×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Barack Obama Wins Democratic Nomination

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the well-sorta-i-guess dept.

United States 1788

An anonymous reader was one of many who noted that Barack Obama has claimed the Democratic nomination having secured enough delegates and super-delegates to claim victory. Of course, technically this assumes that the supers all vote as they say they will and they are free to change their minds. So no doubt we'll continue to hear debate on this subject until either the convention or Hillary steps down.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1788 comments

People don't learn from history (2, Insightful)

suso (153703) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650419)

People don't seem to learn from history, which may be obvious. But I'm talking about you. All the intelligent people who think they know what they are doing and think that change is on the way .

I think it would be great if Obama was elected president. It would send a great message to the rest of the world that Americans are a diverse, caring and accepting people. And it would probably greatly inspire a lot of people who have felt oppressed over the past 8 years. But honestly, I don't think he stands a chance. Democratic voters are voting with their hearts and not their heads. From having watched many presidential elections from more of a neutral stance, I can say that to really win, you need to win the votes from both parties, not just your own. Sure, you can win by a narrow margin, but that is hardly marks the beginning of change. Change begins with the populace changing their attitudes. Leaving race out of the issue, how many republicans do you think would vote for someone named Barack Hussein Obama. A name that rings with the sounds of two recent so called enemies.

So Obama supporters have voted with their hearts and aren't realizing how idealistic they are being. Is it really worth the risk of having republican bullshit for the next 4 years? I don't think so. Obama supporters, you have risked too much. So don't come crying to everyone when he loses. I hope he doesn't
though.

People don't seem to learn from reading, either. (2, Informative)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650447)

It's Barack.

Re:People don't seem to learn from reading, either (4, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650723)

Are you suggesting that the spell chequer was somehow wrong?

Don't you know that the Computer is your friend, and any deviation from its approved spelling can lead to your being used as reactor shielding?

Re:People don't learn from history (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650483)

I'm a republican and I will vote for Obama.

Re:People don't learn from history (-1, Troll)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650553)

Ummm...so you're essentially throwing EVERYTHING that makes you a republican out the window to vote for the most leftist presidential candidate from a major party EVER?

Re:People don't learn from history (5, Funny)

The Warlock (701535) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650599)

you must live in an alternate reality where the republican party stands for saner government and a balanced budget.

what's the price of gas over there?

Re:People don't learn from history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650639)

I'm willing to compromise in the short term in order to gain on the long term. If more people were wiling to compromise, life might be a little easier. I will make the first move and hopefully we can find a middle ground.

Re:People don't learn from history (5, Insightful)

Zuato (1024033) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650687)

I threw everything out the damn window that made me a Republican 8 years ago and until I see a positive change in that party I'm not going back. The Republicans dug the hole they are in. They have to dig themselves out now, and McCain is not the answer. He's already digging that hole deeper.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mccain-id-spy-o.html [wired.com]

Re:People don't learn from history (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650729)

What makes you a republican and how do you know what makes him one?

What is getting thrown out the window?

Why is leftism bad?

My View:
    Obama may be the first presidential candidate I vote for from a major political party. Generally you Democrats and Republicans I don't see enough difference between Republican and Democratic candidates. Party voters still make me sick.

Re:People don't learn from history (3, Interesting)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650485)

As a conservative (current republicans != conservative), part of me is glad that it's Obama, and part of me is ticked that we couldn't put up something more than a fat old white guy again. Congrats to the dems for finally promoting values you've claimed to hold since the '60s...and which Republicans, until now, have usually beaten you on in appointments to higher office.

Re:People don't learn from history (4, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650615)

I work in politics, mostly around a bunch of Republicans. I hear many a reputable rumor that McCain is looking at Bobby Jindhal for VP.

He's only 37, is Indian but converted from Hindu to catholic a while back, has run many businesses, was a Congressman and then won a special election to be Governor of Louisiana.

He's younger than Obama, equally not white, and has actually done a thing or two that are worth while.

