(feel free to move this, btw :) )

I just walked in from work and turned on the TV to hear...

Clinton by 8% with 33% of the vote in, even being outspent over the last month by over 4 to 1.

Suck it, haters! =)

Don't count our own Iron Lady out until she's out, and the margin, if it holds, is large enough to give folks pause, especially given that Pennsylvania is historically a key swing state, with a large chunk of electoral votes, for the general election.

Don't get me wrong - I like Obama and truly hope that he'll make an effective reconstructivist president, if elected; but it doesn't change my opinion that, despite all her 'baggage' and everything that has been heaped on her, fairly and more frequently unfairly, that of the three candidates, she will be the most *capable* president on numerous levels.

And, shame on the pundits tonight for blaming Hillary for being a drag on the Democratic party, and trying to nullify/discredit her victory when, if Obama truly resonated with swing and working class voters, he would have put this thing away by now, especially given how much financial support and media darling treatment he has received.

Regards,
Nydia

Hillary is a Republican in disguise... Wish she would just go away

Most of Philly hasn't been counted yet btw... And that is mostly Obama voters

Cmon.

She had a 30 point lead a few months ago, every possible break against Obama, and the entire party establishment in Pennsylvania led by Ed Rendell, who is a beast.
Top off the fact that Penn has the toughest possible electorate for Obama as that is the oldest in the US, super female heavy and lower blue collar.

Grats on an 8% win. But its over. She is gonna get blown out in NC by over 20 and be broke for Indiana. Obama broke her finances in half in Penn. This is a Pyhrric victory in the classic sense.

if Obama truly resonated with swing and working class voters, he would have put this thing away by now, especially how much financial support and media darling treatment he has received.
Or, maybe he's just not as ethically bankrupt as Hillary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/22/barackobama.uselections2008)!

Oh hell no Clinton is not a Republican, we don't want her!!!

Damn he's good though. Obama giving concession speech in Indiana arena surrounded by HUGE crowd ... After watching Clinton for 20 minutes in some small theater is just crushing.

It's amazing, the Obama rallies are huge and the Clinton ralliies here were virtually empty. I guess its a race thing, I'm not sure tho. PA is a strange state its like a combination of NY, NJ, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, California, Iowa, New Hampshire and Alabama all in these little pockets within other pockets. I've lived here since '92 and I still don't get it.

The area I live in used to abound with manufacturing jobs and with these huge farms...most of both are gone now with Nafta and the building boom, there is alot of construction still going on, I never really noticed that much until lately, but the construction seems to be about 60% speculative in nature.

But anyway, for whatever reason she did good but L2 is correct, her lead was cut considerably.

Thank god for another month of empty, pointless, hateful rhetoric. Talking heads have to eat too.


This is a Pyhrric victory in the classic sense.

This entire primary season reminds me of the many marches made in Russia in late fall. Moscow is certainly over the next hill, don't mind the cooling weather. This time, we'll make it.

Just one quick comment here:

But as in other contests, Obama is relying on his own army of unpaid volunteers to get the vote out.

I know from firsthand experience in Texas that this bit is simply not true - two of my students confided in me that they had been paid *handsomely* in order to get out the vote for Obama in Texas on the weekend prior to, and through, primary day - well enough enough that one of my students was using the money (for four days' work) to move out of her parents' house and into an apartment (one of them was nice enough to notify me in advance that she was going to miss an exam, the other just showed up after the fact and informed me). They were also set up in *very* nice digs at the Tropicano Hotel, catty-corner to my apartment, where I was able to watch them come and go all weekend. Something tells me that, while San Antonio is where Obama headquartered in Texas on primary night, that wasn't a unique situation.

Not saying that your article is biased towards Saint Obama or anything ;), and the reporter in the story you linked admits that he doesn't know whether the Hillary campaign paid or not (I tend to think not given their financial situation, although if *Bill* knows anything, it's how to grease a wheel ;) ).

On the length of the nomination grind, I have several hypotheses on why Hillary refuses to concede the nomination, and have heard a few of the 'conspiracy theory' variety; but I tend to believe that she simply doesn't have it in her to do so until it's clear that she can't pull it off - given the way in which Obama has emerged this year (and him having been elected to the Senate due to a huge power vacuum and an unelectable opponent), she simply may not be able to believe that she is fighting for her political life against this 'upstart', no matter how eloquent. In what *appeared* to be a conciliatory move this evening however, in her speech tonight while she was talking about 'making history', she once again mentioned that 'after this election, it would never be able to be said again that we could not elect a woman *or* an African-American to the highest office in the land and did so with a particularly soft and thoughtful voice, which may have been for effect - but I believe that she really was considering, in that moment, the possibility that she might *not* be the nominee, and has begun reconciling herself to that possibility, as well as trying not to further alienate the Obama followers, whom she will need if she *does* end up with the nomination.

It will be interesting to see, in light of tonight's results (Hillary 55/45 Obama last I saw) if Obama can deliver the goods in Indiana, another heavily blue collar state but one which borders his native Illinois. If he can, more power to him. If not, then it's time to consider finding someone other than Battleaxe Hillary to blame...

Regards,
Nydia

It needs to end. The longer this goes on the worse it is for the Democratic Party. There needs to be a point where the Party gives a scenario or ultimatum of "Hilary if you dont win Indiana, drop out." or something to that effect, WAY too much money and resources have been spent battling each other with little focus on the BIGGEST fight, of beating McCain.

I believe the scenario is they play it out and see who wins all these elections before they let the Super delegates actually decide who it will be :)

Clinton is going to need one of Kanyli's lucky cabbages to win this thing......

Hmm...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/what-must-obama.html

Harold Ford Jr. -- not so long ago the rising black politician within Democratic ranks -- now heads an arm of the party that seeks to keep its focus on "middle" America and crafting centrist messages: the Democratic Leadership Council. Often vilified by liberal activists, the DLC sees itself as quintessentially practical.

From that perspective, and in the wake of Hillary Clinton's win in the Pennsylvania primary, Ford just set a political bar for the black politician that surpassed him in prominence.

"You have to win Indiana," Ford told Barack Obama (via an interview on MSNBC). And, Ford added, Obama has to "steamroll" Clinton in the other state with a primary two Tuesdays from now, North Carolina.

10% margin is pretty big in my opinion.

2 voted in my house hold and it was a split vote. 1 for Obama 1 for Clinton. I queried the neighbors one lady told me she voted for Clinton simply b/c whenever phone calls came to her house the recorded message was "her" voice and not someone else calling on her behalf. I /boggled but what can you do? Some people vote on the strangest criteria lol.

I live in what I would consider an upper middle class sub. We have everything from doctors, teachers, techies, retirees, to fireman. We were visited by both campaigns allot, too much in my opinion! I'm glad it's over I think it's exciting and nice to see so much involvement :)

10% margin is pretty big in my opinion.


Only if you don't look at what the margin was a month or so ago.

The only poll that counts is the one were actual votes are cast. :)

The issue lies in that they share the delegates based upon how the polling turned out. Hillary needed a bigger delegate gain than she achieved last night. Obama making the race closer in Pennsylvania hurt Hillary because she was banking on getting back more delegates than she ultimately did. Not a ton more delegates, but when she's behind, each one is that much more important.

I think Mrs Clinton is hoping to get close enough her Super Delegates carry the day for her.

Which will tear the party apart and give McCain the win....keep it up Hillary!!!

That being said since she claims to have all this experience of leadership garnered from her time spent as First Lady perhaps we should invoke the 22nd amendment and bar her from running.

After all you can only serve 2 terms as president!~!!

Heard today her net delagate gain was 12.

Heard today her net delagate gain was 12.

And this morning Obama got another super delegate... lol so much for momentum Hillary

They're not 'got' until they're officially cast at the convention.

And this morning Obama got another super delegate... lol so much for momentum Hillary

When he gets a new one, does the super delegate rip back his/her shirt to reveal a giant S?

When he gets a new one, does the super delegate rip back his/her shirt to reveal a giant S?

Yes, after stepping out of a phone booth.

They're not 'got' until they're officially cast at the convention.

So true, so true. And I also agree with your statement about the only margin that matters is the one that occurs on the day it counts. People who believe in polls amuse me :)

And this morning Obama got another super delegate... lol so much for momentum Hillary

You stopped reading the article in the middle I guess? Obama picked up Gov. Brad Henry while Hillary picked up Rep. John Tanner. The truth is its still very neck and neck and either one of them have a chance at the convention.

You stopped reading the article in the middle I guess? Obama picked up Gov. Brad Henry while Hillary picked up Rep. John Tanner. The truth is its still very neck and neck and either one of them have a chance at the convention.

Oh sorry, she must have picked it up after, I heard it on the radio on the way to work.

I'll tell you this, and I repeat this because it's important as hell.

If Clinton gets the nod due to Super Delegates tipping the scales then it's over for the Democratic party this go round.

Folks are already upset with Congress, a nod towards even more elitist behavior will really send them diving into apathy = McCain win.

I'll tell you this, and I repeat this because it's important as hell.

If Clinton gets the nod due to Super Delegates tipping the scales then it's over for the Democratic party this go round.

Folks are already upset with Congress, a nod towards even more elitist behavior will really send them diving into apathy = McCain win.

If Clinton gets the nod, McCain has my vote!

Not even the normal delegates are "Got" until they vote at the convention.

But a Super Delegate who goes from Neutral to supporting Obama IS a big deal.

If Clinton gets the nod due to Super Delegates tipping the scales then it's over for the Democratic party this go round.

Folks are already upset with Congress, a nod towards even more elitist behavior will really send them diving into apathy = McCain win.
I wouldn't be surprised if she's already irreparably sabotaged her party in this election. A month ago, I was predicting Obama as President. Now, I'm not so sure.

Looks more and more like McCain by default all the time.

I'm glad it's over I think it's exciting and nice to see so much involvement :)

I think what most people fail to see about the Clinton campaign, and to a lesser degree the Obama campaign because of it (would it be better minus this influence? impossible to say, but seems likely) is that the involvement you see is all the wrong kind. You have people getting involved, yes, but it's all in the same circus fashion that obscures any real discussion or debate on real issues, and the Clinton campaign has been absolutely disgusting in engendering more invective and less discussion.

Just try to imagine an Edwards/Obama race going like this and maybe you'll get what I'm talking about. In as long as Hillary is being a grifter to win, nothing positive is coming out of this, and that's exactly the reason people are so drawn to Obama. Whether or not you like his various policies, there is still some chance he's still a real person and not a bought-and-sold piece of political property. If she had any real love of this nation, any real desire to see fundamental things change, any real idea of what it meant to actually be a leader, she'd be working WITH Obama instead of throwing what has amounted to a six month tantrum that her time in the political machine isn't entitling her to the reward of an office.

I've been trying to stay out of these discussion as much as possible because frankly the whole subject makes me want to kick puppies.

Leave the puppies alone!!!

So many more kittens to throttle!

So many more kittens to throttle

Once throttled(and it has to be quick to avoid adrenaline spoilage) I'd recommend a slow Braize, 2 hours minimum with a mix of curry spice. serve with Basmati rice seasoned with Saffron and lemon grass and top with fresh steamed Asparagaus.

MMMMM.. thats some good politics right there.

I'll tell you this, and I repeat this because it's important as hell.

If Clinton gets the nod due to Super Delegates tipping the scales then it's over for the Democratic party this go round.

Folks are already upset with Congress, a nod towards even more elitist behavior will really send them diving into apathy = McCain win.

I wouldn't be surprised if she's already irreparably sabotaged her party in this election. A month ago, I was predicting Obama as President. Now, I'm not so sure.

Looks more and more like McCain by default all the time.

Personally, I'm a middle of the road type that leans a little more Democratic than Republican. Pretty much everyone I work with are Republicans. Mostly NRA, reduce taxes Republicans, not much in the way of cultural conservatives. They all hate McCain, but will vote for him if Obama becomes the nominee ( I believe it is partially racial and partially that he is too liberal for them ). But if Hillary becomes the nominee, they have stated they will abandon McCain.

While I don't hate McCain or have the same party ties that they do, I feel pretty much the same ( except for the racial factor ). Hillary or McCain are my choices, Obama is just too far to the left for comfort.

As far as Hillary and Obama "destroying the Democratic chances", I think you are all a bit smarter than that. Look at history, everything happening right now will be forgotten by November.

The issue is that Hillary has been attacking Obama, exposing his flaws, and generally doing McCain's job for him. When Obama goes up against McCain, he will be at an unnecessary disadvantage due to Hillary.

Meanwhile, McCain can just bide his time, save his money, and prepare for the Fall in peace.

I disagree with that assessment. Obama was doing a much better hatchet job on Hillary when he was the underdog than Hillary has been doing on him.

Perhaps it is my view point, but I am trying to honestly analyze this. The constant buzz I hear is "Hillary can't get enough delegates to win without the super delegates". The exact same thing is true of Obama, but that isn't what you hear from the media and pundits. Fandros's post above makes it look like a super delegate voting for Hillary is tantamount to stealing the election. The fact of the matter is that we've watched almost 9 innings and it is still a tie, time for extra innings.

If anything, Hillary's attacks will help Obama should he become the candidate. As an example, Hillary didn't make him call all the rural voters "bitter" and I would bet he won't make that same type of mistake again. And I'm not sure McCain will get much mileage out of it at this point, since most people will consider it old news.

It's not a tie.

Her symbolic "double digit win" in PA netted her a 12 delegate gain. Including pledged superdelegates, she's still losing by 133 delegates.

It's pretty cut and dried. The media is just feeding you what helps perpetuate great ratings for them.

Sanchek is basically right. Where there was once the expected degree of election year/primary battle attacks going on, the Hillary campaign has devolved it thoroughly and unnecessarily, harming the odds of she or Obama being elected President in a year when the Dems should have it relatively easy.

A lot of this, I hear, was due to Mark Penn's waving around of his stats and polls claiming that voters want Hillary to be extra-aggressive, while other members of her campaign wanted a less rabid approach. Anyway, from everything I've read, Hillary has already lost unless she can a) get Obama to drop out or b) get the superdelegates to go her way despite the total votes of pledged delegates.
Hillary or McCain are my choices, Obama is just too far to the left for comfort.An odd view, as Hillary and Obama have very similar voting records. Obama is to Hillary's left, but not by much.

If Clinton gets the nod, McCain has my vote!

78% of white catholics (according to Tim Russert on the nightly news) voted for Clinton; and, of that number, 20% say they will vote McCain if Obama is the nominee, and another 18% will just stay home.

Obama clearly has some problems connecting with a large part of the electorate, considering he outspent Clinton 3/1 in Pennsylvania and had six weeks since the last election event to work those voters.

The Democratic Party clearly has some problems with so many people being less loyal to the Party ideology and plans for the future, and more loyal to the individual of their choice, to the point they threaten to vote the other party's candidate before the Democrat their candidate opposes.

I think the fact Russert was focusing on the white catholic vote has as much to do with a backlash of a more conservative religious group reacting to the church and church leader Obama is associated with, as it did the obvious racial divide in many of the states' votes.

So many more kittens to throttle!


NOOOOOO!

They need to be active, to better attract the Muskies!

Look at history, everything happening right now will be forgotten by November.

That might actually work to Obama's advantage. Clinton's attacks now are, in a way, reducing McCain's ammo for the general election because anything that is brought out now will be old news in November. (And yes, I am assuming that Obama will be the Democratic nominee at this point.)

Strengths.
+ In the general, the Obama and Clinton organizations will basically merge. These are well built, battle tested ground games.

+ Everything that the Republicans can throw at Obama has been thrown already. Their responses have been measured and they have seen what works and what doesn't work.

+ We are witnessing, in all likelyhood, McCains top and Obamas bottom.... and its still pretty close.

