Obama wins nomination ??

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

The object of Hillary's campaign was not to win but to rasie the countries awareness and perception of Obama, this was very obvious after the first couple of primary's. Also believe it or not but the other side of the US polictal fence closed their campaigns down early for precisely the opposite reason.

Why would Mrs Clinton really care about 30 million of campaign debts that she is not liable for, especially when the party as a whole got exactly what it wanted into the minds of the american people and perhaps even further afield ?

This seems like a step into the twilight zone, this contest has very nearly split the Democratic party where at times its been brutal, to suggest this was all a set up to raise awareness of Obama is fantasy. Why on earth would she have put $5 million of her own money into her campaign, travelled tens of thousands of miles giving endless speeches if she had no desire to win the nomination? I've heard some crazy conspiracy theories in my time and this one is up there with the best of them.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

The object of Hillary's campaign was not to win but to rasie the countries awareness and perception of Obama, this was very obvious after the first couple of primary's. Also believe it or not but the other side of the US polictal fence closed their campaigns down early for precisely the opposite reason.

Why would Mrs Clinton really care about 30 million of campaign debts that she is not liable for, especially when the party as a whole got exactly what it wanted into the minds of the american people and perhaps even further afield ?

The Democratic Party is not a unifed party in the sense we, in the uk, are used too. They have a wide range of different views and people in the party. If they were in the UK they would encompass Labour, Lib Dem, and even a large section of the Tory party.

They cannot and do not control Primary politics, although it is convincable that two candidates could conspire to help each others normination they would not be able to do what you are suggesting. All of them were in it to win it.

Clinton Vs Obama spilt the party and has damaged their chances of winning in November. Clintons speechs are being used in republican ads and a lot of her supporters are not backing Obama.

Unless the Democratic Party have the worse advisers in the history of american politics, I think it is unlikely they planned it

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

This seems like a step into the twilight zone, this contest has very nearly split the Democratic party where at times its been brutal, to suggest this was all a set up to raise awareness of Obama is fantasy. Why on earth would she have put $5 million of her own money into her campaign, travelled tens of thousands of miles giving endless speeches if she had no desire to win the nomination? I've heard some crazy conspiracy theories in my time and this one is up there with the best of them.

Originally Posted by Damien

The Democratic Party is not a unifed party in the sense we, in the uk, are used too. They have a wide range of different views and people in the party. If they were in the UK they would encompass Labour, Lib Dem, and even a large section of the Tory party.

They cannot and do not control Primary politics, although it is convincable that two candidates could conspire to help each others normination they would not be able to do what you are suggesting. All of them were in it to win it.

Clinton Vs Obama spilt the party and has damaged their chances of winning in November. Clintons speechs are being used in republican ads and a lot of her supporters are not backing Obama.

Unless the Democratic Party have the worse advisers in the history of american politics, I think it is unlikely they planned it

Well politically and yes even in the US this would hold, she became absolutely and very obviously the only unelectable candidate in the primarys' at the early on 'new hampshire' event so even though she won that one why carry on after wards with what would undoubtedly be a fruitless campaign.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Well politically and yes even in the US this would hold, she became absolutely and very obviously the only unelectable candidate in the primarys' at the early on 'new hampshire' event so even though she won that one why carry on after wards with what would undoubtedly be a fruitless campaign.

But the popular vote was pretty much spilt between them, she was very electable

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Well politically and yes even in the US this would hold, she became absolutely and very obviously the only unelectable candidate in the primarys' at the early on 'new hampshire' event so even though she won that one why carry on after wards with what would undoubtedly be a fruitless campaign.

The Democratic vote has been pretty much 50/50 between the pair of them, so with thoses percentages nobody is going to back out, where you get this "unelectable candidate" idea from is a mystery.

And so it begins......

Fox "fair and balanced" TV

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Damien

But the popular vote was pretty much spilt between them, she was very electable

Originally Posted by frogstamper

The Democratic vote has been pretty much 50/50 between the pair of them, so with thoses percentages nobody is going to back out, where you get this "unelectable candidate" idea from is a mystery.

To some it was very obvious a long time ago

actually the vote was not 50/50 Obama was the front runner for most of the trip, there was really no doubt as clinton was allways trailing especially to those who knew she was no longer there to win, but he was an unknown really and also not white, he is certainly no repro of martin luthor king so he needed ample campaign time to appeal to a wider audience, hence a close run campaign between the 2 that was really only ever going one way.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

To some it was very obvious a long time ago

actually the vote was not 50/50 Obama was the front runner for most of the trip, there was really no doubt as clinton was allways trailing especially to those who knew she was no longer there to win, but he was an unknown really and also not white, he is certainly no repro of martin luthor king so he needed ample campaign time to appeal to a wider audience, hence a close run campaign between the 2 that was really only ever going one way.

Actually she started out in the lead..

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Actually she started out in the lead..