Frankly, I'd be totally OK with him as President -- then again, I am still trying to figure out if I hate McCain or Obama more.

Re:People don't learn from history (3, Insightful)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650885)

I HOPE not. Louisiana needs Jindal more than US needs him as VP. Also, Jindal only has slightly more experience in government than Obama (which isn't saying much), and has never held down a non-government "real job." If Jindal can help get Louisiana off the bottom of some lists, he'll be considered a success and almost be a walk-in to the Republican nomination in 2016.

Re:People don't learn from history (4, Interesting)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650667)

Unfortunately, the choices for Republicans ended up being between:

McCain: no change
Romney: no change
Huckabee: Had the best 'Obama-like' way of speaking (refreshing after 8 years of Bushisms), but unfortunately was the christian-religion candidate.
Paul: In general, most people can agree with him, but the man couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag. You can have the best ideas in the world, but if you can't convince anyone, then even if elected you won't change a thing.

To be honest, I don't know if Obama will change anything internal to the United States. He IS a Democrat afterall, and we have no reason to expect him to be anything other than a Democrat just as we have no reason to expect McCain to be anything but a Republican.

He will, however, be our best chance to repair our international reputation. That, at least, is something that I can be thankful for even if I disagree with most of his policy.

I just wish that I could vote for him.

Re:People don't learn from history (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650509)

So don't come crying to everyone when he loses. I hope he doesn't
As long as he doesn't say something like "I will not go to war with Iran" or "America will not give monetary or military support to nations that consider torture to be legal", he has a chance.

Re:People don't learn from history (5, Insightful)

OzRoy (602691) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650519)

The problem is I don't think Clinton would do anything in power except maintain the status quo. Her history, and the way she has behaved through this campaign has shown that.


You may be right that Obama can't win, but in times like this I think sometimes you have to just roll the dice and go for it otherwise nothing changes.

Re:People don't learn from history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650757)

The problem is I don't think Clinton would do anything in power except maintain the status quo. Her history, and the way she has behaved through this campaign has shown that.

You may be right that Obama can't win, but in times like this I think sometimes you have to just roll the dice and go for it otherwise nothing changes.

I agree I think in times like these it's good to have someone who isn't "a career politician". Like you said sometimes people have to take a risk .

Re:People don't learn from history (1)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650809)

The status quo has been increased government manipulation of the economy through increased selective taxation and tax breaks controlled by special interest groups and lobbying. If Mrs. Obama's speech is any indication, I don't see how Obama would be changing anything:

"We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another -- that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."

And McCain can be expected to maintain the status quo as well, given his statements.

Re:People don't learn from history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650863)

The problem is I don't think Clinton would do anything in power except maintain the status quo.

I'm not a Hilldog fan, but her husband did serve under 8 years of economic prosperity.

Re:People don't learn from history (4, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650527)

You make a valid point.

However, the counterpoint is that attitudes such as yours result in stagnation. There can be no change if those who would support change abandon their causes.

Even if Obama loses, the attention his campaign has been getting (and will get) will make it that much easier for the next candidate to break through the bigotry.

Re:People don't learn from history (4, Insightful)

suso (153703) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650765)

You make a valid point.

However, the counterpoint is that attitudes such as yours result in stagnation. There can be no change if those who would support change abandon their causes.
Back in 1999, I fought against the local university over students being unfairly charged for their meals. And I won. At first it was a little win, then slowly over the next few years the university changed their policies. It takes time to change.

In fact, the dean who I went up against told me something that I haven't forgotten "Its a big ship and if you want to turn it you have to slow it down first." So with a ship the size of a country, unless you want to pick up guns and force change, change takes time.

Re:People don't learn from history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650547)

I think the US is learning from history not to elect another corporate sellout.

Re:People don't learn from history (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650593)

Guess you'll wait another 4 years, then. Just about all pols from both sides of the aisle have sold out to one corporate interest or another.