Weaknesses.

+ Possibility of fractured party. Clinton may know she cant win and is only carrying on in order to break the party before the election and allow her another chance in 2012. If the negativity continues, and she manages to deeply divide the camps, this may work. However, Obama, centerstage, at the convention. One speech. Nobody I'd rather have up there.

+ Unchangeable narrative. If Clinton sticks to one attack and drives it home effectively, with media cooperation, McCain will be able to just piggyback on the foundation Hillary built. Thats like a 4 month, 50 million dollar gift. There is no negative narrative on Obama yet. But if Clinton Inc. goes jihad on the party, and suicide bomb attacks, ie go so negative it destroys her, but also cripples Obama, that could change.

Clinton's attacks now are, in a way, reducing McCain's ammo for the general election because anything that is brought out now will be old news in November.You're right in that the media seeing those topics old news (Wright, Ayers, etc...), so they're going to be even slower bringing those things up again. But both you and the media will be making a mistake in thinking a large portion of the public is paying the Democrat primaries much attention right now - especially the Republicans.

Clinton is going to need one of Kanyli's lucky cabbages to win this thing......Rock on, that's the first thing I read when I came home today. I need to spread some rep love around, or I'd get you for that one.

I think the fact Russert was focusing on the white catholic vote has as much to do with a backlash of a more conservative religious group reacting to the church and church leader Obama is associated with, as it did the obvious racial divide in many of the states' votes.This would be ironic, given how McCain's ally Hagee has written of Catholics. I'd expect that to come up in the general.

I think another thing that will come up in the general, should Obama actually get there, is the manner in which he has forsaken his offer of a new and different brand of politics.

He offered hope and a new direction for our political landscape, but has done the same old stuff as all candidates before him; i.e., he has attached pleas for money to almost everything he has put out to the public and has succeeded in raising record amounts of money to spend on political advertising, which "polls" show is one of the most despised parts of the political season, and he has dropped his pretense of being above negative campaigning and has indeed moved into a tit for tat (sorry for the poor pun) routine with Hillary in terms of going negative.

He also has consistently been misrepresenting McCain's comments about needing troops in Iraq for "maybe 100 years" as saying McCain wants to keep a war going there for that long.

Obama emerged as a breath of fresh air, but once the wind blew a bit harder, he has the same old garbage smell as the rest.

He also has consistently been misrepresenting McCain's comments about needing troops in Iraq for "maybe 100 years" as saying McCain wants to keep a war going there for that long.And the economy comment by McCain...

We didn't give him much choice. We rewarded monumentally insipid journalism with our attention, and demanded him to sink to the level of talking about flag pins.

I think another thing that will come up in the general, should Obama actually get there, is the manner in which he has forsaken his offer of a new and different brand of politics.

He offered hope and a new direction for our political landscape, but has done the same old stuff as all candidates before him; i.e., he has attached pleas for money to almost everything he has put out to the public and has succeeded in raising record amounts of money to spend on political advertising, which "polls" show is one of the most despised parts of the political season, and he has dropped his pretense of being above negative campaigning and has indeed moved into a tit for tat (sorry for the poor pun) routine with Hillary in terms of going negative.

He also has consistently been misrepresenting McCain's comments about needing troops in Iraq for "maybe 100 years" as saying McCain wants to keep a war going there for that long.

Obama emerged as a breath of fresh air, but once the wind blew a bit harder, he has the same old garbage smell as the rest.

Your assessment is ludicrous, when I have more time I will reply in detail.

Your assessment is ludicrous, when I have more time I will reply in detail.

Use any adjective you wish to describe my opinions of Obama, but where exactly am I wrong?

Obama has held back on ammunition that he has on Hillary, and has attempted to indeed stay above the fray. However Hillary's kitchen sink strategy has led to Obama needing to defend himself.

The focus of the Media and of Hillary has been so ridiculous that Obama has had to spend 75% of the time defending himself, and 20% of the time showing that Hillary is a hypocrite. Leaving just 5% of his time to focus on policy and the actual change he wishes to implement.

The amount of money he has raised in no way can be used as a negative against the man. The average donation to the Obama campaign is 100.00.

Now the money he spent to take a 30 point lead of Clintons in the polls, to a 10 point loss in the primary, is being attacked as some kind of negative. As if fighting back and cutting 20 points off her lead never happened.

Anyone who cannot see how hypocritical the Clintons have been, accusing Obama of running a negative campaign, and bringing up negatives about him, over and over and over and over again is blind my friend.

Obama didn't misstate anything that McCain said. McCain indeed meant that soldiers would be in Iraq for 100 years, even if it was during a peaceful time, where our soldiers were not being killed.... However Obama has made it clear that McCain wants to leave our troops in Iraq for 100 years. McCain said it, don't blame Obama.

I am shocked that people still cannot see how manipulative and hypocritical the Clintons have been, and how well Obama has really weathered the storm.

Now I hear his campaign is saying they will not bring up Whitewater. Trust me, if Hillary had something like Whitewater on Obama, it would have been in the news for weeks.

Seriously Byl, you see what you want to see with Obama, because you are a Hillary supporter. You need to take a step back and examine your own candidate. She has been a venomous snake, and her campaign is the real negative campaign in this race.

I dislike Hillary with all my being as she's a manipulative lying witch. But even I can see Obama's camp is made of paper mache' and will lead to no change at all ;(

The amount of money he has raised in no way can be used as a negative against the man. The average donation to the Obama campaign is 100.00.



LOL..oh really? Today a woman I know told me she heard that most of the money Obama gets is from muslims in the middle east...although it was funny in a retarded kind of way...there is absolutely a way that the money he raises can be used against him.

Look at how many people freak out over the rumor that he's muslim. The saddest part is that even if he was there is nothing wrong or improper with that, last I saw the constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom. I wonder if at any point those people will come to the realization that it is them who are the un-american un-patriotic, they are themselves the ones they fear.


I dislike Hillary with all my being as she's a manipulative lying witch. But even I can see Obama's camp is made of paper mache' and will lead to no change at all ;(

Why is it made of paper mache? I just don't see it that way, his speeches are not only inspiring, which is good for the country I would think, his speeches are also very specific in what he will do and how he will do it.

I'm really glad to see that this has evolved into a reasoned discussion! Given some of the vitriol that has been spewed here in the past it is nice to see people being civil in their discussion of what is a very serious issue. I have not have any mainstream news on today, but I have had both the Daily Show and (currently) the Colbert Report playing in the other room and I'm glad to see both of them making light of what is a very serious, and very legitimate, struggle over the nomination, with the groups valuing different characteristics in two candidates who hold many of the same positions.

I spend quite a while last night ruminating both on my own root feelings with regard to the election, and how the media and public gestalt have each shaped it; and came up with the following observations/comments:

1) Despite some of the media's op-ed pieces, it's not somehow Hillary's 'fault' that she continues to fight in a race that is a virtual dead heat, and which she has carried all of the major swing states in. If the roles were reversed, do any of the Obama supporters really believe that he would have withdrawn at this point? Would they have *wanted* him to, or would their idealistic zeal drive them to insist he fight it out also? The ability to reach moderate and swing voters is what wins the general election, folks, and *neither* of them can win this outright - both need the majority of the superdelegates to reach the magic number. I could not help but notice, at the caucus and convention I went to, how much broader of a base her supporters came from (and a surprising number of military or retired military!) than Obama's, whose consisted mostly of the young (the Obama alternate my precinct nominated to the state convention was eighteen and a senior in high school, although most weren't quite *that* young), and the affluent and idealistic.

2) I think the doomsaying that the long primary race will 'break' the Democratic Party is a load of hogwash, perpetrated by those who gain from casting a negative pall over our candidates' overwhelming advantage. The Republicans have nothing and they know it, and despite the fact that they're enjoying the struggle between our candidates, the worse things get on the economy and otherwise, the better it is for us. The best Mc Cain could do when asked about the economy last week was say "Well, I've bought a copy of Alan Greenspan's memoirs..." At this point, my opinion is that we should all take a deep breath, relax, and accept the fact that we're likely headed into the convention, and may the best candidate win. My feeling is that the next few weeks will be very telling; either Obama will find a way to exhibit grace under pressure and win the day, or he'll crumble, in which case, did he have the stuff to lead anyway?

3) I agree with Byl's comments that, under pressure, that Obama has 'cracked' a bit and we've begun to see the same old tactics out of him (and I'd submit that he was simply more subtle, and more delegatory, about them before). Politics is a contact sport, and it's my opinion that, should he be the nominee, he *needs* this to toughen him up for the freight train that will be the *Republican* party smear machine. One of the two main reasons that large chunks of the traditional Democratic base don't warm to him is that he doesn't have anything for them to go on, experience-wise - this grind provides them with the opportunity to see his mettle tested, which will actually help both unify the party and help *him* assuming he gets the nomination - and if he fails that test, would he have been able to stand up to the rigors of the general campaign, not to mention what he would run into when he gets into office? For those of us who remember President Carter, this is not an unfounded concern, or for that matter, consider what happened to John Kerry, who attempted not to stoop to the down and dirty and was repaid for his efforts with a Swift Boating, or Al Gore, both of whom only had to deliver *one* red state and who were ground into the dirt. I'd *like* to think McCain wouldn't stoop to such, but I don't have any doubt whatsoever that his party would...


I have a lot more to say on this topic (namely, a personal exposition of why, I, a lifelong idealist and former Edwards supporter, would come down narrowly on the side of Hillary, and why that is neither an implicit contradiction nor does it make me morally bankrupt, willfully ignorant, or in possession of dangerously flawed reasoning powers, as friends who feel strongly otherwise have suggested ;) ) but I'm sick and have kind of lost focus and this is long and it's late. I did make one other observation in the wee hours of the morning over the (very indignant, in some cases) demand/suggestions from some quarters that Hillary 'do the right thing' for the party and concede, and I'm sure there will be some self-righteous knees jerked over this, but what is being painted as Hillary's 'lack of grace' carries a whiff of sexism that every female over 40 (and many under 40) knows well, and it reads like this: How dare she refuse to be a good girl and withdraw for the sake of the other (male) candidate? As a woman of a certain age who was either asked to, or strong-armed into, throwing everything from childhood chess games (I would not play again for 30 years) to job prospects for the sake of male ego or outright just screwed out of opportunities for the sake of same, the suggestion that someone who has fought so hard, and is clearly still in the race, should just 'play nice' and give up rankles in a specific way whether or not the request has merit on its own terms.

This also, I think, accounts for some of her 'intractability' both within her campaign itself and among her legions of female supporters, of whom I've met scores at the two conventions I've attended and elsewhere, in their inexpensive (or expensive) pantsuits and scarves, enthusiasm mixed with cold calculation in their eyes, and padded shoulders squared for battle. Many of her female supporters identify with every bit of unjustified crap, misogynistic or otherwise, that Hillary has taken over the years and cheer on her grit and determination in the face of it and they won't relinquish that dream easily. And to her credit, other than the bit in her campaign speeches about 'making history', even though I could be perceived as 'playing the gender card' in this post, Hillary never has - it would be the violation of an unwritten rule that we never mention that particular elephant in the living room, while dancing backwards in high heels, twice as well in order to be thought of as half as good ;), as well as political suicide, so she soldiers on, walking the tightrope between being perceived as dirty or weak, and although race, and accusations of racism or playing the race card, have been brought up in connection with the contest, and race is being discussed again this morning on CNN (which I just briefly turned on and turned off again in disgust ;) ). Despite her baggage, I really *do* feel that she has the 'right stuff' for a variety of reasons, and so she'll continue to get my support for now...

Regards,
Nydia

Obama didn't misstate anything that McCain said. McCain indeed meant that soldiers would be in Iraq for 100 years, even if it was during a peaceful time, where our soldiers were not being killed.... However Obama has made it clear that McCain wants to leave our troops in Iraq for 100 years. McCain said it, don't blame Obama.



Now I hear his campaign is saying they will not bring up Whitewater. Trust me, if Hillary had something like Whitewater on Obama, it would have been in the news for weeks.



You are making my points for me, and I appreciate it.

McCain said we might have troops in Iraq for the next 100 years, and you and Obama have made that into he WANTS to have troops there for that long.

And, a special prosecutor spending over $100 million of tax payer monies failed to find anything with Whitewater that was illegal involving the Clintons, so Obama can really shoot himself in the foot going in that direction.

My post above simply points out that the initial luster is fading from the Obama machine, as people are seeing more of the man. Yes, he is a great speaker and motivator, but other than that he is business as usual as far as politics goes. I like none of the candidates as much as some others that are not in the race, but in terms of trusting one of them as the nation's leader, I find Obama lowest in that category. He still strikes me as modern day Pied Piper, whose charisma has created such a wave that he is now caught up in it himself for good or bad.

Some interesting comments from those Pennsylvanians around me regarding Obama. His rallies were energetic but his speeches weren't detailed, he kept saying the same thing. "I'm going to change the process, we need change". He didn't touch on the details and while seeing allot of people was nice it wasn't an "intimate" feel. At Hillary rallies she took time and spoke people, she gave detailed speeches outlinging what she would or could do. This is what swayed the folks in York I'd assume it was similar in other parts of the state.

If Obama has a chance he needs to get out the huge arenas and get down to earth with folks. Being in a huge crowd people feel disconnected and like they can't talk with him.

Such a sad sack year for options.

1) Hillary is same ole same ole with a streak of manipulative lying and flat out pandering to her credit.
2) Obama has no experience and has nothing to say but change/change/change
3) McCain is too old imho, 71 is a rough time to start what could be the most important stretch of leadership in a long dern time.

I like none of the candidates as much as some others that are not in the race, but in terms of trusting one of them as the nation's leader, I find Obama lowest in that category. He still strikes me as modern day Pied Piper, whose charisma has created such a wave that he is now caught up in it himself for good or bad.Interesting - my "gut" instinct is actually to trust Obama more than Clinton, just based off of hearing them speak and watching their campaigns. To some extent I wonder if it might be nice to just have someone in office who isn't lying to us, regardless of their policies. It might be a breath of fresh air to be told the truth as we're screwed. I don't think I'd vote solely on that issue, but it was definately a point for me during the last election.

It's not a tie.

Her symbolic "double digit win" in PA netted her a 12 delegate gain. Including pledged superdelegates, she's still losing by 133 delegates.

It's pretty cut and dried. The media is just feeding you what helps perpetuate great ratings for them.

Wow, you are feeding me media spin in an attempt to get me to believe I'm listening to media spin.

What never gets brought up in the fawning the media does over Obama is that he CAN NOT get the required 2025 delegates without super delegates. There is a whole 1% Obama lead in the number of popular votes over Clinton ( if you remove Florida and Michigan, add them and Clinton leads ). Yes, this is a tie, and after May 6th, it will still be a tie because neither candidate will be able to secure the needed number of delegates to become the nominee. Super delegates will decide who the nominee will be, that is a fact. They made decide it will be Obama, they may decide it will be Clinton. But in neither case will one candidate be stealing the election from the other.

Wow, you are feeding me media spin in an attempt to get me to believe I'm listening to media spin.

What never gets brought up in the fawning the media does over Obama is that he CAN NOT get the required 2025 delegates without super delegates. There is a whole 1% Obama lead in the number of popular votes over Clinton ( if you remove Florida and Michigan, add them and Clinton leads ). Yes, this is a tie, and after May 6th, it will still be a tie because neither candidate will be able to secure the needed number of delegates to become the nominee. Super delegates will decide who the nominee will be, that is a fact. They made decide it will be Obama, they may decide it will be Clinton. But in neither case will one candidate be stealing the election from the other.

Of course it will be stealing the Election if Obama has the pledged delegate lead, the popular vote, and has won more states, and Clinton gets the nod...

