Comments on: Hillary Troubled By The Nevada Caucuses

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:37:41 +0000

I still think Hillary Clinton is the most knowledgeable and experienced person to be president. She is the most likely to win come November and the most likely to be able to take on the job of being president from Day One! Obama seems to be a likeable guy, but he does not seem up to the task of being president. Hillary has a more detailed plan and a better understanding of the complex issues that we face. I also do not like the way Obama has used the issue of race to stir up emotions and cause a division in the Democratic party. To say that Hillary said something racist is totally off the mark and very mean spirited! The Clintons have a history of standing up for civil rights. We should not allow issues of race or gender to divide us! We should also not vote someone because of their race or gender. I support Hillary because she is smart and experienced, not simply because she is a woman. That is true equality electing someone based on their merits! I hope that America can finally evolve to that point where we judge people based on their merits!
Nevada please caucus for Hillary tomorrow!

By: Tommy Long

Tommy Long — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:38:31 +0000

She made some good points, because it is a very time consuming process that can exclude people who can’t afford to sacrifice that time. I also think that one of the most valueable aspects of the caucuses that should be carried not only to primaries but to general elections is the idea of second choices. This allows people to voice their opinions and vote for candidates who will probably not win while still having their vote ‘count’.

Obama does well in caucuses because Hillary is much more dislikable. Many people who vote for guys like Kucinich and Biden (and even John Edwards) throw their support to Obama are for their candidate first and foremost but against Hillary. I think this is an important part of representing the electorate well.

There is little doubt in my mind that if such a ballot had been in place in the 2000 election Nader voters would have swung to Gore and helped him to win the presidency and I’m sure he would have a higher approval rating. Isn’t democracy about giving people what they want?

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:13:08 +0000

In Iowa, she talked about how much she loved and respected its voters and its part of the nominating tradition. Immediately after, she/the campaign trashed it as a small state whose results should be dismissed. Funny that I didn’t hear such comments after NH.

By: Tommy Long

Tommy Long — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:40:57 +0000

the caucuses are disenfranchising but she’s never had a problem with the electoral college? or any other part of the electorate process that is disenfranchising?

things are only notably disenfranchising when they affect your personal vote count I guess

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:19:14 +0000

I’ve made it very clear (on numerous occasions) that I don’t think Hillary and the Clinton’s way of doing politics is a good direction for this country. Feels like a move backwards.

As far as full disclosure goes, what does that mean? Do you think I’m working for another Dem candidate? The Republicans? David, these are my opinions and I always take full responsibility for them.

By: david d

david d — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:08:08 +0000

You say, “Listen, Iâ€™m not a big fan of caucuses…”

Neither are you “a big fan of” Hillary Clinton, apparently.

(Full disclosure, anyone?)