Re:People don't learn from history (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650557)

>how many republicans do you think would vote for someone named Barack Hussein Obama. A name that rings with
>the sounds of two recent so called enemies.

Osama bin laden blew up WTC. And Saddam Hussein refused to comply with UN declarations which were there for security reasons. Even a blatent neo-trotskyite proto-statist pseudo-"progressive" one-dimensional political blow-hard like you should know that those two people are/were real enemies, not just "so called".

Captcha: absinthe - popular among socialists trying to come to terms with the reality of socialism.

Re:People don't learn from history (4, Insightful)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650675)

So Obama supporters have voted with their hearts and aren't realizing how idealistic they are being. Is it really worth the risk of having republican bullshit for the next 4 years?


What makes you think that democrat bullshit is any better? Neither party serves the interests of the people in this country.

Re:People don't learn from history (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650701)

One thing that really annoys me about elections (not just the US but in general) is the 50% mark and you got "majority". Yes, mathematically you have the upper hand, but by only winning with a small margin you are really not representing what we socially could call the majority - when you only manage to get half the population with you it means that what ever you do will most likely be reversed when the other half gets to play leader in a few years (and they will get that position). A much healthier way of doing business would be to require at least 2/3 of the votes behind whoever is in charge - that means you can't win by only being red or blue (or whatever color you represent the sides with), the smaller parties will get a saying in the decision making process - or you will have to concede some parts of your programs to get anything through.

Now often I get countered with "this will make everything come to a grinding halt" Well yes, but that would also prevent the warmongering half of the country to go into war, getting 66% to say yes on war is downright hard, if not impossible. It will force people to approach each other along the middle and generally help us move forward.

(Denmark is up for election soon(ish) and we are probably gonna have a new government who will do their darndest to reverse what has been going on for the last 8-10 years, so instead of going forward we are going to start with going 8 years back)

Disclaimer - from Denmark, not exactly how smaller parties work in the US (if you got them at all)

Re:People don't learn from history (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650719)

So Obama supporters have voted with their hearts and aren't realizing how idealistic they are being. Is it really worth the risk of having republican bullshit for the next 4 years? I don't think so. Obama supporters, you have risked too much.
Everything could change if Obama selects Hillary as his running mate.

Unfortunately, I doubt it will happen and we're gonna be stuck with McSame.

He's a Democrat, so who he is doesn't matter now (5, Insightful)

misanthrope101 (253915) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650739)

you need to win the votes from both parties, not just your own
Could you sum up the traits a Democrat nominee would have to have for the Republicans to refrain from demonizing him? The Republicans will only vote for an R, unless their own candidate is so bad that they have to stay home. McCain may or may not be be that bad, but it remains to be seen.

Anyway, Obama would be demonized with any name, and regardless of his hue. No matter who he is, if he's a D and he's running, then he'll be the "single most liberal member of Congress" since Che Guavera or whoever, an "elite" know-it-all who is out of touch with the heartland of America, will have gotten a "free pass" from our "overwhelmingly liberal media," would put us in danger of "appeasing" the terrorists, "emboldening our enemies," etc. It's the same script, every time, all the time. The Republicans always use the same words to galvanize their base, because, well, it works. Who or what Obama is or isn't has little to do with how the Republicans will vote.

Re:People don't learn from history (1)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650771)

I grew up in South Africa (as a white), and during my stay there (State Dep brat) I was there during both apartheid and after the change. I was always taught to vote my conscience and for what you believe in, which is pretty much what your saying. Since moving back to the US in 96, I have only voted once, the last election, and while I am not registered to vote yet, I may actually vote this election as well.

The point I guess I am trying to make, is that no matter what I feel or think, vote for what you believe in, and for me, voting for the lesser of two evils, is not voting for what I believe in, so if neither of the candidates appeal to me, I won't vote. And while I consider myself a democrat, I would vote for a republican if his ideals match mine.

ps, voting for change for the sake of change is just as bad, take a look at South Africa, sure much of the old apartheid regime is gone, only to be replaced by an equally bad but opposite apartheid regime (point, most companies are required to maintain a 60 to 70% black ratio of employees, regardless of the skill level, so you end up with morons who cannot do the job).
Crime is way higher now then before, corruption is rife and hell, the vice president was accused of rape.