I will have NO faith in the democratic party whatsoever if that were to happen.

And please, don't try and bring up Michigan and Florida... Hillary showed again she will do anything to win, including breaking the rules. Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and, he didn't spend a cent campaigning in Florida.

As of last report they won't be adding in MI and FL due to costs and well it would show that the party caters to the Clintons.

Yeah, you know me and my love for the media. I would definitely listen to, accept, and spread their message as high and far as I could... :rolleyes:

The issue really isn't complex enough to require spin at this point. Just simple mathematics. I looked at the numbers (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D) and did it myself after the primary.

Obama has 1,719 delegates, to Hillary's 1,586.

So far, the superdelegates haven't been siding heavily with Hillary, as some would have you believe. She has 255 to his 232. Or, 53% to his 47%. Just to bring them to a tie, the remaining 308 superdelegates would have to suddenly go just 70% in her favor.

Even if you believe PA represents some sort of new Hillary momentum, and she continues that momentum through till the end, it's simply too little too late.

People that are willing to put their money where their mouths are don't seem to think it's a dead heat.

Open this link in a new window. (It will resize your window, which is annoying--is there a way to set the target on a vBulletin "url" tag?)
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=177448

Currently a bet on Clinton would have close to a 6:1 payoff:
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=177134

(Disclaimer: I assume it's illegal to actually place bets on Intrade from the US. I am not suggesting participating in any illegal activities. :P )

They need to be active, to better attract the Muskies!

I'd vote for whatever candidate could provide clear proof that they boated even a smallish 25+ pound muskie.

I'm just itching to see the mud start flying when the Dem. candidate is chosen and the two parties go after each other. McCain has been through this before, and Hillary has also weathered her own scandals. It is going to be interesting to see how Obama handles things if he gets the nod.

I'm also interested to see how the Republicans handle things, given that so many of their less than savory campaign tactics from the past have seen the light of day.

I've boated two 40"+ Tiger muskies, that count??

Funny things is, if the Democrats don't line up their ducks and deal Hillary out soon the Republicans won't have to play dirt tricks. They'll merely have to expound a lil on what the Desperate (no it's not a dead even race) Hillary has exposed.

Of course it will be stealing the Election if Obama has the pledged delegate lead, the popular vote, and has won more states, and Clinton gets the nod...

I will have NO faith in the democratic party whatsoever if that were to happen.

And please, don't try and bring up Michigan and Florida... Hillary showed again she will do anything to win, including breaking the rules. Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and, he didn't spend a cent campaigning in Florida.

That's ludicrous. Either candidate has to get 2025 delegates to get the nomination. Each delegate counts the same, whether pledged or super. Why are you suddenly trying to make pledged delegates more important? The process has been in place for many years, this isn't something that was just dreamed up to keep Obama out.

And not bringing up Michigan or Florida is probably smart, not like they will vote in the general election or anything. :rolleyes:

More from Hillary Rodam-delusional-Clinton.

Of course note that she signed on promising not to campaign in these states and of course decided to back out on her promise. Typical Clinton bs.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/24/campaign.wrap/index.html

Some interesting comments from those Pennsylvanians around me regarding Obama. His rallies were energetic but his speeches weren't detailed, he kept saying the same thing. "I'm going to change the process, we need change". He didn't touch on the details and while seeing allot of people was nice it wasn't an "intimate" feel. At Hillary rallies she took time and spoke people, she gave detailed speeches outlinging what she would or could do. This is what swayed the folks in York I'd assume it was similar in other parts of the state.

If Obama has a chance he needs to get out the huge arenas and get down to earth with folks. Being in a huge crowd people feel disconnected and like they can't talk with him.

I thought his speech was pretty darn detailed as was hillarys. Hillary seemed very impersonal in her speech and there was not that many people at it, Obama spoke to the crowd and did a "town hall" question and answer session. Both worked the crowd and shook hands but Hillary was holding conversations with people in her entourage while she did it, Obama looked directly at each person and said a few words to everyone he shook hands with.

My older sister was very pro hillary, even got her autograph at the rally, but did a complete 180 and said Obama had her vote after his rally.


In my humble opinion (Web translation IMHO)

I think either one will be much better than McCain in the long run. The thing that bothers me most about Obama is the raising of the capial gains tax, that kind of screws homeowners...or at least it could have, before, when we used to make money on realestate sales.

More from Hillary Rodam-delusional-Clinton.

Of course note that she signed on promising not to campaign in these states and of course decided to back out on her promise. Typical Clinton bs.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/24/campaign.wrap/index.html
So basically, she can beat Obama as long as he isn't on the ballot?

That's ludicrous. Either candidate has to get 2025 delegates to get the nomination. Each delegate counts the same, whether pledged or super. Why are you suddenly trying to make pledged delegates more important? The process has been in place for many years, this isn't something that was just dreamed up to keep Obama out.

And not bringing up Michigan or Florida is probably smart, not like they will vote in the general election or anything. :rolleyes:

Because, you know, the actual voters have some say in how those delegates get assigned.

That's ludicrous. Either candidate has to get 2025 delegates to get the nomination. Each delegate counts the same, whether pledged or super. Why are you suddenly trying to make pledged delegates more important? The process has been in place for many years, this isn't something that was just dreamed up to keep Obama out.

And not bringing up Michigan or Florida is probably smart, not like they will vote in the general election or anything. :rolleyes:

And it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to get more pledged delegates then Obama at this point. If the voters choose Obama, and some rich people who donated to become super delegates, and some senators and governors can just put their votes in and overturn our votes, it will be the biggest mistake the Democratic party ever made, and would be right in line with George Bush's Supreme court victory.

If the people in Michigan and Florida are so ignorant as to blame Obama for what happened in their state, and to vote for McCain, then so be it. Too bad we can't stop stupid people from voting.

And it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to get more pledged delegates then Obama at this point. If the voters choose Obama, and some rich people who donated to become super delegates, and some senators and governors can just put their votes in and overturn our votes, it will be the biggest mistake the Democratic party ever made, and would be right in line with George Bush's Supreme court victory.

If the people in Michigan and Florida are so ignorant as to blame Obama for what happened in their state, and to vote for McCain, then so be it. Too bad we can't stop stupid people from voting.

Elitist nonsense....

For the people by the people.

It looks like Bill knows where this is headed!

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/23/us/22940319.JPG

[/b][/i]

Elitist nonsense....

For the people by the people.

Lol now I am an elitist?!

Idiots ruin our country, whether they lead it or they vote for who leads it... I just said what everyone feels. :)

I think before anyone considers using the word "elitist" in anything relating to the election this year, they should remember what the people saying "gravitas" sounded like in 2000.

It's elitist to assume that anyone voting contrary to you is "stupid".

You don't have the answers Jedd, no individual does.

That's why it's for the people by the people.

It's elitist to assume that anyone voting contrary to you is "stupid".

You don't have the answers Jedd, no individual does.

That's why it's for the people by the people.

You missed my point... People who would get mad at Obama and vote for McCain, because of the Florida/Michigan situation are stupid. It was not Obama's fault that Florida and Michigan did not count, neither is it the democratic party's fault that Hillary broke the rules and campaigned there anyways.

Simply voting for McCain doesn't make you stupid, as I said I would vote for him over Hillary.

The point was that voting for him for such a dumb reason is what makes a person stupid.

It's elitist to assume that anyone voting contrary to you is "stupid".
I dunno. I think he's right that it would be "stupid" to blame Obama for the fiasco in Michigan and Florida. I don't understand how anyone could logically construe that to be his fault.

Ahhh reading too many boards/threads lost your intent.

my bad.

Maybe I was actually being too generous about Hillary's chances?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/24/02723/7112/307/502085

I thought his speech was pretty darn detailed as was hillarys. Hillary seemed very impersonal in her speech and there was not that many people at it, Obama spoke to the crowd and did a "town hall" question and answer session. Both worked the crowd and shook hands but Hillary was holding conversations with people in her entourage while she did it, Obama looked directly at each person and said a few words to everyone he shook hands with.

My older sister was very pro hillary, even got her autograph at the rally, but did a complete 180 and said Obama had her vote after his rally.


In my humble opinion (Web translation IMHO)

I think either one will be much better than McCain in the long run. The thing that bothers me most about Obama is the raising of the capial gains tax, that kind of screws homeowners...or at least it could have, before, when we used to make money on realestate sales.

Of course it is entirely possible that both candidates behaved differently in our two areas of the state. Just so you know Rover I wasn't implying things were the same as where where you were. I was giving insight into what the murmrs were from those around me, many co-workers and avid Repubs visited in her the last time she was in York and it was most definitely not dull or uncrowded. Remember the closest Obama came to here was Lancaster and he didn't come as much as any Clinton did. We were visited multiple times by all of them.

You missed my point... People who would get mad at Obama and vote for McCain, because of the Florida/Michigan situation are stupid. It was not Obama's fault that Florida and Michigan did not count, neither is it the democratic party's fault that Hillary broke the rules and campaigned there anyways.

Simply voting for McCain doesn't make you stupid, as I said I would vote for him over Hillary.

The point was that voting for him for such a dumb reason is what makes a person stupid.


She campaigned in Florida are you SURE about those facts or are you just spouting? I believe I have heard numerous times on the news that she did not campaign in Florida. I'm sure this is an easily researchable fact and I could be wrong myself.

She campaigned in Florida are you SURE about those facts or are you just spouting? I believe I have heard numerous times on the news that she did not campaign in Florida. I'm sure this is an easily researchable fact and I could be wrong myself.

Hillary Clinton has decided to rewrite the rules of the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

Like other candidates, she pledged not to campaign in Florida after the state jumped ahead on the schedule of caucuses and primaries set by the Democratic National Committee.

She had to make that pledge if she hoped to compete in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses and the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, as Iowa and New Hampshire zealously guard their starting status on the political calendar.

But Iowa and New Hampshire are history and, after a landslide loss in South Carolina on Saturday, Clinton needs a win.

So she has begun appearing in Florida in anticipation of Tuesday's Democratic primary there.

Clinton's move insults not just the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who trusted her pledge but also the voters of all the states that respected the DNC's outline for the nominating process.

Effectively, she is saying to Democrats in states that will participate in February 5th's "Super Tuesday" primaries and caucuses and in the two dozen states that have scheduled later votes: You may follow the rules if you please, but I write the rules as I please.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=276341


SARASOTA, Fla. (AP) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she was going to Florida to assure Democrats that "their voices are heard" and to underscore her commitment to seeing the state's delegation seated at the national convention.

Though the Democratic presidential candidates largely have heeded the national party's request that they not campaign publicly in Florida, Clinton said it's time to pay attention to voters there who are showing heavy interest in Tuesday's primary. Early voting is under way and drawing strong interest, she said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080127/D8UEG4RG0.html

You know what?

Id vote for McCain over Hillary too.

I don't agree with McCain on alot. But I trust him.


Edit:
Holy fuck.. Colbert is Brilliant.

Hillary Campaign = Iraq War.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=166958

And please, don't try and bring up Michigan and Florida... Hillary showed again she will do anything to win, including breaking the rules. Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and, he didn't spend a cent campaigning in Florida.

Which rules were broken, please?


Edit: As the article in The Nation points out, the two events in Florida were closed to the public, so they were not campaigning. To say that candidates could not meet privately with people in a state that had lost it's right to be counted due to a rules violation is not only "ludicrous", but downright laughable.

More from Hillary Rodam-delusional-Clinton.

Of course note that she signed on promising not to campaign in these states and of course decided to back out on her promise. Typical Clinton bs.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/24/campaign.wrap/index.html

Bill could have found a way to pull that off and had people clapping him on the back for his "sharp maneuvers".

An interesting line in that linked article was the lead Clinton has over Obama in pledged SuperDelegates. I know folks like to think the common person knows more than what those actively involved in politics do, but leading by 20+ at this point tells me that many of those who are actively involved in the day to day politics of the country think Clinton is the better candidate to run against McCain.

So, is the question do we want to take the White House back from the Republicans, or do we want to cut off our nose to spite our face?

I am Independent, and still have not decided on my vote, but I am having lots of fun watching this contest unfold.

It looks like Bill knows where this is headed!

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/23/us/22940319.JPG

Who was Chelsea talking about there?

Which rules were broken, please?

KmUVr_Qt2Wg

She signed and accepted her pledge to not campaign in Florida, and to take her name off the ballot in Michigan. She then campaigned in Florida, and had her name on the Ballot in Michigan. Rules are rules, unless Hillary decides she no longer supports them?

KmUVr_Qt2Wg

She signed and accepted her pledge to not campaign in Florida, and to take her name off the ballot in Michigan. She then campaigned in Florida, and had her name on the Ballot in Michigan. Rules are rules, unless Hillary decides she no longer supports them?

Once again, I am not aware of there being a rule about taking one's name off a ballot.

And there was no proven campaigning in Florida.

Once again, I am not aware of there being a rule about taking one's name off a ballot.

And there was no proven campaigning in Florida.

Did you miss my posts with the articles?

Of course it was proven...

Did you miss my posts with the articles?

Of course it was proven...

/sigh

Private meetings closed to the public are now considered campaigning? What took place at those private meetings that meets that criteria, whatever you, and The Nation, have determined it to be?

/sigh

Private meetings closed to the public are now considered campaigning? What took place at those private meetings that meets that criteria, whatever you, and The Nation, have determined it to be?

Are you going to find an excuse for her wanting Florida and Michigan to count when Obama wasn't on one of the ballots and didn't campaign in the other state also?

/sigh

This blogger laid it all out nice and simple for you Bylimet...

Hillary and Florida and Michigan (http://www.democraticcentral.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=8E85581E701AB08A7B53952200 406624?diaryId=1719)

by: cvllelaw (http://www.democraticcentral.com/userDiary.do;jsessionid=8E85581E701AB08A7B53952200 406624?personId=2)

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 15:04:16 PM EDT


I have been saying since before it became an issue between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that it was important that the Democratic Party stick by its rules, and when they said they would not seat any delegates from Florida and Michigan primaries conducted in January, it was important that they stick by that position.

Maybe it's the father in me. Or the former Party Chair, who took over a local party that didn't even know if it had binding bylaws. Or the Little League coach or Cub Scout leader who tried to bring order out of chaos.
The Democratic National Committee passed its rule on August 29, 2006, containing the rule that only four states would have nominating activities in January -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the
second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule. http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache... (http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf) When Michigan and Florida (and other states that backed down) started talking about having primaries in January, in violation of the rule, the DNC asked all of its candidates to sign the so-called "Four State Pledge" -- the pledge not to campaign in any state that had nomination activities in January except the four whose early activities were sanctioned by the Party.
WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _____________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/ms... (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf) Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all signed the Four State Pledge in September 2007. Most of the candidates took their names off the Michigan ballot; only Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel did not. (Thanks to Vivian for correcting my earlier version on this point.) http://www.palmbeachpost.com/n... (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/shared/news/DNC02_PBP.html)
The Clinton campaign issued a press release on September 1, 2007:
We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.
Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/... (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3134) The Party Delegate Selection Rules contained an "out" -- if a state legislature took action that had the effect of throwing a state party into non-compliance, the DNC could overlook the non-compliance if the state party could prove that it tried to challenge the change:
A. Subject to Rule 18.C. of these Rules, wherever any part of any section contained in these rules conflicts with existing state laws, the state party shall take provable positive steps to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the provisions of these rules. B. Provable positive steps shall be taken in a timely fashion and shall include: the drafting of corrective legislation; public endorsement by the state party of such legislation; efforts to educate the public on the need for such legislation; active support for the legislation by the state party lobbying state legislators, other public officials, Party officials and Party members; and
encouraging consideration of the legislation by the appropriate legislative committees and bodies.
C. A state party may be required by a vote of the DNC Executive Committee upon a recommendation of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to adopt and implement an alternative Party-run delegate selection system which does not conflict with these rules, regardless of any provable positive steps the state may have taken.
Although there was an argument that Florida's early primary could be blamed on the Republican legislature and the Republican Governor, the Florida Democrats made no effort to challenge the bill. Indeed, the Democrats voted for the change in the legislature, presumably assuming that the DNC wouldn't have the guts to stare them down.

