Canadians won't be duped on that one this time. It's too soon after the duping on the Kosovo war.

Of course Harper would have us in Iraq in a minute if he could find a way and if he gets a majority in the upcoming election, he may even find a way to manipulate us into Iraq. Never doubt the deviousness of the extreme right. Say you heard it here first!

bush_cheney2004 · March 7, 2008

...We are there in Afghanistan to appease the US and prevent more trade sanctions against Canada of course and because we won't take part in Iraq because Canadians won't be duped on that one this time. It's too soon after the duping on the Kosovo war.

Canadians are dupes? Do tell......

Carinthia · March 7, 2008

And John McCain just sits back and smiles watching the Dems tear themselves apart.
Bad night for the Dems, good night for the GOP.

There will be a nominee in the end regardless of how they get there and then the fun will begin on tearing McCain to shreads. Man, have they got 7 years of ammo. Can't wait!

Edited March 7, 2008 by Carinthia

UShaditComing · March 7, 2008

There will be a nominee in the end regardless of how they get there and then the fun will begin on tearing McCain to shreads. Man, have they got 7 years of ammo. Can't wait!

You got that right Carinthia! And John McCain has just gone and stood with the moron president and accepted the endorsement. Now we will wait and see what the American people are made of. Unfortunately they are so easily duped that any little terrorist attack against them will have them right back in the pro-war camp for another 8 years.

bush_cheney2004 · March 8, 2008

....Unfortunately they are so easily duped that any little terrorist attack against them will have them right back in the pro-war camp for another 8 years.

If it is your belief (so stated) that both Americans and Canadians are dupes, what makes you think they should pay any attention to you? Why are your views even relevant for America?

capricorn · March 8, 2008

It is absolutely essential for the US to bring it's Iraq war to fruition.

I absolutely agree. One thing for sure. Clinton, Obama and McCain all agree that when the US troops come home it will be with honour.

Not to mention that their Afghanistan war needs to be won too in order to consolidate US control over the entire ME. With Canada's help as we are being duped into believing that we're there to help the people, blah, blah.

Well you know, the Arab world can't seem to get its act together and stop butchering each other. If the massacres and tramping on human rights stop as a result of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, that's good enough for me. A halt to terrorist attacks would also be good.

We are there in Afghanistan to appease the US and prevent more trade sanctions against Canada

Trade sanctions? What sanctions are you talking about?

Of course Harper would have us in Iraq in a minute if he could find a way and if he gets a majority in the upcoming election, he may even find a way to manipulate us into Iraq.

Well I hope you've volunteered to work for a candidate other than Conservative. Gotta stop that majority, right?

Never doubt the deviousness of the extreme right. Say you heard it here first!

Sheesh, I would never admit in a serious conversation with anybody what you said here first. They'd be on the floor laughing. I'll keep it to myself.

You know damned well Harper would not commit Canada to Iraq. But if it makes you feel good to speculate on improbabilities go right ahead.

BTW, your post count is impressive. Two days, over 50 posts and counting...lots of time on your hands eh? You must be between exams.

August1991 · March 8, 2008

If it is your belief (so stated) that both Americans and Canadians are dupes, what makes you think they should pay any attention to you? Why are your views even relevant for America?

BC, what I love about people like USHadItComing is their ability - after the fact - to see a clear hidden hand and purpose behind all world events. They can explain it all. Some force is manipulating us and controlling events - and USHadItComing can see clearly how this force is operating.

So, here's my confusion.

If people like USHadItComing have such finely tuned analytical skills, and an ability to discern the true geo-political forces at work in the world, why are they posting on Internet foprums like this one? Surely they could have predicted the meltdown of equity markets in the US or the fall of the US dollar. The rise in crude prices would have been a piece of cake. These people should be fabulously wealthy.

Edited March 8, 2008 by August1991

Shady · March 8, 2008

BC, what I love about people like USHadItComing is their ability - after the fact - to see a clear hidden hand and purpose behind all world events. They can explain it all. Some force is manipulating us and controlling events - and USHadItComing can see clearly how this force is operating.
So, here's my confusion.

If people like USHadItComing have such finely tuned analytical skills, and an ability to discern the true geo-political forces at work in the world, why are they posting on Internet foprums like this one? Surely they could have predicted the meltdown of equity markets in the US or the fall of the US dollar. The rise in crude prices would have been a piece of cake. These people should be fabulously wealthy.

Great observation. I also find it interesting the way they're able to discuss issues of foreign policy with such matter-of-factness. As though they have their own Intelligence Agency at their disposal.

Sign In

Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton: nomination?