The point being, don't just vote for a change to the status quo, becomes sometimes, its not so green on the otherside.

Re:People don't learn from history (5, Funny)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650811)

Leaving race out of the issue, how many republicans do you think would vote for someone named Barack Hussein Obama. A name that rings with the sounds of two recent so called enemies.
Let's twist that around a bit:

Leaving gender out of the issue, how many republicans do you think would vote for someone named Hillary Rodham Clinton? A name that rings with the sounds of two recent so called enemies (Dennis Rodman is one, you figure out the other). See how stupid that sounds, troll?

Re:People don't learn from history (3, Insightful)

timster (32400) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650875)

Your cynical post seems smart to the casual observer. It is not.

First of all, unless you cherry-pick polls, there is no statistical evidence that Hillary (or some other candidate) would be more successful against McCain. This is a talking point of the Clinton campaign only. You can go on about how names "ring", but without statistical evidence you are frankly spouting nonsense. Your gut feeling that Americans care about someone's name is simply not supported by real facts.

Your "learn from history" canard reminds us of 2004, when Democratic primary voters chose John Kerry on this cynical view that he was the most likely to "win". Well, he lost. So much for that. The refrain you might have heard from moderate voters four years ago was that they didn't know what Kerry was about, and that his campaign seemed more anti-Bush than pro-anything.

Obama is not going to win the votes of right-wingers; he will win as all Democrats win, by appealing to the middle and the left. The moderates in this country are smarter than you seem to think.

Re:People don't learn from history (0, Flamebait)

Slacksoft (1066064) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650879)

Who cares about being diverse? Diversity is nice if you're wanting to expand your cultural understanding. I wish people would stop voting for candidate x because they're black, or candidate y because they're female.

For gods sake universal (socialized) healthcare is a terrible idea. I'm voting republican just because they're not advocating this system. I want to be able to see a doctor, emergency room, or specialist anytime I want. I don't want to have to take a number, and sit behind a hundred different people who may or may not have insurance to get treated. The reason universal healthcare works is because people are most likely going to die before they get treated. That's the main platform for both these democratic candiates!

Pick the candidate who is most qualified, or otherwise this is a merely a popularity contest. Obama does not represent all black people, and in the same way Hilary does not represent all women. On the news people were asked why they voted the way they did. Women, feminists, went out to vote for Hillary, and admitted it on TV.

Have you seen Obama's voting record? The man is so far out to the left he's actually the most liberal voter on the Hill. That is saying something, and by god we're putting the man into position to lead us all! I wish I'd joined the bandwagon to switch to Democrat to cast my vote for Hillary when I had the chance, lord knows every other Republican I know did just that. It's not racism, he's not all black people, he's just a guy whose voting record is more erratic than SUV driver with a tire blowing out.

fucked by gnaa, your colon grows a 3rd eye (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650437)

I bet the drool pools at steve ballmer's feet when his lizard head penis slides out, the size of a small, annoying canary, with the fragrance of kelp. I bet his eyes roll back and his tongue turns into an omlette textured slipper shaped widget while his voice turns metallic and his pelvis turns black while his penis shoots out a cloud of silverfish

legalize marijuana and all hallucinogens, you're going to need it with 4 more years of a republican or democrat you brainwashed 2 party only sheep!

Spelling? (4, Insightful)

zygotic mitosis (833691) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650443)

Hasn't this guy been in the news enough for the last two years? Can't we get his name right yet?

Re:Spelling? (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650787)

It was just fixed. Now all of the posts pointing out the original misspelling will be dinged as "redundant" or "offtopic". w00t!