In Michigan, which has a Democratic legislature and a Democratic Governor, there was not even that possible rationalization. Democrats proposed the change and got it enacted. Thus at a DNC meeting in December, the DNC voted to tell Florida and Michigan that their primaries would not count. Some refused to believe it, and some refused to follow the rules, confident that they would be able to bully the DNC into seating their delegates anyway."As some members of the DNC noted today, the threat not to seat the delegates of Michigan and Florida at the Democratic convention is a hollow threat," Sen. Carl Levin said in a written statement. "They will be seated, and when they are, it will be plain for all to see that the privileged position that New Hampshire and Iowa have extracted through threats and pledges from candidates is on its last legs." http://www.palmbeachpost.com/n... (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/shared/news/DNC02_PBP.html) The candidates were permitted to go to Michigan and Florida for fund-raising, but they were not supposed to make "campaign" appearances there. None of them did, though Hillary made plugs for herself on national news programs, specifically encouraging Florida voters to vote for her.



She did not campaign in Florida until the votes were cast, but she let it be known that she would be flying into Florida on the night of the primary, and she had a rally at 7 PM in Florida on the day of the primary. You wouldn't do that unless you were expecting to try to argue after the fact that the rules shouldn't apply to Florida.



Barack Obama got a ruling from the DNC that it would not violate the ban on campaigning in Florida to run national ads that ran in Florida, among other places.

The Clinton campaign has maintained that there was an organized effort to encourage those who wanted Obama to vote "uncommitted." There was indeed some effort, but you can't beat something with nothing; even a non-campaign for Hillary Clinton will always be more effective than a non-campaign for "uncommitted."
Hillary Clinton wound up winning in Florida with 50% of the vote; Barack Obama got 33% and John Edwards 14%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20... (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=FL) Of the 121 delegates that are to be chosen as a result of the Florida primary, 67 will go to Clinton, 41 will go to Obama, and 13 will go to Edwards. http://www.fladems.com/content... (http://www.fladems.com/content/w/florida_goes_ahead_with_delegate_selection_despite _sanctions)
In Michigan, Hillary got 55% of the vote, to 40% "uncommitted", 4% for Dennis Kucinich and 1% for Chris Dodd. Mike Gravel got 0%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20... (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI) Hillary Clinton got 73 delegates, and "uncommitted" got 55. http://michiganforedwards.blog... (http://michiganforedwards.blogspot.com/2008/01/michigan-delegate-allocation-in.html) The bizarre situation would be that Hillary supporters would have the right to seek to be "uncommitted" delegates, so in theory Hillary could end up getting all 128 Michigan delegates, despite having won 55% of the vote against no real opposition.

Of course, after the primaries resulted in victories for Hillary Clinton, the Clinton campaign began pressing to have the results count -- basically, all of the delegates from both states would go to Hillary. The DNC has continued to say "No." So this week, as the DNC is stiffening its backbone, Hillary has made another statement:

If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote. The nearly two and a half million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process and I think that's wrong. The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored. Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do to ensure that the voters in Florida and Michigan are counted. In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don't see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states. Whether voters are clamoring for solutions to the challenges that we face or not, or whether people are coming out in droves to be heard, we have a basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts.
I hope that Senator Obama's campaign will join me in working to make that happen. I think that that is a non-partisan solution to make sure that we do count these votes.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/... (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6492) In other words, count my victories, or have another primary.

I don't have any problem with another primary, though I thought that the Clinton campaign's rationale for a (cheaper) set of caucuses was interesting -- "We can't have caucuses because Barack Obama kills us in caucuses (Nevada not included)."


In any event, it seems that we may be getting close to having a "do-over" in Michigan; Florida is a tougher nut to crack. But if we end up with delegates selected in compliance with Party Rules, it will only be because someone -- Howard Dean, perhaps; Barack Obama, certainly -- has had the backbone to enforce those rules. Florida and Michigan knew exactly what they were doing when they set up those illegal primaries. They were gambling that no one would say "Rules matter." I have little sympathy for them or for any campaign that is trying to enable their scofflaw behavior.



http://www.democraticcentral.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1719

she had a rally at 7 PM in Florida on the day of the primary.

Jedd, quit trying to dredge for a perjorative smoking gun when it isn't there. If she held the rally at 7pm, the polls had already closed, and therefore it wasn't campaigning, and could not have possibly affected the results.

But please, keep going on about how above board poor put-upon Obama and his spinmeisters have been, and how Hillary was a dirty cheater...

She may have, in your eyes, violated the *spirit* of that pledge, but she most certainly did not violate the letter of it. It remains up to the DNC to determine whether they wish to seat some, all, or none of Florida's delegates for holding their primary early, but I don't think you can make a case for disqualification on the grounds that Hillary 'tainted' that vote.

Regards,
Nydia

Jedd, quit trying to look for a smoking gun when it isn't there. If she held the rally at 7pm, the polls had already closed, and therefore it wasn't campaigning, and could not have possibly affected the results.

But please, keep going on about how above board poor put-upon Obama and his spinmeisters have been, and how Hillary was a dirty cheater...

She may have, in your eyes, violated the *spirit* of that pledge, but she most certainly did not violate the letter of it.

Regards,
Nydia

She is violating all of it by demanding the delegates be seated! What the hell?!

though Hillary made plugs for herself on national news programs, specifically encouraging Florida voters to vote for her.

That seems like campaigning, though not physically being in Florida, it was directed AT Florida!

Rules are rules, unless Hillary decides she no longer supports them?Wouldn't that, under the current standards of individuals in office, make her the perfect candidate to be president? :p

GWB in a Pantsuit

Ethically at least.

What cracks me up is Jedd saying that folks, like myself, have a biased view and are not seeing things clearly. Any chance anyone can convince him that he has a biased view and is seeing only what he wants to see, the way he wants to see it?

I have asked him to show me "the rule(s)" that Clinton broke, and he keeps posting everything but what I asked for.

What cracks me up is Jedd saying that folks, like myself, have a biased view and are not seeing things clearly. Any chance anyone can convince him that he has a biased view and is seeing only what he wants to see, the way he wants to see it?

I have asked him to show me "the rule(s)" that Clinton broke, and he keeps posting everything but what I asked for.

She went against her pledge... Simple, The DNC laid out rules, the states broke the rules, and Hillary went against her pledge in favor of those who broke the rule.

Perhaps I should word it better. She broke her pledge! She supports rewriting the rules as she see's fit, and she is a bitch :)

She went against her pledge... Simple, The DNC laid out rules, the states broke the rules, and Hillary went against her pledge in favor of those who broke the rule.

Perhaps I should word it better. She broke her pledge! She supports rewriting the rules as she see's fit, and she is a bitch :)

Fine. You have a lot of hate for Hillary. She went against what she pledged, similar to Obama and his pledge regarding campaign funding.

But try to stay specific, and not toss out charges like "breaking the rules" without having some rules to back up the charge. There is enough ammunition to lob crap at each and every one of these so-called candidates; no need to invent some out of your own hate for one or more of them.

Fine. You have a lot of hate for Hillary. She went against what she pledged, similar to Obama and his pledge regarding campaign funding.

But try to stay specific, and not toss out charges like "breaking the rules" without having some rules to back up the charge. There is enough ammunition to lob crap at each and every one of these so-called candidates; no need to invent some out of your own hate for one or more of them.

Obama has yet to make a decision in relation to the campaign funding situation. Where did you grab that one from?

Hillary has, objectively, been ridiculously two-faced, corrupt, and ethically bankrupt during this entire debacle. I cannot understand why anyone would be a Hillary apologist, at this point.

There has been endless objective analysis of this fact. To continue making excuses for her is either a bit shady yourself, or based in complete ignorance of current events.

Either way, don't call Jedd out for knowing what he's talking about. Go read some news.

Guess it's gonna take Hilly sueing her own party for people to realize what a power hungry self obsessed bitch she really is.

Hillary has, objectively, been ridiculously two-faced, corrupt, and ethically bankrupt during this entire debacle. I cannot understand why anyone would be a Hillary apologist, at this point.

There has been endless objective analysis of this fact. To continue making excuses for her is either a bit shady yourself, or based in complete ignorance of current events.

Either way, don't call Jedd out for knowing what he's talking about. Go read some news.

Well, since you are wanting to be a Jedd apologist, maybe you can help him find the rule(s) that he claimed Hillary broke. That was my only point in my posting.

I am not being a Hillary apologist, because I agree with your assessment of her; I am merely wanting to see folks trash candidates on facts and not spin. I have not made excuses for her, so your decision to stoop to name calling is saying more about you than about me.

I do read the news, btw. I just don't consider it news when political commentators/analysts are offering opinions that favor their candidate.

Name calling?

Jedd already posted detailed enough information about the DNC rules that she's breaking, broken, and/or trying to break. I get the impression you didn't bother to read that, based on your replies.

How about this. You tell me: What exactly will it take for you to stop apologizing for her with semantics? What "proof" do you require? What specific format would you prefer?

Tell us what you'll actually accept and believe, since the facts apparently aren't cutting it!

Zi6mP6l6nBI

Hillary did break the intent if not the law.

As with most things Clinton she believes her actions above reproach and above the law.

Yet another good reason I hope she loses straight out against Obama.

Even better if the SuperDelegates pick her so it totally rips the bottom out of the Democrats for 2008 and beyond.

I think Howard Dean is going to push the SuperDelegates to follow the will of the people tho to avoid such a disaster.

Btw , for those of you still supporting that lying Clinton...

How do you "mispeak" about dodging sniper fire??

C'mon you have to really explain how you can support such a bold faced liar...

C'mon you have to really explain how you can support such a bold faced liar...People have supported every politician you've ever heard of, and it's hard to find one of them who hasn't lied, whether it be the WH's current occupant or any of his possible successors.

Support for politicians, noble or nefarious, isn't just about what they say on the campaign trail. Many votes are simply based on demographic issues, of course, but those who are more issue-oriented will look primarily at what they think the candidates will do as President. One could honestly deplore Hillary's campaign, for instance, yet still believe that she'd be better for the country than her competitors. Either she'll make better decisions and lead the country in a better direction, or maybe she's just not as bad as her rivals.

That point of view can be taken with Obama or McCain, too. For myself, I'd pick Hillary over McCain not because she's some paragon of virtue, but because I think she'll make (at least marginally) better decisions than he will. I might throw up in my mouth a little when pulling the lever, but so it goes in American politics.

People have supported every politician you've ever heard of, and it's hard to find one of them who hasn't lied, whether it be the WH's current occupant or any of his possible successors.

Support for politicians, noble or nefarious, isn't just about what they say on the campaign trail. Many votes are simply based on demographic issues, of course, but those who are more issue-oriented will look primarily at what they think the candidates will do as President. One could honestly deplore Hillary's campaign, for instance, yet still believe that she'd be better for the country than her competitors. Either she'll make better decisions and lead the country in a better direction, or maybe she's just not as bad as her rivals.

That point of view can be taken with Obama or McCain, too. For myself, I'd pick Hillary over McCain not because she's some paragon of virtue, but because I think she'll make (at least marginally) better decisions than he will. I might throw up in my mouth a little when pulling the lever, but so it goes in American politics.

Well said, Thor.

The biggest problem in our political scene is that the Party leadership still exerts too much influence in who we are allowed to have as choices, with an eager hand from the media. Ron Paul is a great case in point. He had the potential to attract many of those Independents that have been hanging between Obama and McCain, but the Party leaders and the media marginalized him whenever possible, and kept playing up the preferred nominee du jour. (McCain--> Giuliani --> Romney --> McCain) Even Huckabee was getting more air time, because he appealed to the religious conservatives. Paul talked straight about the need for specific things to change, and those changes were not acceptable to the power brokers.

Richardson, on the Democrat side, and Biden to some extent, represented the best qualified of the slate of candidates offered but neither was ever discussed by the media or the Party leaders as a potential nominee. That was reserved for Clinton, and then for Obama. Even John Edwards, who had little more experience than Obama, was given more air time than Richardson or Biden.

Richardson vs. Paul would have had an energizing affect on the electorate, IMO; perhaps not as much as what Obama has brought to the table but with the ideas they both put forth, there would be a lot more discussion of issues in the campaign than all the current finger pointing and nit-picking. Of course, there would still be the age questions thrown at Paul, and the "Clinton taint" following Richardson.

The end result though is, regardless of who gets elected, the next several years will be full of casting blame on the other party for the problems facing Americans.

/shrug

I like watching these campaigns and the accompanying melodramas and comedic bits almost as much as a favorite television show.

Btw , for those of you still supporting that lying Clinton...

How do you "mispeak" about dodging sniper fire??

C'mon you have to really explain how you can support such a bold faced liar...

You didn't strike me as someone who cares about such dumbshit as this. I think most if not all the people on this forum are knowledgible enough to vote on the issues and not what the frigging media or the candidates say to make themselves seem holierthanthou.

Honestly Thor explained it far more eloquently than I could. I'm far from a Hillary lover but I could give two shits about that dumb story. It holds no weight in what I consider important issues. It's as bad as believing those attack ads in NC on Barrack.

Honestly, how can you call her flat out lying about being shot at as minor?

If she hadn't got caught how far would she have taken it I wonder. Would the lil girl have been injured and she had to carry her from the field of fire?

It's more Clintonisms that I can't believe folks support. Ya'll deserve what you get when you vote for them.

Yes I speak from experience, I voted for Bill first time around and was summarily shamefaced I ever gave him my support ;(

There was a time when honor and character mattered.

Honestly, how can you call her flat out lying about being shot at as minor?

If she hadn't got caught how far would she have taken it I wonder. Would the lil girl have been injured and she had to carry her from the field of fire?

It's more Clintonism's that I can't believe folks support. Ya'll deserve what you get when you vote for them.

Yes I speak from experience, I voted for Bill first time around and was summarily shamefaced I ever gave him my support ;(

I oddly find myself completely in agreement with Fandros on this. It isn't the fact that it is a big issue that she didn't dodge sniper fire, but the fact that she lied is what is a big deal.

Before you respond with "all politicians lie" think about it for a second. Hillary has lied, cheated, wants to steal(the election by counting florida and michigan), and contradicts herself almost daily.

Bill Clinton pulls the race card, and then blames Obama for bringing up race.

Hillary calls Obama out for bringing up the fact that he would like to act on intelligence to strike AQ in Pakistan, and calls it a big deal that he wants to bomb a country(in her words), then she threatens to NUKE Iran if they attack ANYBODY in the middle east.

Hillary calls Obama's campaign extremely negative, yet she has started all the negativity, and always calls him out after he responds to her.

Hillary claimed media bias because the media was "too nice to Obama", yet she doesn't understand that the very bias part of the media is that she is even still in the spotlight, when her chances of winning are 1/10000

Hillary continued to bring up negative points about Obama which have NOTHING to do with the issues in the last debate, between her, and the media which is "treating her so unfairly" it took 51 Minutes to get to an actual question about the issues we really care about. Would you ever find Obama leading us down that path?

Hillary pledged to not campaign in Florida, yet called for voters in Florida to vote for her.

Hillary left her name on the ballot in Michigan even though she pledged to not count the votes from that state, yet calls Michigan a win.

Hillary called for Florida and Michigan's delegates to be seated, and called it fair if they were seated as is. OBAMA was not on the ballot in Michigan, and she only got 52% of the vote against some losers and uncommited.