Hence the word 'most' as that lead was brief and short lived

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

To some it was very obvious a long time ago

actually the vote was not 50/50 Obama was the front runner for most of the trip, there was really no doubt as clinton was allways trailing especially to those who knew she was no longer there to win, but he was an unknown really and also not white, he is certainly no repro of martin luthor king so he needed ample campaign time to appeal to a wider audience, hence a close run campaign between the 2 that was really only ever going one way.

Nitro we are going to have to agree to differ here, some things in life are just what they appear to be and nothing more, like this contest, a bitterly fought battle that both Clinton and Obama wanted to win. To make claims, as you have, that Clinton didn't want to win and quote " especially to those who knew she was no longer there to win", both of these statements without any sort of proof are bordering on the insane, you haven't offered a shred of evidence or proof to back up your theory, until you do it remains one of the more wayout, in orbit, all the way to the outer rim conspiracy theories.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Nitro we are going to have to agree to differ here, some things in life are just what they appear to be and nothing more, like this contest, a bitterly fought battle that both Clinton and Obama wanted to win. To make claims, as you have, that Clinton didn't want to win and quote " especially to those who knew she was no longer there to win", both of these statements without any sort of proof are bordering on the insane, you haven't offered a shred of evidence or proof to back up your theory, until you do it remains one of the more wayout, in orbit, all the way to the outer rim conspiracy theories.

well actually there is proof however its really of the circumstantial nature, and of that I have already stated the one key point where its foundatiion lies because at that key point it was very obvious she without doubt clinton publicly became 'absolutely unelectable' if she had ever intended to be electable.

what you also need to remember is both british and usa political democracy is both money based, and believe it or not the corporations own the politics as well as the legal system being the largest 'donators'. When it comes to money there is only one fact, there is no such thing as friends, and no politician is a friend of the general public. When it comes to corporate finance and politics while on the surface much will be as it seems there are is also much that is not underneath.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I find it so odd that America has always been thought of as the country where women have true equality and yet despite all that this is the CLOSEST a woman has ever got to the presidency.

The image that America presents (very well, admittedly) is that it is a society that believes in equality. Sadly, in a lot of places (not all), this is not the case. From what I have been told (I have only been to Vegas so can't comment as Vegas welcomes anyone who has money), America is actually much more divided racially than we are.

I remember reading a while ago that the English actor Colin Salmon (who played Dr. Moon in the recent Dr Who story) was actively considered for James Bond.

He was rejected apparently because although he had already played Bond well in reheasals and auditions where, for whatever reason, Pierce Brosnan wasn't available, there were concerns that the American audience would not accept a black James Bond.

I don't know how true the above is though.

[punky]

As someone who has spent a considerable time in the US and the vast majority of that in the deep south, you're a bit wide of the mark.

America does have isolated problems with race, much like any other country. I wouldn't say that America is more inherently racist than us. Its hard to say definitively over such a big, varying country, but that's what my experience reflects.

Regarding the James Bond comment, many of Hollywood's leading actors and sports people are black. The leading American character in James Bond was most recently played by a black man. Given the fuss kicked up in Britain over a blonde and supposedly ugly James Bond, i'd say that we'd have a greater problem with it than the Americans.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by punky

As someone who has spent a considerable time in the US and the vast majority of that in the deep south, you're a bit wide of the mark.

America does have isolated problems with race, much like any other country. I wouldn't say that America is more inherently racist than us. Its hard to say definitively over such a big, varying country, but that's what my experience reflects.

Isolated? Only if you call New York and Washington isolated. I have heard similar reports from many people who have visited those particular areas. Including one person who actually lives in Houston.

Regarding the James Bond comment, many of Hollywood's leading actors and sports people are black. The leading American character in James Bond was most recently played by a black man. Given the fuss kicked up in Britain over a blonde and supposedly ugly James Bond, i'd say that we'd have a greater problem with it than the Americans.

Actually, the comment was not based on my own opinion. It was in an article I read (hence the comment about I am not sure how true it is). I never said (nor did I imply) that Hollywood had a problem with Black people. Look at the amount of black people that are successful actors. I said they had a problem with James Bond (a quitessential Englishman) being black. Different thing entirely.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Isolated? Only if you call New York and Washington isolated. I have heard similar reports from many people who have visited those particular areas. Including one person who actually lives in Houston.

I meant isolated as in unconnected. Each incidence largely says has its own reasons and circumstances. There aren't really any consistent connective threads tying racist incidents together. Not even the old stand-bys that if you're a redneck or from the South then you have to a Dixie rebel that wants to lynch coloureds.

Actually, the comment was not based on my own opinion. It was in an article I read (hence the comment about I am not sure how true it is). I never said (nor did I imply) that Hollywood had a problem with Black people. Look at the amount of black people that are successful actors. I said they had a problem with James Bond (a quitessential Englishman) being black. Different thing entirely.

I know the comment wasn't yours. I merely said there is no logic nor reason that Americans would reject a black James Bond, regardless of your source.

I sense a bit of animostiy in your post. Whatever caused it, it wasn't intentional. I wasn't attacking you, but just saying/proviing that a lot of stereotypical comments that get punted around here, regardless of source, are incorrect.