Good Luck America (1, Troll)

PhongUK (1301747) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650455)

To be honest, Bush has been an embarrassment to the USA. Barrack can only do better (if he gets elected). The fact that there are numerous youtube videos that rip it out of a countrys president should be enough to make people want to vote him out.

Re:Good Luck America (2, Funny)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650591)

Oh yeah, Youtube...great measure of the will of those old enough to vote...... Geez, crawl out from behind your monitor once your testicles drop and learn something about the world for once in your life...... And no, I do not approve of the job Bush is doing, I just think you need to get out more if you think Youtube=NationalMentality......

Re:Good Luck America (0)

PhongUK (1301747) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650735)

I didn't say it was a mark of national mentality, though judging by your reply its clearly a mark of yours. Basically the USA has a complete burk at the helm and this is evident in how many videos there are on YouTube showing him acting like an idiot. Hell he can't even read out a speech that was prepared for him and that's written down in front of him. Only idiots vote in an idiot for a second term.

Stands on Linux? (-1, Troll)

doktorstop (725614) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650461)

Unless Obama's victory translates into immediately described implications for Vista, how does this news end up on Slashdot? Or is the election campaign qualify as being "for nerds" now?

Re:Stands on Linux? (3, Informative)

zygotic mitosis (833691) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650507)

The site has had a Politics category for a couple years now. This election affects many of us, and it is certainly "stuff that matters".

Re:Stands on Linux? (3, Interesting)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650775)

More directly, policitical stories always generate a lot of page hits. They also afford an opportunity to study the site's demographics on the sly.

Re:Stands on Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650645)

It's not news for nerds, but it is stuff that matters.

Re:Stands on Linux? (2, Informative)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650683)

Or is the election campaign qualify as being "for nerds" now?
If you were looking at the firehose at the time, the posts regarding this topic were running red hot. Obviously people on Slashdot thought it warranted discussion.

...but Hillary still won't leave. (5, Informative)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650477)

First of all, I'm not sure why this is "news for nerds", but I'll readily concede that it is "stuff that matters".

Obama may have the nomination, but someone really ought to tell Hillary. Last night, during her non-concession speech, she stated that she's "making no decisions tonight" [rawstory.com]. Today I heard on NPR that she is "open to the Vice-Presidential spot", even though she may not take it...she "just wants to be considered".

Sweet Zombie Jesus...what will it take to make this woman go away???

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650583)

A Zombie Jesus perhaps?

Why this is "news for nerds" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650607)

First of all, I'm not sure why this is "news for nerds", but I'll readily concede that it is "stuff that matters".


Oh man, you need an education. First off, a young Barrack Obama INVENTED the Internet back in the 1960s. That was a MAJOR achievement and was only slightly sullied by his declaration that "640K should be enough for anyone". I have no doubt that he will be our next president and finally get the nation and our fine military behind him and release "Duke Nukem Forever" sometime in early 2010.

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650625)

a .308

Why should she go away? (5, Insightful)

bstarrfield (761726) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650627)

Clinton has no practical reason to "go away" - Obama's victory was surprisingly narrow. Over the last few months the Obama campaign lost momentum - Clinton's victories were quite substantial in several key states that would be essential to a Democratic victory (Ohio and Pennsylvania especially).

Given Obama's weakness in three key Democratic demographics - women, white blue collar workers, and Hispanics - Clinton still has a substantial role to play in the election.

Her supporters are bitter about how they perceive Clinton's treatment versus how Obama has been treated by the press. I realize it's anecdotal, but talking to a number of my friends who were ardent Clinton supporters I've become worried that they simply won't vote Democrat due to what they perceive was the unfairness and sexism of the campaign.

Clinton's in a strong position to request the VP slot. If she concedes to Obama then she simply becomes an also-ran, and has no negotiating power.

Re:Why should she go away? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650755)

Clinton has no practical reason to "go away" - Obama's victory was surprisingly narrow.
100+ lead in delegates isn't that narrow.