HILLARY CLAIMS THAT SHE LEADS THE POPULAR VOTE!!!

I used to deeply respect the Clintons, and I loved Bill. However they have disgusted me, and anyone who will sit here and defend them, or their tactics, is out of touch with reality.

That point of view can be taken with Obama or McCain, too. For myself, I'd pick Hillary over McCain not because she's some paragon of virtue, but because I think she'll make (at least marginally) better decisions than he will. I might throw up in my mouth a little when pulling the lever, but so it goes in American politics.

Indeed, thanks Thor. I was laying in my bed this morning composing a Rolling Thunder (tm) to Sanchek in response to his vituperous response to Byl (and my guess is, it was more calling *me* out than Byl), but I think you encapsulated my feelings fairly well.

A couple of things in response to the "Hillary is a morally bankrupt dirty cheater" line of reasoning:

It's disingenuous and unfair to lay all of the blame at Hillary's feet for the mess that has resulted from the absolute mess the DNC has made of their candidate selection process. Between proportional representation, the caucuses and district conventions altering delegate totals, Superdelegates, not to mention the debacles in Michigan and Florida this year, we have a system that makes it impossible for any close race to be objectively and definitively decided. Indeed, if we had a 'winner-take-all' system for delegates, as the Republican party has, we'd have the situation of Hillary being ahead in the delegate count (having taken the 'heavy hitter' states), but behind in the popular vote (if one doesn't count Florida - and I'm of the opinion that under no circumstances should Michigan's delegates be counted as Obama wasn't on the ballot and they couldn't even pull their heads out of their asses and hold a repeat primary with three months to work with). *No-one* engages in politics to lose - can one really blame her for trying to work a fundamentally flawed system to her best advantage? It may reek of the grimy, bare-knuckle politics of old, but to suggest that there is something particularly and uniquely vile (or even terribly unusual) about her approach is to protest too much.


As far as my feelings about the players in the current cage match in progress go: When you take away all the gloss and soaring (or muckraking) rhetoric, *neither* of these candidates are progressives - the only populist candidate who was proposing substantive change who had any chance in this election is at home watching his wife die. Given that reality, my personal preference is for the one who stresses the concrete over the ethereal, who knows the heart of darkness that is the American corporate-political machine inside and out, has taken the worst it can dish out, and is still standing, battered and bruised and somewhat compromised but with full knowledge of what she is up against, and in full possession of the tools necessary to engage it at its own game. I also believe that she, like her husband, really *does* possess enough compassion for, and a sense of responsibility to, the American people that she will serve *them* to the best of her ability, make her carefully planned stands (eg. health care) and has enough respect for the rule of law (politics being a different matter, something that the Neoconzealots never understood or drew the distinction between, and willfully betrayed our system of government), that she will restore competence and reality-based administration to our civil service and judiciary (and has made several pointed speeches on 'ending the war on science' going on in the current administration, for example). She's not warm and fuzzy, not selling a revolution, and while her extremely pragmatic (Rational in the NT sense) approach is one of the things I like about her, I think it contributes to why many people have a visceral negative response to her out of proportion to that which would normally be generated by the empirical evidence.

Obama, on the other hand, while brilliant and a consummate politician himself, weaves a semiotic spell of changing the rules of the game itself - beautiful to look at, but like the jewel-like strands of morning dew, prone to evaporate under the heat of the midday sun (or negative campaigning). People are asking: Can we bet the farm (or what's left of it) on a vision? I asked a young (22), but prenaturnally wise, friend of mine last night what he thought of Obama, and he gave me a priceless response: "Cast aside your cynicism and bitterness and quaff of the newly restored Danegeld! I can't stand that b-------..."

I suppose that encapsulates, both humorously and succinctly, why I am reluctant to 'believe' in Obama's message, and why so many working class and more concrete-preferring folks, can't either - he asks for a *religious* conversion, and it is a source of great mystery to me why so many intelligent folks blindly swallow the Kool-aid with regard to him (not passing that judgement on anyone specific here, btw, but it is in ample evidence among his supporters) in much the same way we stood aghast as the Republicans did the same eight and four years ago. As Lewis Black, one of my favorite comedians, said (referencing Oprah Winfrey's "He is the One" speech): "What is he going to do, destroy the Matrix?" To some of his supporters, the answer seems to be yes, but they are misguided if they are looking for a populist crusader - he's a clear moderate, with positions and a voting record barely to the left of Hillary's. When Jesse Jackson, 20 years ago, spoke about economic and social justice, you knew he *meant* it - and when John Edwards spoke about the 'two Americas", and completely revolutionizing our health care system, (by going to a single payer model among other things), there was no question that he was going to stand up to the powers that be and push for real change. While I deeply respect Obama's comportment and dignity, in the end I see someone not terribly different from Ms. Clinton (except in temperment), trying to sell the exact same solutions as the Second Coming, only with a less concrete plan for how he will accomplish said miracles.

To be fair, I too am tired of the same old players, and the same old framing and battle lines, in our political process, that have held sway for the past 35 years; and I do sometimes wish that Ms. Clinton didn't carry the tainted association of that history with her - I think much of Obama's appeal is based simply on the fact that he is a new face that offers the shimmering myth of a different reality in politics. Hillary, on the other hand, offers no myths, no glamour, just the promise of hard, gritty, ugly work trying to repair the damage that the last 8 years have wrought on our institutions of government, our economy, and our international reputation. While I don't think that Obama will be incompetent at the above, and I will certainly vote for him should he get the nomination, I prefer the gritty reality over the illusion.

Politics, as Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice said in Evita, is the art of the possible. In the end, I suppose I'll take my reality straight up. Thanks everyone, for your thoughtful responses in this thread, and it promises to be an interesting few weeks ahead...

Sincerely,
Deborah A. Dixon
"Nydia Ywalmoriel"

Politics, as Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice said in Evita, is the art of the possible. In the end, I suppose I'll take my reality straight up. Thanks everyone, for your thoughtful responses in this thread, and it promises to be an interesting few weeks ahead...



I do love reading your posts! :)

Honestly, how can you call her flat out lying about being shot at as minor?

If she hadn't got caught how far would she have taken it I wonder. Would the lil girl have been injured and she had to carry her from the field of fire?

It's more Clintonisms that I can't believe folks support. Ya'll deserve what you get when you vote for them.

Yes I speak from experience, I voted for Bill first time around and was summarily shamefaced I ever gave him my support ;(

b/c I have the view that all politicians lie and embelish. some get caught, some don't. i gave up long ago looking for honor and character in politics.

Looks like we Obama supporters aren't the only ones that think Hillary doesn't know when to quit.



Major Clinton fundraiser switches to Obama (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/25/major-clinton-fundraiser-switches-to-obama/)
Posted: 11:25 PM ET
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/04/25/art.hillary.ap.jpg Clinton lost a big fundraiser to Obama.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

(CNN) — A “Hillraiser” – a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton – said Friday he had defected to Barack Obama’s campaign. The official announcement will be made next week.

Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon – who served as ambassador to Chile during the Clinton administration – had raised close to half a million dollars for Clinton’s campaign, reports Chuck Todd, who broke the story.

"We're just bleeding each other out," Guerra-Mondragon told the Washington Post (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/25/a_hillary_fundraiser_jumps_shi.html#more). "Looking at it as coldly as I can, I just don't see how Senator Clinton can overcome Senator Obama with delegates and popular votes. I want this fight to be over, the quicker the better."

He added that leaving the Clinton campaign for Obama's "was a very, very difficult decision for me to make. I am an old and longtime friend of Senator Clinton. And I continue to think she is a fantastic and formidable person. But I am first of all a Democrat."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

She has no chance of winning Indiana, the groups that favor Obama have a larger portion of the voting populace.

Not sure what's left after that however the superdelegate issue will still bedevil the Dem's I think.

Talking with an old riding buddy this morning over coffee, he gave an analogy that was like an epiphany for me regarding our three choices and how to describe my perceptions of them:

Obama is like Murph, who was always at the bike shows with his prize chopper, attracting all the crowds and envious wannabes and drooling youngsters and good looking women. The thing is, that chopper was always trailered to the shows, because the engine cases and cylinder heads were empty; it had never been a rideable machine. It was all show and no go.

McCain and Clinton are the ones that are ridden on a regular basis, and come to the show with a little mud or dirt that got missed, or a scrape or ding that could not be fixed in time for the event. But they are functional, and can get you home when the event is over.

Now this may seem an overly simplistic or shallow analogy, but it is the best way I can describe how I see the three. If Obama indeed gets the nod, my question is how much time and effort will need to be expended getting him into riding condition, as compared to the other two that already are.

Please note, I am stating no preference here, but just my perception.

To be fair, I too am tired of the same old players, and the same old framing and battle lines, in our political process, that have held sway for the past 35 years; and I do sometimes wish that Ms. Clinton didn't carry the tainted association of that history with her - I think much of Obama's appeal is based simply on the fact that he is a new face that offers the shimmering myth of a different reality in politics.
Not trying to be picky, but given that you obviously expend a lot of effort utilizing an expanded vocabulary, and ensuring grammatical correctness - to the point of even editing your post to correct a minor grammatical error and noting that in the edit message - I find it odd that you would say "Ms." Clinton, instead of the correct "Mrs." title. Given the above noted attention to detail, I almost think that it could be intentional instead of an oversight. If so, why?

Not trying to be picky, but given that you obviously expend a lot of effort utilizing an expanded vocabulary, and ensuring grammatical correctness - to the point of even editing your post to correct a minor grammatical error and noting that in the edit message - I find it odd that you would say "Ms." Clinton, instead of the correct "Mrs." title. Given the above noted attention to detail, I almost think that it could be intentional instead of an oversight. If so, why?

Actually, Mrs. is not a "correct" title. It is used to signify that a woman is or was married, but it is not required, as the "correct" form of address.

I know many women that prefer the use of Ms., whether out of a feminist ideology or a more simple way of not getting into the stereotypes of Miss and Mrs.

And what was the intent of that question if not to be picky? Out of curiosity?

Oh I want neither Obama or Clinton. Of the two I'd much prefer Obama over Clinton as she's proven , along with her hubby, that we're here for their amusement and that telling us stories and lies to see what we'll swallow is their meat and bread.

Talking with an old riding buddy this morning over coffee, he gave an analogy that was like an epiphany for me regarding our three choices and how to describe my perceptions of them:

Obama is like Murph, who was always at the bike shows with his prize chopper, attracting all the crowds and envious wannabes and drooling youngsters and good looking women. The thing is, that chopper was always trailered to the shows, because the engine cases and cylinder heads were empty; it had never been a rideable machine. It was all show and no go.

McCain and Clinton are the ones that are ridden on a regular basis, and come to the show with a little mud or dirt that got missed, or a scrape or ding that could not be fixed in time for the event. But they are functional, and can get you home when the event is over.

Now this may seem an overly simplistic or shallow analogy, but it is the best way I can describe how I see the three. If Obama indeed gets the nod, my question is how much time and effort will need to be expended getting him into riding condition, as compared to the other two that already are.

Please note, I am stating no preference here, but just my perception.

Wow... So his years of working on the streets trying to make a difference in the community and in peoples lives, is worth nothing? The fact that he became a politician just so he could help those very same people on a greater scale means nothing? Just because he is a good orator, does not mean that he lacks everything else.

He does not bow to special interests, and has stood up against the Status Quo. He has plans for how to run the country which you can find here... BarackObama.com

The sad thing is that Experience is being touted by McCain and Clinton, yet no one questions what that experience is... Making decisions in the Senate amounts to experience? Fighting a war amounts to experience?

Are we picking a president for a war or to be on the senate? No!

We are picking a president who has good judgement and cares about us. Can it truly be said that McCain or Hillary have the edge in those departments? I think not

Actually, Mrs. is not a "correct" title. It is used to signify that a woman is or was married, but it is not required, as the "correct" form of address.

I know many women that prefer the use of Ms., whether out of a feminist ideology or a more simple way of not getting into the stereotypes of Miss and Mrs.

And what was the intent of that question if not to be picky? Out of curiosity?
I suppose I should have used a word other than "correct". Maybe "conventional". In most (all?) of the writing I've seen about Hillary, whenever a gender-specific title is used, I've always seen it as "Mrs.".

Which rolls into your second question - my reason for asking was to know if Nydia was intending to make a statement by using that particular title, or not. If it was someone other than Nydia, I would have chalked it up to oversight. I've noticed in Nydia's posts in the past, her wording tends to be deliberately chosen.

Additionally, it's a slow saturday morning, and I was idly curious about the above. Later in the day, or at some other time, I likely wouldnt have asked.

Wow... So his years of working on the streets trying to make a difference in the community and in peoples lives, is worth nothing? The fact that he became a politician just so he could help those very same people on a greater scale means nothing? Just because he is a good orator, does not mean that he lacks everything else.

He does not bow to special interests, and has stood up against the Status Quo. He has plans for how to run the country which you can find here... BarackObama.com

The sad thing is that Experience is being touted by McCain and Clinton, yet no one questions what that experience is... Making decisions in the Senate amounts to experience? Fighting a war amounts to experience?

Are we picking a president for a war or to be on the senate? No!

We are picking a president who has good judgement and cares about us. Can it truly be said that McCain or Hillary have the edge in those departments? I think not
Additionally, he voted against the war in Iraq, back when many thought it would be political suicide to do so. That there I think is a statement that he bucks the flow, and sticks to what he believes in.

Additionally, he voted against the war in Iraq, back when many thought it would be political suicide to do so. That there I think is a statement that he bucks the flow, and sticks to what he believes in.

Exactly. intelligence and judgement trump experiance in my book. not to mention Obama doesnt come with 30+ years of IOU's waiting to be cashed in.

Lets fix Byl's analogy...

Obama is the one with the sweet ride everyone goes nuts over... the ride that is so clean and shiny...

Mccain and Hillary come in with Bikes that are all muddy, but they really know how to ride...

The difference is McCain and Hillary pay a mechanic to take care of their rides cause they just don't know how to fix the problems when shit goes wrong... While Obama is an excellent Mechanic and always knows what the real problem is with the machine, and has been working on fixing bikes for a long time for very little money :)

The sad thing is that Experience is being touted by McCain and Clinton, yet no one questions what that experience is... Making decisions in the Senate amounts to experience? Fighting a war amounts to experience?Obama made a great point about this on the Daily Show a while back. The folks in office right now have plenty of experience, and look how well that's turned out. Experience isn't everything, I'll side with the folks looking for intelligence and honesty in any candidate.

Additionally, he voted against the war in Iraq, back when many thought it would be political suicide to do so. That there I think is a statement that he bucks the flow, and sticks to what he believes in.

He was in the Senate when they voted on authorizing Bush to wage war?

He was elected to the US Senate in November of 2004. His statement that he voted against the war is actually in line with Hillary saying she was under sniper fire, seeing as how the vote was taken and the war already underway before he won his election to the Senate and was sworn into office.

This is simply an example that all of our candidates tend to embellish their positions and such; he indeed was against the war, but was not a Senator when the vote was called.

He was in the Senate when they voted on authorizing Bush to wage war?

He made a speech in front of all of America at the DNC, which could have amounted to political suicide.

He made a speech in front of all of America at the DNC, which could have amounted to political suicide.

Yes, and it was a great speech, and shows he was against the war.

If you read what I said, and not want you want to reply to, you will see I said he was against the war, but he was not in a position to cast a vote against it.

It is possible my edit after checking the dates came in while you were writing your post, too.

Yes, and it was a great speech, and shows he was against the war.

If you read what I said, and not want you want to reply to, you will see I said he was against the war, but he was not in a position to cast a vote against it.

It is possible my edit after checking the dates came in while you were writing your post, too.