Re:Why should she go away? (5, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650789)

Given Obama's weakness in three key Democratic demographics - women, white blue collar workers, and Hispanics
I keep hearing this canard. The rest of the sentence is against Hillary Clinton. Do you honestly suppose that after the last eight years that those groups are going to flock to McCain in the general election?

Re:Why should she go away? (5, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650817)

Better tell your Clinton friends to take a LONG HARD LOOK at the alternative. 4-8 more years of Iraq, world hatred, and the continuing decline of the economy is a BIG price just to pay for a little spite.

Re:Why should she go away? (2, Interesting)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650843)

My guess is that Obama really wants Clinton as a VP candidate. The reason is exactly what you mentioned: too many Clinton supporters are disillusioned for some reason. Many are pledging to not vote for Obama out of some kind of principle (even though his policies are more in-line with their beliefs than the other presidential candidate's).

If Obama has Clinton as a VP candidate, then all those votes reappear. Clinton supporters will vote in order to get Clinton into office in some capacity.

From Clinton's point of view, becoming the vice-president of the United States may be a concession, but it's still a very prestigious position. Moreover, being the first female US vice-president will guarantee her a spot in the history books.

Seems like a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Re:Why should she go away? (5, Insightful)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650895)

She only has no practical reason to "go away" if she is absolutely selfish, something which I concede may very well be the case. If she cares at all about her party or her country then she'll admit defeat and get her ass in gear promoting Obama to the masses in every way possible.

I say this as a dedicated third-party supporter who thinks that every serious Presidential candidate fielded over the past decade or so has been completely useless, from either major party.

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (5, Funny)

glgraca (105308) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650633)

I can picture her in a press conference concurrent to Obama's inauguration saying "I'm not making any decisions tonight; I still have a few cards to play".

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650635)

She won't take the VP spot. If she doesn't, Obama has a harder time of winning, meaning she can probably run again in 2012. If she takes it she can't run again until 2016, as Obama would probably win then.

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (5, Insightful)

wass (72082) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650661)

Well, the interesting thing is that in no primary in the US history has the outcome ever been so close. Obama has certainly won the primary, but just barely.

The party is truly split between the two candidates, and for the Obama team to take a small winning margin and run all the way to the general election while ignoring Hillary and keeping her out of the team, it will majorly turn off roughly half of the Democratic Party. The Obama team just wants Hillary to go away, but when she has the support of half the party, how can she just give up and disappear? That would be irresponsible to her supporters.

Another argument that the Obama team has been making for the past few months is that Clinton is ruining Obama's chances in the general election by keeping the election going, and that she's been mean to him with her campaign. The sad thing is that what Hillary has thrown at Obama is nothing compared to what the Republicans will throw at him starting now. If they cannot stand Hillary's attacks, they're going to crumple under McCain and the whole Republican propaganda machine.

It certainly is an interesting time in politics, seeing such a split in the Democratic party. Hopefully it can come together, but it won't happen if Obama just runs fully with it, leaving HIllary in the dust. Or, as you put it, to "make this woman go away".

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650803)

Is that because they're both really good candidates or is that people are equally indifferent?

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (4, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650693)

The Clintons and the Bushes are like political Herpes. In my life time, we have had Reagan/Bush, Reagan/Bush, Bush/Quale, Clinton/Gore, Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney, Bush/ Cheney -- complete with all the usual suspects from the 80s and 90s... and the fucking Ford administration, too!!

I am SO FUCKIGN GLAD its not going to be another 8 years of Clinton -- followed by what, Jeb Bush then Chelsey Clinton?

Bush Sr. and Clinton palling around...

but yeah, study hard, stay away from drugs and out of cyber-porn on the internet and YOU could be President of the United States some day.... pfft

sure.

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650749)

Anyone that has followed the career of the Clinton's knows they have no values or shame. They play politics like their celebrities, but never do any good in the system and never stand up for anything worthwhile.