Aye you edited after I posted... but let me add another thing...

He voted against labeling the IRGC a terrorist organization and giving Bush a green light to attack them whenever he sees fit. Hillary voted for that, and in essence has given Bush the ability to attack another country!

Aye you edited after I posted... but let me add another thing...

He voted against labeling the IRGC a terrorist organization and giving Bush a green light to attack them whenever he sees fit. Hillary voted for that, and in essence has given Bush the ability to attack another country!

Yeah, Hillary is moving to the Hawkish side trying to appeal to the blue collar independents: "I'll bring our troops home and end the war, BUT, if Iran does anything I will destroy them!"

Maybe it is because I have not really looked for it, but I have not heard Obama stressing that vote as much as he maybe should be; he could paint Hillary with the same brush as McCain in the sense of voting in a pattern that continues the Bush mistakes, which highlights the differences between he and they which is what his campaign is really all about. "This is what the Bush administration has done, and this is how Senators McCain and Clinton have supported that through their voting."

Like I said a couple pages back, if it were not for party leaders and the media we could be watching Richardson and Paul, and listening to a discussion of issues.

He was in the Senate when they voted on authorizing Bush to wage war?

He was elected to the US Senate in November of 2004. His statement that he voted against the war is actually in line with Hillary saying she was under sniper fire, seeing as how the vote was taken and the war already underway before he won his election to the Senate and was sworn into office.

This is simply an example that all of our candidates tend to embellish their positions and such; he indeed was against the war, but was not a Senator when the vote was called.
You're right. Not sure what the heck I was thinking - I think I need to go take that nap I've been trying to push myself to do (poking around the internet is entirely too addicting). I could've sworn there was something he voted against at a time that no one else felt they could vote against it... damned if I can remember now. It came up in one of the debates, and I recall Edwards apologizing to him about it.

In any case, I think others have made the point I was attempting to make much better than I obviously did, which is that he isnt afraid to buck the political flow and say/do things that may kill his political career in order to stay consistent with his beliefs.

You're right. Not sure what the heck I was thinking - I think I need to go take that nap I've been trying to push myself to do (poking around the internet is entirely too addicting). I could've sworn there was something he voted against at a time that no one else felt they could vote against it... damned if I can remember now. It came up in one of the debates, and I recall Edwards apologizing to him about it.

In any case, I think others have made the point I was attempting to make much better than I obviously did, which is that he isnt afraid to buck the political flow and say/do things that may kill his political career in order to stay consistent with his beliefs.

I believe it was the vote regarding the IRGC

I'm 75% asleep at the moment, but to Jensae, the use of 'Ms.' was deliberate. The title Ms. has been in common usage for thirty years now, and I find the former titles (Mrs/Miss) to be both anachronistic and mildly distasteful as they reinforce the message that a woman should be referred to by her marital status, as if her status as a piece of 'property' were germane to anything else, least of all a political contest. In these days where the majority of women either end up divorced at least once and/or cohabitate without marriage, trying to define a woman in those terms also seems somewhat silly. So you could say it was a deliberate act out of personal preference, and not in regard to making any specific statement about Hillary, although I do think that her opponents sometimes deliberatly use the 'Mrs.' as a way to subtly remind folks that she is married to (and thus potentially an appendage of) you-know-who.

Having said all that, I do recognize that 'Mrs.' is not wholly yet gone from our vocabulary and that some people (particularly older women and those in the South) prefer it. I, despite being a Southern woman of a certain age, do not :). Miss, thankfully, seems to have about disappeared from common usage although I expect when it is truly about gone some will affect it out of a nostalgia for that sort of anachronistic charm.

Satisfy your curiosity? :)

Regards,
Nydia

/rant on) And another thing. Why the hell do they ask for my marital status at the freaking *dentist* of all things? And if one was divorced over 10 years ago, does that 'define' someone as somehow 'tainted' with that label, for the rest of one's life? How the hell is anyone who has ever had more than one life partner, or cohabitates, or is in a gay or nontraditional relationship supposed to answer those things? And unless there's a germane and specific health care concern, what business is of theirs anyway? Ah, paternalism, there you still lurk... :)

/rant off) :)

Additionally, he voted against the war in Iraq, back when many thought it would be political suicide to do so. That there I think is a statement that he bucks the flow, and sticks to what he believes in.

Yeah, people keep forgetting those (dare we use the term!?!?) inconvenient truths like voting records that show exactly what's wrong with Hillary and better about Obama. There was a distinct handful people who made a strong stance against the war in 2003 (on both sides of the partisan hackery) when everyone already knew it was a bad idea, we just didn't have five years of inarguable object lessons on it yet. Guess which grifter wasn't one of them.

There's a difference between making such a statement to the 'home crowd' (the DNC) where it is likely to be received positively by at least some quarters, there is very little actual political 'risk' of such a stand, and quite another when it goes on your voting record, especially given the political climate of the time, where the Patriotism enforcement death squads were ready to descend on anyone who stepped out of line; and she was a newly elected first term Senator at the time. I'm not saying it was a 'good thing' that she voted in favor of the authorization, but she certainly wasn't alone, even among 'liberal' Democrats; it was *overwhelmingly* passed at the time, herd mentality and 9/11 hysteria being what it was.

I don't think you can make an even comparison of the two situations, but I will concede that she is, by a decent margin, the more hawkish of the two on general principle.

Regards,
Nydia

This Hillary we are seeing is what she is.

She divides, she alienates, she is not a leader, she is an opportunist.

Ever wonder why she couldnt pass Health Care reform when Bill was president and she had a majority in congress? Because she alienated people in her own party. Here she goes again. She has learned nothing.

This campaign is why you should not vote for her. You want more 51/49 politics? Vote Hillary

This Hillary we are seeing is what she is.

Ever wonder why she couldnt pass Health Care reform when Bill was president and she had a majority in congress? Because she alienated people in her own party. Here she goes again. She has learned nothing.



A couple of things about Health Care reform in 1993:

I actually see a lot of parallels between Obama and *Bill* Clinton, in that they both rode a wave support based on their cult of personality, more than their actual politics. I like his apparent sincerity, but good 'ol Bill 'felt our pain', too.

When Bill Clinton entered the White House in 1993, he (and Hillary) were inexperienced, arrogant, and thought they walked on water. I remember the health care debates, Bob Dole's willingness to at least enter dialogue with them, and their hubris as they disregarded the need for bipartisan cooperation (which may or not have been sincere cooperation, given the lobbyists that be) on such an effort. That bipartisanship was especially important in that 1) the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress; and 2) the public perception that health care was really broken was not what it is today.

The Clintons paid in blood for that hubris and much of the latter part of his administration was one long tightrope-walk of compromise with a hostile Congress.

The situation is quite a bit different today - there is a wide perception that health care is broken, we have a Democratic House *and* Senate (and look to gain more seats this year), and we have a Hillary who has now gone toe-to toe with the powers that be and knows exactly what she is up against - it would take a spectacular measure of failure (of backbone or moral character, mainly) for such an administration (either Democrat given the current climate, and a Democratic Congress) to *fail* to get meaningful health care reform done.

I acknowledge the point you are trying to make with regard to Hillary's stridency and ambition, but I see another issue here which deserves consideration - namely that Barack Obama is *uncannily* like not Hillary, but Bill, in that he is charismatic, has risen very quickly in a very short time, and thinks he walks on water - only instead of getting belligerent, he gets petulant and whines when things don't go his way. Who is to say that he won't fall into the same naive pitfalls the Clintons did during Bill's first term in office? How will he do under pressure?

That is the 64,000 question that many of us are asking. For the moment, I'm still siding with the devil I know ;).

Regards,
Nydia

Now Obama is a whiner? Id love to see evidence of that... Actually, I will even accept a sound bite.... go for it.

Love it when a Hillary supporter accuses Obama of whining... Like she wasn't a huge whiner during that one debate where she whined about media bias.

I acknowledge the point you are trying to make with regard to Hillary's stridency and ambition, but I see another issue here which deserves consideration - namely that Barack Obama is *uncannily* like not Hillary, but Bill, in that he is charismatic, has risen very quickly in a very short time, and thinks he walks on water - only instead of getting belligerent, he gets petulant and whines when things don't go his way. Who is to say that he won't fall into the same naive pitfalls the Clintons did during Bill's first term in office? How will he do under pressure?
That is very easily one of the most absurd things I've ever read on this messageboard.

That is very easily one of the most absurd things I've ever read on this messageboard.

Whats sad is that Hillary supporters actually believe that!!!

Whats sad is that Hillary supporters actually believe that!!!


What I find sad is that the people supporting Obama will not allow that some may have just as sincere a desire to support Hillary. Why is it not possible for someone to back the other candidate without becoming a hated enemy?

This holier than thou attitude has been seen before in politics, and has been just as costly in the past as it may be in the coming general election.

It is that arrogance that is creating such a divide among Democrats.

What I find sad is that the people supporting Obama will not allow that some may have just as sincere a desire to support Hillary. Why is it not possible for someone to back the other candidate without becoming a hated enemy?

This holier than thou attitude has been seen before in politics, and has been just as costly in the past as it may be in the coming general election.

It is that arrogance that is creating such a divide among Democrats.

I will allow you to have whatever feelings you wish, but will call you out on your hypocrisy and lies.

If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I will allow you to have whatever feelings you wish, but will call you out on your hypocrisy and lies.

If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Thank you for your willingness to consistently prove my points.

Thank you for your willingness to consistently prove my points.

If you say so... Do you also consistently dodge sniper fire?

Being "holier than thou" is ALOT easier when "thou" = The Clintons

In fact, its almost impossible not to be.

Who is to say that he won't fall into the same naive pitfalls the Clintons did during Bill's first term in office? How will he do under pressure?


Well, we know the alternative candidate will cave in under pressure and do what expedient for her own political advantage with no regard for sound decision making, ethics, or integrity. With that known, how is it possibly a deciding factor?

I don't understand how someone as intelligent as you is seriously pursuing this argument of willfull ignorance.

Let me be clear. I don't have a *strong* preference for either of these candidates, although I give the edge in terms of potential performance in the office to Hillary, for reasons I've already mentioned. What I have tried to do is illuminate, for the folks seem that seem indignantly incredulous that *anyone* would support her over Obama, *why* they might do so and why results like the one we just saw in Pennsylvania are significant - exaggerating my positions a bit and bringing up concerns in order to open some eyes and play 'devil's advocate', if you will.

Obama has a very real perception problem among the working class, older voters, and middle-class women - the very people who carry general elections. Older voters tend to be less swayed by charisma and promises of the moon (having seen it all before), and prefer the concrete; working class people tend to think that all politicians are corrupt anyway and largely can't identify with his elevated rhetoric; and middle class women, in addition to many of them being able to identify with Hillary, also tend to be more 'conservative' than their male counterparts (not in conservative vs liberal, but in as in less radical movement from their centerline) and vote for the less 'risky' candidate (neither of those words are right but they're the best I can do at this hour).

For my part, I think I'd be more prone to support him if I'd seen him propose *anything* new and truly ambitious (Moon shot so to speak? Peace Corps? New Deal? Great Society?); but what we get is a mantra of 'change' with no real substance behind it, and while I respect the *underlying* meaning behind that mantra, that he at least pays lip service to wanting to change the *climate* of the debate in Washington, to butcher what Lloyd Bentsen said in the Dan Quayle debate many years ago, I don't think he's this generation's Jack Kennedy - although I think that many of the young, especially, really really *want* him to be. Dignity is wonderful, but for some people, it's just not enough. Consider what 'straight talking' John McCain got for his dignity in 2000 - do you *really* think he won't be ready to bring out the heavy ammunition come fall, if it's needed?

I like Obama, and I think the voters really *do* want someone who passes the 'smell test', after the horrendous betrayal of the past eight years; but the fact that he hasn't put this thing away despite all the money, media attention, and zealous devotion he's attracted, bespeaks a problem bigger than Hillary. If it goes to the convention (and looks like it will at this point), it'll be because he failed to close the credibility gap - many people are simply motivated by concerns other than those of the *philosophy* he's espousing, or don't on general principle respond to the 'religious' message, period - and as I see it he has one of two options: If he's going to portray himself as the Second Coming, then he needs to be really selling something, and he needs to get it out there. If he's going to try to convince those crucial swing voters that he understands their concerns, he needs to get more concrete and down to earth with them, and fast, especially because the remaining states are more working class and (and in the case of Kentucky and West Virginia, especially), less educated - the very groups among whom he is weak.

It would have been easier on all of us if one of these candidates had a clear lead, we had our nominee, and the party was unified - but it isn't, and there's a very real divide that needs to be bridged in the coming weeks so that we can get ready for the fall. I voted my conscience in March and don't for a moment regret it - and I *do* hope we get our nominee without too much rancor so that we can move on to the fight with McCain (Please DNC, just make some decisions and stick with them, and don't fuck this up any more than it already is!). I started this thread five days ago because I had been, frankly, so sickened by the hostility and condescending contempt that had been expressed on this board towards both Ms. Clinton and her supporters (which seemed a bit ironic given how Obama and his supporters portray him as the 'clean' candidate, and above all that bloody-knuckles stuff) that I wanted to do a bit of a "in your Face!" to some of you guys who have been so smug and indignantly self-satisfied at your candidate's superiority (and thus your superiority for supporting him) :).

I do think, all things considered, that it's a good thing that Obama is getting his 'reality check' early, and agree with Maureen O'Dowd that, assuming that he gets the nomination, he should be thanking her for the shakedown cruise - she is taking all the villainy on herself for doing so and it should only embellish his reputation, should he weather the storm.

If he fails to do so, then perhaps he didn't deserve it in the first place. I expect that he probably will get the nod, but if he doesn't, people will certainly remember him, and at age 46, he will have another shot (or more) at it if he wishes, and both this experience and his intervening experience should prove invaluable to making him as a politician. It is a shame that he has stated that he would not consider the vice presidency if it were offered (although who knows, despite the rancor in the race that might change, one generally never tells one's followers that one would settle for the *vice* presidency), as I think that would both unify the party and make an unassailable ticket.

Regards,
Nydia

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B33ebbf11-b6f2-4ea5-a63f-7a8eb07ebf81%7D.gif

ROFL

Now that is a great cartoon.

I read some silly Slate article that said Obama should withdraw 'for the party' ... and he'd be rewarded the presidency in 2012.

You mean when Hillary would be running for reelection?

It was so slimey it didn't stick in my browser history.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/24/drop-out-obama.aspx

http://www.twincities.com//ci_9070600?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com


More food for discussion.

Re Akipt's link: I don't think you caught that that was supposed to be sarcasm/black comedy. The author is definitely *not* seriously suggesting that Obama withdraw from the race; but rather that if the Democrats, in their 'experts at shooting themselves in the foot' way, wanted to go for maximally melodramatic meltdown, that would provide it (not that we have a reputation for such or anything ;) ).

As far as Byl's link goes, I'd have to say that's pretty weak sauce, if someone was trying to dredge up evidence of Obama's 'corruption', but I think it *does* illustrate that he's more or less another back-scratching politician with feet of clay just like the rest.

As a good friend of mine said during an energetic discussion we had on the merits of Clinton v Obama, such things are a matter of degree - how easily bought or sold is the politician in general, how many shares 'owned', as it were, how egregious the sellout? Given the nature both of politics in general and the enormous sums of money needed to be raised in order to run a campaign, I don't think any major national candidates have been entirely 'clean', or free from conflicts of interest, for a long time, not that that is something to be happy about.

I don't think any good purpose is served by dredging up 'small potatoes' like these (although witness the myriad multi-million dollar witch hunts the Clintons were subjected to), although it could potentially pose a problem for Obama simply because he's relied so much on the 'integrity' message to differentiate him from, and contrast him with, Ms. Clinton.

Regards,
Nydia

I'd agree the Clintons are subject to witch hunts, but I put forth they've used the powers that be to play equally dirty pool themselves.

I don't think any good purpose is served by dredging up 'small potatoes' like these (although witness the myriad multi-million dollar witch hunts the Clintons were subjected to), although it could potentially pose a problem for Obama simply because he's relied so much on the 'integrity' message to differentiate him from, and contrast him with, Ms. Clinton.

Regards,
Nydia


I completely agree. My purpose in sharing the link was to show that people are indeed seeking out whatever ammunition they can to use as wedge issues. And that exchange of back-scratching does give pause. And, we are not even at the general election yet.

Keep in mind that the Republican Party spent in excess of 100 million chasing after little more than what was disclosed in that article on Obama. The Whitewater investigation was initiated on little more factual information than what was disclosed in this article. Sour grapes has been quite a motivator for some.

Just thought I'd share this, as my dad (a fervent Republican) linked it to me today, and it made me giggle...

http://www.sitemason.com/newspub/fQKJvW?id=56117

Regards,
Nydia

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/28/12049/2577/655/504812

It seems like the only real argument for Hillary is something along the lines of:

"We don't know if Obama will be good under pressure, but we already know how bad Hillary is. So, let's go with the known evil, instead of the uncertainty of hope."

Don't forget that trying to ruin Obama's reputation and credibility is also doing him a favor, so it's all OK in the end no matter what.

Bunker mentality anyone?

Daily KOS has been shilling for Obama since last year, so I'd hardly call them an 'unbiased' source from the left. Moveon, on the other hand, has been pro-Hillary (although I haven't been there recently. I only mention this because you've used DailyKos extensively to buttress your position, Sanchek... :)

Regards,
Nydia

Yes, damn then and their "hardly 'unbiased'" basic mathematics.

You should keep in mind that I'm not an Obama supporter. I will not be voting for him. I will be writing in Ron Paul.

You seem to be addressing me in most of your posts as if you believe I support Obama. He's a socialist. I could barely be farther away from supporting him.

It's just night and day simple to see the difference between him and the debacle that is Hillary.

I, otoh, am an Obama supporter at this point. Earlier on in the campaign, just before it became a Dem 3-way, I would have been fine with Obama or Hillary. But the latter's campaign went off the deep end and seems at this point only intent on dragging the party down if she can't be given the nomination. Hillary's only saving grace is that her health care proposal is marginally better than Obama's.

She couldn't be worse in this campaign if she were blowing Rove.

One may not *like* her tactics... but the evidence suggests that they are effective. Data from the latest AP poll on her electability in a McCain matchup vs that of Obama here:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP6aoeuUCqIEo5DHDOCMLHyUOCpgD90B3O400

"We don't know if Obama will be good under pressure, but we already know how bad Hillary is. So, let's go with the known evil, instead of the uncertainty of hope."

This statement is biased in its very framing, and assumes that one cannot have a *positive* basis for supporting Hillary, which many clearly do - is there anything wrong with *wanting* someone who is extremely shrewd in the White House, given the nation's current economic and political reality? Or preferring someone with more experience at the national and international level, period?

I know you may find this hard to believe, but some people *don't* find her a net negative and choose her for reasons other than that of desperation. The nomination race would not be so close if it were otherwise, negative campaigning or no; and while negative campaigning is never fun to watch, it's part and parcel of the political process and we have certainly seen worse, and recently, on the national level. Finally, while Hillary is not one to give up easily, I think it's safe to say that if she had not won Pennsylvania by a decent margin, she would have done just that - and one can hardly blame her for staying in the face of that victory.

On to Indiana and North Carolina!

Regards,
Nydia

I still can't find a single redeeming feature about Hillary.

I hope she gets the shallacking she deserves in NC and Indiana. Then those of you holding out for her solely due to her gender will see what petty petty people her and her husband are.

Don't give me the bullshit that she has White House experience, she doesn't. If that was a legit point of arguing then she should be barred from running due to the 22nd amendment.

It is enlightening to see how one can feel so strongly about a person running for office. And yet we wonder what motivates someone to strap a bomb to their chest and meet Allah. If people would put this much effort into managing their debts, minds and bodies I shudder to think what the world would be like. Some of you have the tone of finatical hate or love depending on your views.

I just thought I'd share a couple of interesting bits from Der Spiegel's Washington correspondant; the first is an interview with Robert Reich, former Clinton labor secretary and campaign advisor, in which he reiterates many of the themes we've hit upon in this thread, commenting on the issues of Hillary's competence vs what the negative campaigning has done to her reputation:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,550500,00.html

SPIEGEL: Would you recommend that she drop out?

Reich: No. I think she should take the high road and stop slinging mud.

SPIEGEL: There's not a high probability of that happening.

Reich: A number of Democrats like myself have publicly criticized her and it is not helping her cause. So maybe she will stop.

Reich also discusses Obama's Kennedy-like superstar appeal, and explains (as I've mentioned) that at the crux of the Hillary/Obama divide is that their respective supporters like them *for different reasons*.

The second article, which came out today, is far more provocative and suggests that the lengthy campaign (and associated frustrations with such) and some of its revelations are causing long-simmering racial tensions to come to the fore and thus polarization along racial lines, creating a situation where the Democratic superdelegates, in order *not* to appear racist, more or less have to support Obama at this point. I'm not going to comment on this one way or another as it's not something I have yet thought about much but it is interesting to read a European perspective on America's troubled history with race, and the issue of Democratic idealism.

Article here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,550351,00.html

Btw Sanchek, if this last article sparks a discussion that ends up best off split off, please feel free to do so (which I'm sure you will anyway :) ).

Regards,
Nydia

Why not discuss how the candidates are more split along gender lines than racial lines? Or why more educated individuals are tending to vote one way over the other (more towards Obama)?

Is it somehow sexier to discuss the racial lines than the more tangible, relevant lines? There is a large contingent of whites voting for Obama (I know, I'm one of them). There however aren't a large number of women voting for Obama (so why don't we discuss how many woman see this election as their chance to vote solely for a woman?). Why is that type of sexism acceptable?

And, sorry to spam, but this op-ed from the New York Times illuminates the divide I've been speaking of:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/opinion/29brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

I think that the last sentence is especially poignant and something I have run face-first into many times over the last 20 years, as someone who qualifies as 'educated' but has spent much of her life at or below the poverty level, and more importantly, living in 'working-class' neighborhoods and working at a variety of blue collar jobs.

My partner, Philip, has often said, with quite a bit of venom, that one of the reasons he vascillates between the Democratic and Republican parties is that he can't stand the whole elitist 'we know what's best for you' white liberal guilt-motivated attitude that the Democratic apparatus frequently displays. As someone who comes from a pretty strong 'white-liberal-guilt' and social justice oriented perspective, and yet has a strong distaste for elitism, I found it interesting that I experienced a mild visceral negative reaction, at the caucus this year, not to the young Obama zealots (indeed, I felt a bit of reminiscent kinship with them) but to the impeccably dressed and perfumed and affluent (in their Oprah-popularized peshminas and all) supporters of his who exuded self-satisfaction and noblesse oblige - and despite the fact that some of them were quite friendly and decent people whom I ended up chatting with at length later on at the district caucus.

As the opinion indicates, there has been a 'class' divide in the Democratic party, even among people with identical positions with regard to what policies they want to see enacted, for a long time; and we ignore this at our peril (as Obama has recently found out). Whoever ends up getting the nomination will need to reconcile both the hurt feelings brought about by the primary season and reassure voters that he (or she) *can* identify with their concerns, in a way that doesn't come off as potentially condescending.

Regards,
Nydia

Dear Taleren:

I don't think it's so much sexier (although race is certainly provocative), but rather than no-one *really* wants to go there with regard to the very real class divide we have in America (see my above post), although I think it's an elephant in the living room that we have been trying to ignore for a long time, sometimes in very disingenuous ways.

On the gender issue, are you implying that a large population of women are being 'sexist' *against* Obama because he is male? I don't think that is so much an issue in the way we have seen certain white populations express racial ambivalence towards him, in that these women aren't specifically 'against' what he represents as 'for' Hillary as a woman - different dynamics are in play.

And, just for the record, the fact that Ms. Clinton has a vagina is not a major contributor to why I prefer her over Obama, although it factors into the calculus somewhere.

I'm late for class but it'll be interesting to see whether this goes anywhere.

Regards,
Nydia

On the gender issue, are you implying that a large population of women are being 'sexist' *against* Obama because he is male?

Yes, this is exactly how I feel. Many women I've talked too feel like it's their duty to vote for the woman since there's never been a viable female Presidential candidate before.

And, just for the record, the fact that Ms. Clinton has a vagina is not a major contributor to why I prefer her over Obama, although it factors into the calculus somewhere.
And yet you are quick to dismiss my accusations of overt (and in many cases covert) sexism from females in this election cycle...

Off to class, but finally, a great (as in thoughtful, and from an outsider's perspective) op-ed from conservative columnist William Kristol in the NYT entitled 'Hillary gets no respect':

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28kristol.html?em&ex=1209614400&en=313a3c9b4fbcb971&ei=5087%0A

My dead-horse-beaten point he makes here:

Obama understands his advantage with the media, as he perhaps inadvertently demonstrated over the weekend on “Fox News Sunday.” In the course of dismissing much pundit commentary for typically overreacting to events, good or bad, Obama explained, “Well, look, after you lose, then everybody writes these anguished columns about, why did you lose?”

Obama chose a nice word: “anguished.” You’re only anguished by an Obama defeat if you’re rooting for an Obama victory. Obama was tacitly acknowledging that much of the liberal media has been hoping he’d win. Now, they’re rooting for him to close the deal.

That’s fine. If I were on the left I might be rooting for that too. But this focus on Obama has resulted in a refusal to give Hillary her due. It’s startling how much of the commentary on the Pennsylvania results has had to do with Obama’s flaws and mistakes — rather than Hillary’s strengths and successes. Maybe in Pennsylvania, they were voting for Clinton, not simply against Obama.

Stop me before I post again!

Regards,
Nydia

My statement on gender is based largely by the following.

I know many smart intelligent women who are usually fairly level headed. They fall short when it comes to Hillary, they forgive and blindly overlook her bullshit. When asked one of the top 3 reasons they give for wanting her to win is based solely on Hillary's gender.

That's utterly (udderly? ;P) stupid imho. Hillary has proven time and again she's as crass, as driven to lies and flat out flops as much as any man in their political roles.

wth is the difference ;(

Dear Taleren:

I wasn't dismissing them; if you read carefully, what I was saying is that the motivations are different - it isn't bias *against* Obama, per se. It would be naive to say that gender doesn't factor into why some women prefer Hillary, just as why some African-Americans prefer Obama, independent of their merits; but I'd also submit that *anti* Hillary sentiment rooted (more or less openly) in sexism, and *anti* Obama sentiment rooted (much more covertly) in racism, are much more prevalent and, shall we say, pernicious.

Late for class!

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. To Fanny: The 'difference' is not one of behavior (as you've said, she's as crass and manipulative as any man), but rather, the public's willingness to tolerate it from a female versus a male ('aggressive' vs 'bitchy' as it were), which accounts for much of the Hillary divide in *both* directions ('Bitch is the new Black' as Amy Pohler said on SNL ;) ). And props for 'udderly' ;).

One last link, on the superdelegates and remaining primaries:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/politics/26delegates.html?fta=y

The article features quotes from a husband/wife superdelegate pair in South Carolina, as well as some of the other movers and shakers on our side of the aisle. He supports Hillary, she Obama (note the gender traitor :P), but both expressed doubts that the nomination would come down to the superdelegates, as did most of the congressmen and other folks interviewed, predicting instead that things would quickly narrow to the issue of electability as we go through the last several contests. Whoever thought that Puerto Rico might have a deciding voice in this campaign ;)?

Regards,
Nydia

One quick thought before I dive into my pizza regarding the gender vs. race issue, is that women have had the vote and been participants in the process much longer than the relatively newcomer black politicians. So, while it would be historic either way for one of the Democrats to win the White house, I think the racial element is more of a hot topic simply because it is a more recent entry into our national collective process.

He supports Hillary, she Obama (note the gender traitor :P), but both expressed doubts that the nomination would come down to the superdelegates, as did most of the congressmen and other folks interviewed, predicting instead that things would quickly narrow to the issue of electability as we go through the last several contests.
I dont follow - how will the nomination NOT be decided by the super-delegates? As is, there's no way that either Clinton or Obama can get enough voter delegates to win the nomination flat-out, thus by Democratic primary rules, whoever had the majority of superdelegates will decide the nominee.

The only way they WONT decide is if someone drops out, and I seriously doubt that Hillary will drop.

"women have had the vote and been participants in the process much longer than the relatively newcomer black politicians"

I think you have it backwards --

Women given the right to vote: 29th Amendment, passed 1920

Blacks given the right to vote: 15th Amendment, passed 1870

First female senator: Rebecca Latimer Feltron (GA), took oath in 1922

First black senator: Hiram Revels (MS), took oath in 1870

To Jensae:

I kind of shook my head at that too, and would have to say that I think that's wishful thinking on the superdelegates' part that they not be in the frying pan/fire of being forced to determine our nominee.

To Bylimet, on the issue of race vs gender...

I never thought I'd find myself *agreeing* with Furtivus, but he is right here, both in fact and in spirit. Indeed, a great many women were active in the abolitionist movement in the ninteenth century, believing that the granting of soverignty, and the vote to African-Americans would mean that *surely* women would be enfranchised as well; but it didn't happen. Not only would women not get the vote for another 65 years, but 'couverture' laws (designating a woman's property as being under the control of her father until marriage, and her husband afterwards, leaving her requiring the consent of another in order to engage in financial transactions) would also persist for decades afterwards and women were considered the 'property' or appendages of their fathers or husbands in the culture with de facto legal implications into the 1960s (and as a cultural aside, consider the reductionism implicit in women being referred to as 'Mrs. John P. Smith' on their legal and other correspondance, which persisted until the 1970s)). As an example, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, our first two female Supreme court justices, both had to settle for work as clerks when they first graduated from law school (both with honors and at the top of their class), and both also have commented that they were directly challenged when petitioning for admission to law school: "What business do you think you have taking this position from a man?" Thurgood Marshall, bless his amazing soul, had a practice, even in the old 'separate but unequal' world of the 1950s...

It was only with the resurgence of the Civil Rights movement that women's rights began to be seriously examined in this country again as well, and sexism has historically been more pernicious because color can be partitioned off into an easily identifiable 'us and them' issue; and it's also easy for liberal whites to espress outrage about an issue that they never touch or interact with directly. (I have a friend who has expressed contempt at that sort of 'empty' activism going on vis-a-vis Mexican immigrants up in the Pacific northwest; there is all this righteous outrage about the plight of the migras, but most of the affluent white protestors have never seen or associated with any). On the other hand, the population is 50% female, and sexism has tended to be both universal (varying in degree, of course) and much of it was disguised (long after such theories on race were discredited) and/or justified using arguments based on 'biological determinism' - some of these arguments put into modern context seem both absurd and pathetic, but we must remember that they too have been with us until very recently.

That the population *is* 50% female means that any change in the power balance or level of enfranchisement in public life has far more reaching implications than it does for a specific minority group and forces people to look to their *own* nests; it is impossible to abstract such things away as a nebulous 'good thing' that doesn't affect them directly.

Wow, I didn't mean for that to devolve like it did, or into a 'who had it worse' discussion, but I think it's important to recognize that sexism and racism are both still with us to a certain degree, and it's my hypothesis that the racism issue is 'easier' for the media to pick up on because it *is* more abstractable and easily (and less uncomfortably) sensationalized.