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650767)

Hillary (like Bill) is hyper-ambitious and a sore loser. Right now she's still steaming and trying to plot a new course for the only person she ever cared about in this election (herself). She'll be back in a new form soon enough (no doubt trying to strong-arm her way into the VP spot).

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650821)

Sweet Zombie Jesus...what will it take to make this woman go away???
It's that's woman, as Bill would have it

Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650479)

Not that it was a surprise.

I hope that Hillary now does the right thing and urges her supporters to back Obama as the Democratic nomination and possibly (hopefully) the next President.

BAREBACK Obama (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650491)

get it right!

I won't lie (1)

nawcom (941663) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650493)

but I came here expecting the first post to be from some troll racially blasting Obama. Looks like they were too late this time!

Ron Paul... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650521)

Ron Paul.

Ron Paul!

RON PAUL!

RONPAULRONPAULRONPAUL!

/ Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

DING DONG! (1)

bondjamesbond (99019) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650565)

Munchkins
Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!
Mayor
As Mayor of the Munchkin City, In the County of the Land of Oz, I welcome you most regally.
Barrister
But we've got to verify it legally, to see
Mayor
To see?
Barrister
If she
Mayor
If she?
Barrister
Is morally, ethic'lly
Father No.1
Spiritually, physically
Father No. 2
Positively, absolutely
Munchkins
Undeniably and reliably Dead

Hillary will be VP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650573)

Hillary is stil going to be VP. We're all doomed anyway.

What kind of message? (1, Insightful)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650577)

I think it would be great if Obama was elected president. It would send a great message to the rest of the world that Americans are a diverse, caring and accepting people.

Really? Based on what?

Calling his own grandmother a "typical white woman"? Is that caring and accepting? Or what about his spiritual advisor, who baptized his children and married him and his wife, saying that the white US Government created AIDS to kill black people?

What about his relationship with someone who has bombed United States buildings?

If you meant this would send a message on a purely superficial level because of his skin color, maybe. But anyone who has done research on this man doesn't want him as president.

Re:What kind of message? (0)

Mycroft_514 (701676) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650827)

Truely, this guy has nothing to bring to the presidency. The only good thing he has done for us is to beat Hillary.

Hillary is open to the VP slot? Suuureee, giv eit to Hillary and watch how fast Obama has an "accident" after winning.

Great going Dem party, nominate an empty suit to the race. Reminds me of Geraldine Ferraro and all the hype when she became the first woman VP candidate. That race was one of the most lopsided in history. Glad to see the Dems trying to raise the bar and lose in a bigger lopsided race!

Re:What kind of message? (1, Insightful)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650829)

You are really missing the point. We need Obama so we have the bully pulpit to leverage pseudo-science to get the socialist reform we need to make this country better.

Now that Obama has no democrat rivals, the media will simply no longer report on any of Obama's past "issues". When republicans bring them up; we just knee-jerk out the racism charge.

Its Not Over... (1)

CryptoSynth (1301851) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650605)

This election is being covered amazingly well and in my opinion, the mainstream media, however biased, should be praised for putting the election in peoples minds. I hope now that Hillary does what is right and gets her supporters to rally around Obama as the Democratic candidate and possibly (hopefully) the next president.

America is dying empire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650611)

Overspent and overextended

Uhhh.... (3, Informative)

Otter (3800) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650623)

I have minimal interest in this subject, but even I know his damn name is spelled "Barack [cnn.com]", not "Barrack".

Re:Uhhh.... (1)

russlar (1122455) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650733)

I have minimal interest in this subject, but even I know his damn name is spelled "Barack", not "Barrack".
You must be new here.

Please explain us ... (0, Offtopic)

psergiu (67614) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650653)

Please explain to us non-US people what's a nomination and what are those delegates and super-delegates.

Thanks.

Re:Please explain us ... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650833)

I'm confused. You managed to post a comment, but you apparently have no idea what the internet is.

It is very perplexing.

Re:Please explain us ... (5, Informative)

cowscows (103644) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650889)

In the US there are two major political parties, and each one puts one candidate up for the election in the general election for President. But before the general election, each party has the primary campaign, where individuals within each party run against each other for the right to be the candidate in the election. These primary campaigns basically involve citizens (when it's their state's turn) going and voting for the candidate that they want to represent whichever party. Depending on the rules of the particular state, sometimes you have to be a registered member of that party in order to vote, and sometimes they're open to anyone registered to vote at all. Basically the way it works is that depending on how many votes you get in a primary, then you get a certain number of delegates. Delegates are basically voting representatives for that state, proportioned by the relative populations of each state,and are expected to vote in accordance with the results of the primary popular vote in that state.

You don't need to win one of the primaries to run for president, but you need to win one if you want the support of one of the major political parties. For various reasons, it's currently not particularly practical for a candidate to win the general election unless they are a candidate from one of the two main parties.

The two major parties in the US are the Democrats and the Republicans. Each party creates the specific rules that are used in their own primaries to select their candidates. The democrats, for various reasons, have come up with a complicated system that not only has regular delegates, but also has "super-delegates." Supers are usually (but not always) individuals considered particularly important to the democratic party (elected officials, party leaders, etc), and they are free to put their delegate vote towards whichever candidate they wish. Basically, they're individuals who's vote counts for way more than the average person's. Their role is restricted purely to the democratic primary however, in a general election, their vote counts for no more than anyone else's.

That's just a brief overview, without the history of why super-delegates exist, but there's plenty of information out there to be found on that.

Happiness from a non-party member (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650665)

I don't plan to vote for either McCain or Obama at the moment, but man, am I happy that Hilary lost.

I can't wait! (1)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650673)

If Obama's wife's speech is any indication of the increased government manipulation of the economy to come, this is going to be a fun ride:

"We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another -- that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."

And as usual the Republicans don't offer any better alternative, so my vote will have to wait another 4 years.

Re:I can't wait! (2, Insightful)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650849)

You do know that if you don't vote then you don't have any 'moral' right to complain about the result.

Looking forward to the change (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650769)

Not quite sure what the change is going to be, except health care, but we're going to see some change.

Yes, CHANGE! There's going to be some things happening in a different way that before and things that weren't happening are going to start happening and things that were are going to stop. Because it's all about change! Yay!

Horay for non-specific policies!

Re:Looking forward to the change (1)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650887)

We need change. It is a travesty that Teddy Kennedy had to go outside the country to get the best brain surgeon - err... wait.

So... (-1, Troll)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650779)

So we have a bigot running for president and it's NOT the old white guy! Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23650825)

I only have one question, why is the votes from Florida counts at only half the strength? Is that because they are only half human? Who make such decision, and more importantly, who give them the right to make such a decision?

THAT greed ! i cant believe it. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650831)

hillary STILL hasnt conceded. shes STILL speaking of 'going on'. going on WHERE ? to the doom of her party ? to another bush term in the form of mccain ?

she just wants a post thats it. thats totally it. if she cant make it to president, well, she wants to make it to vp. if she cant make it to even vp, she wants the democrats to sink with her.

but what i really cant believe is how people, especially politicans and political commentators on tv are trying to find rationalizations to her action. they obviously cant believe that someone can choose to be stubborn out of pure sheer greed, and finding reasons and excuses. even commentators leaning to obama are doing that. i can understand it though - one thinks noone can do such a thing out of pure greed in front of millions of people watching. well, actually people can. and hillary did it.

News (1)

physman_wiu (933339) | more than 5 years ago | (#23650867)

I've been overseas for the entire campaign. One thing that I can say is that there was enough news about both of the Democratic candidates, but very little about the Republican candidate. My co-worker, who is Taiwanese, just loves talking about how great of a job he thinks Obama will do 'when' he gets elected. It's been a really exciting race I think. For the first time we have both a black and a woman running. That's why they are getting the media coverage. But if the Democrats think that they can win, they'll be in for a big surprise I feel.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...