Regards,
Nydia

Unless you watch Lifetime/Oxygen/WE. Then it's right there, Ad Nausum.

I found it funny that I have come across late night Girls Gone Wild informercials peddled on those channels when I'm changing it to Cartoon Network.....

;)

I wanted to add one more thing to this, on the issue of 'abstractability' of many race issues:

I think one of the reasons this issue is coming to the fore, and so late, in the Obama race has to do with the fact that it's one thing to pay lip service to, or approve of in the abstract sense, the idea of equal rights and opportunities for all; and quite another thing, for some people, to be confronted not with those nice ideals, but the idea of having a President who doesn't look like them - suddenly the issue is not abstractable, as the election draws closer, but is staring one in the face.

As someone who (like most of us now) has been raised in the post Civil Rights era and who has felt strongly about (and walked the walk on) social justice her entire life, it's painful to examine that issue; but if I look back of the history just of the people close to me and the interactions I've been involved in with them, race has reared its ugly head over and over again. From my great aunts and uncles referring to 'the darkies we like' (versus those uppity N------, and not in the distant past, either), to my parents systematically breaking up my sister's relationship with the love of her life, an African American male (and vehement disapproval of any more recent such involvements), to my ex-husband's simmering distaste for and suspicion of, our African American neighbors and especially of Black males, despite the fact that all of these things were abhorrent to me, and I made it known in no uncertain terms, and we've raised two generations under the dictum that these are no longer socially acceptable positions to hold, I can't help but wonder if we've really turned the corner on it yet. Is it too much to hope for? Is hope enough to make it so?

It seemed somehow condescending to think of Obama's candidacy in such terms (that of him being a symbol *because* of his race) - one really wanted the race to be above such things. Obama however, being the product of a mixed marriage 'before mixed marriages were cool' (major understatement, as I remember well when the first mixed-race couple moved into our (Northern California by then, supposedly enlightened!) neighborhood), has undoubtedly walked *that* particular tightrope for much of his life (decent article from Maureen Dowd in the NYT today on this here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin ), and so he too, in trying to stay above the fray on this issue, has had to dance backwards and in high heels, so to speak.

I think it might be appropriate to start a new thread on this, if folks are so inclined (a more general discussion of race, that is), and not too squeamish about it.

Regards,
Nydia

"women have had the vote and been participants in the process much longer than the relatively newcomer black politicians"

I think you have it backwards --

Women given the right to vote: 29th Amendment, passed 1920

Blacks given the right to vote: 15th Amendment, passed 1870

First female senator: Rebecca Latimer Feltron (GA), took oath in 1922

First black senator: Hiram Revels (MS), took oath in 1870

Thanks Furt, I did have the idea I wanted to convey messed up; thanks for that info. What I was wanting to convey was more in the arena of rights, and being able to vote. Many in the South were not even able to register to vote until the 60's, when civil rights was becoming the issue of the day and so many college age kids were heading south from their northern colleges and working to get people registered. Many of them faced severe harassment, beatings, and a few murders, for their efforts.

While the right was granted in 1870, many were never able to exercise it until some 90 years later.

I am duly abashed for my error.

It occured to my ditzy mind, a while after I'd written this and had driven home from work, that some folks might conceivably look at my last couple of posts on this topic in terms of having some sort of, hm, partisan agenda, with regard to the contest currently in progress. I'd like to state just for the record that that is emphatically *not* so and that all the above dissembling is just that; the curiosity-driven product of my sideways-moving brain which frequently misses the obvious.

Regards,
Nydia

Obama however, being the product of a mixed marriage 'before mixed marriages were cool' .....


Mixed? Like pancake batter? I'm sure the word you meant was 'interracial'....;)

Now having been in an interracial relationship for a decent part of my adult life, I'm here to tell you, they still aren't 'cool' to many people.
And you'd think it was whites that had an issue with it? On the contrary, it was Americans of African descent who gave us the hardest times, espically men of that particular demographic.

They just couldn't understand why a fine 'sista' would want anything to do with a 'cracker' like me, LOL.

Regardless, I'm pleased there is a interracial candidate for President, as I can point out to my own son, you can achieve ANYTHING, regardless of the obstacles in your way. If he wins the Presidency, so much the better.

N64fDLplBfQ

Yeah, Obama's the elitist!

I don't see that as elitist at all - she was making a statement that those who are the 'haves' have a duty to make sure that the opportunities that were available for them are passed on to those less fortunate, and that they owe a debt to the future. Wouldn't it be more disingenuous for her to claim that she and Bill *weren't* wealthy (even though they haven't done *that* well all things considered and have an enormous amount of debt)?

Regards,
Nydia

What would Hillary have said if it was Obama that said that?

I'd imagine she'd think it was pretty weak sauce too, but seriously, who cares? If she did comment on it, all I have to say is that negative spinning and campaign ads are part and parcel of politics, ladies and gentlemen, and there are orders of magnitude of difference between putting a negative spin on what actually comes out of someone's mouth than there is dredging up a Willie Horton, or even a Pastor Wright (who wasn't so much dredged, but seriously needs to shut his pie hole if he has any love left for his former fair haired boy). All is fair in love and politics, and both candidates know (or should know) darned well that they open their mouths at their peril...

All in all I think it's a good thing that Obama himself isn't the whiny little bitch that many of his followers seem to be. Seriously, no-one goes into politics to lose. This is still a contest, and while you guys can legitimately hate on Hillary all you want for what you don't like about her policies, or that you think she's a corporate whore doing the bidding of her infernal masters, or what have you, but to whine about the fact that folks occasionally chip a nail in campaign catfights is simply... silly.

One of the things I *like* about Hillary is that she can take all the crap people sling at her and soldier on, and give as good as she gets if need be; and Obama, in order to be an effective candidate in the general campaign, will have to as well (in his own way, of course). Finally, I wasn't in the least upset or offended by Sanchek's weak-sauce video and insinuation, merely pointing out that I thought he was trying to twist something out of the snippet.

Regards,
Nydia

rut roh reorge
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/ap_on_el_pr/democrats;_ylt=Al04VpGVKNFBjg75oUFSTL.s0NUE

All in all I think it's a good thing that Obama himself isn't the whiny little bitch that many of his followers seem to be.

I acknowledge the point you are trying to make with regard to Hillary's stridency and ambition, but I see another issue here which deserves consideration - namely that Barack Obama is *uncannily* like not Hillary, but Bill, in that he is charismatic, has risen very quickly in a very short time, and thinks he walks on water - only instead of getting belligerent, he gets petulant and whines when things don't go his way. Who is to say that he won't fall into the same naive pitfalls the Clintons did during Bill's first term in office?

For real? I know you've firmly pinned yourself to Hillary in this thing, but you're not even managing to agree with yourself at this point.

So, which is it that you actually mean?

I don't see that there's any implicit contradiction in those statements; in the latter, I was stating that many of Obama's supporters whine and protest the standard issue knocks he's getting *much* more than he does. As I've repeatedly said, I don't *dislike* Obama, but I hardly see him as a martyr in this contest.

Spoon worn out from scraping the bottom of that barrel yet? :)

Regards,
Nydia

Dear Greystone:

That article that seems so damning towards poor Hillary also mentions that four superdelegates pledged to her yesterday as well - so it's hardly the lopsided mass defection (5/4 was yesterday's count) the media would love to make it out to be.

Regards,
Nydia

Dear Greystone:

That article that seems so damning towards poor Hillary also mentions that four superdelegates pledged to her yesterday as well - so it's hardly the lopsided mass defection (5/4 was yesterday's count) the media would love to make it out to be.

Regards,
Nydia

In case you didn't read the entire article... The part that makes it a big deal once again is that it was a super delegate that was the ex chair of the Democratic party, who was appointed by the Clintons, and had already previously publicly backed Hillary.

He changed his mind, and that is a much bigger deal then someone who has not yet backed anyone making up their mind.

I can read, thanks Jedd - and I got that part from the title. And I've noticed that *you* don't comment (or rep hit ;) ) on my more content-heavy posts, just the one-line softballs or semantic hair-splitting that good old Sanchek coughs up :).

As far as the superdelegates and everything else go, all the various chickens will come home to roost soon enough, yes?

Regards,
Nydia

I can read, thanks Jedd. And I've noticed that *you* don't comment (or rep hit ;) ) on my more content-heavy posts, just the one-line softballs or semantic hair-splitting that good old Sanchek coughs up :).

As far as the superdelegates and everything else go, all the various chickens will come home to roost soon enough, yes?

Regards,
Nydia

I tend not to comment on your posts, cause I usually don't read them. After the 100th time you defended Hillary and made excuses for all her problems, while incorrectly analyzing Obama in the process, I just got tired of hearing it.

Dear Jedd:

Perhaps this little bit, from the transcript of Joseph Andrew's speech today wherein he changed allegiances, might be of use to you:

Here is my message, explained in this lengthy letter that I hope is perceived as a thoughtful analysis of how to save America from four more years of the misguided polices of the past: you can be for someone without being against someone else. You can unite behind a candidate and a vision for America without rejecting another candidate and their vision, because in real life, opposed to party politics, we Democrats are on the same side.

Indeed, we *are* on the same side; some of us feel more strongly about our candidate and their specific vision than others, and want to give the process its due (or have it be over :) ); but I don't see why folks feel that they have to get nasty or stressed about it. Dialogue is a *good* thing, and I'd have gladly discussed the merits of Clinton v Obama's prospective strengths, weaknesses, and proposed policies with you, but all you wanted to do was mudsling.

You'll notice, that in the entirety of this thread, aside from my mentioning Obama's occasional petulance, I did not vilify either Obama the person or his proposed policies (and it's not because I think he's a perfected saint :) ). Try letting go of some of that venom and opening your mind a bit sometime, it might allow you to engage in more constructive dialogue with folks you disagree with, and you may find your arguments more effective in the process...

I'm out of town until Tuesday, which coincidentally, happens to be the date of the Illinois primary (currently Clinton by 6 ;) ), so have a good weekend, all...

Regards,
Nydia

I don't see that there's any implicit contradiction in those statements; in the latter, I was stating that many of Obama's supporters whine and protest the standard issue knocks he's getting *much* more than he does. As I've repeatedly said, I don't *dislike* Obama, but I hardly see him as a martyr in this contest.
I'm honestly unclear at your meaning. You've both said that he's not a whiner like his supporters and that he's a petulant whiner. I'm interested in which of those quotes you actually stand behind.

edit: And if you really do stand behind the claim that he's a petulant whiner, let's see you actually substantiate that. You avoided doing so earlier in the thread. I think it would be far easier to substantiate that same claim against Hillary than against Obama.

semantic hair-splitting that good old Sanchek coughs up
Just because you don't want to cop to your waffling on this thread doesn't make it hair-splitting.

I find this is very common among Hillary supporters, and I'm genuinely interested in how you've come to flip-flop in your statements. Was it a mistake? Change your mind that fast? What was it?

I don't see that there's any implicit contradiction in those statements; in the latter, I was stating that many of Obama's supporters whine and protest the standard issue knocks he's getting *much* more than he does. As I've repeatedly said, I don't *dislike* Obama, but I hardly see him as a martyr in this contest.

Spoon worn out from scraping the bottom of that barrel yet? :)

Regards,
Nydia

That is NOT what you said AT ALL in the second post he linked. Both statements you made WERE completely contradictory to each other. The back tracking you make here makes you a perfect candidate to work on Hillary's campaign.

Saying he is a petulant whiner is NOT the same as saying his campaign people are doing the whining. You said specifically that he is a petulant whiner, not his campaign is full of whiners in your first post on the subject. Seriously though, if you say something, stand by it or admit error, don't try to spin it in a way you didn't say it. If you meant it that way, fine say that you meant it that way, but you sure as shit didn't say it that way.

lol and the jackels pounce i love you guys :)

The point is, she's turned nasty in the last few pages and she can't even stay consistent. She says two contradictory things, and then she acts like a politician trying to backtrack.

I'm surprised we haven't seen "you have taken me out of context" from her even with quoting her. She keeps talking about how ugly the sniping at Hillary is, but she's doing more sniping at Obama than everyone on this board has done recently combined at Hillary.

Pointing out inconsistencies in her posts isn't being a 'jackal.' She keeps the negativity rolling in this thread, justifies negativity from her chosen candidate like it's a badge of honor, and then can't take being called out for inconsistencies. Throwing more negativity/spin/and inconsistent posts into this thread isn't going to change anyone's opinion on Hillary. A well thought out post detailing any potential positives about Hillary might help some people be willing to vote for Hillary should she happen to win the nomination. Justifying a negative campaign waged by Hillary, and trying to state that it makes her more qualified is just laughable.

i wasnt being serious hence the smiley sir :)

Anyone catch her with Bill O'Reilly? I had to turn the TV off I was so disgusted. Every time the issue of Rev. Wright comes up, she fails completely - the two of them sat there having a discussion condemning him and talking about how hurt they were at his remarks, and how, without using the actual word, evil Wright is for making those comments. All she had to do was point out that Wright is entitled to his opinion and is granted the right of free speech, and I would have been tempted to shift my vote to her. This holier than thou approach, along with the continued dragging of Wright into the presidential debates, is disgusting.

Obama or BUST!!!

This is why I wouldn't vote for her period.

"Earlier Tuesday, Clinton told ABC’s Good Morning America that "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacked Israel].”"

Sad thing is this whole controversy with wright is actualy hurting Obama big time... and even though he may still win the nomination, his chances against McCain are getting slimmer every day :(

I went by a private school here in Los Angeles, and there was a sign that constantly changes, and always has a political comment on it, and yesterday it said...

"Is your pastor you?"

I liked that!

Bill O'Reilly is awesome. I would pay to hear the things he says about people when cameras are not around.

It's also really funny how he keeps going on about how is he rich, when eventually forces Clinton to make the awkward concession that she is right up with him. Obviously we all know the Clintons are rich, but no one wants to be sitting on TV just throwing it out there. Except for O'Reilly, he loves that shit and he doesn't even bother trying to hide it from his face. :p

I heard this on MSNBC tonight... Straight from Keith Olberman's mouth to your ears.

The following are all the reasons Hillary/her people have made for her losses.


Some states don't count, only the 27 on Super Tuesday really count
Jesse Jackson won South Carolina... so what if Barack won that one?
Alaska and North Dakota won't vote Democrat anyways...
Neither will Wyoming and North Carolina
Alabama and Georgia do not count also, since they don't vote democrat
Some caucus states have fewer voters, like Idaho, Utah and Kansas!
Outside of Illinois Barack's wins are insignificant, and even that one didn't count cause its his home state
Hawaii, and Mississippi never vote for females anyways
Florida and Michigan won't count... until she won.
Some primary elections like Caucus don't count cause old people and shift workers can't vote
Pledged delegates can ignore primary votes anyways
Some voters don't count, College Grads, Liberals, Independents
Voters below a certain age don't count
Voters above 60 don't count
The activist base doesn't count
Impressionable elites don't count
Time of day... Media pays more attention in march, but later they don't, so those don't count
Voters have to have all day or it doesn't countOnly one vote matters ...

50 something, conservative, registered, democrat, who is not independent, but not part of the base, who skipped college so they can go straight into teaching to not become a casino worker, who votes on domestic issues, but not in a primary or a caucus in a big state that doesn't border Illinois, that has elected female governors and members of congress, but didn't vote republican in 2004, and won't vote republican in 2008, and didn't vote for Jesse Jackson in 1984, or 1988 during all day vote except between the hours of 7 and 7:15pm.

Unless of course they don't object to their vote being overruled by Super Delegates.


__________________________________________________ ___________

WOW I loved that

Here's wishing Obama good luck tomorrow.../toast

Check out this Delegate counter...

Put in the results from tonight in NC, and Indiana... and look at how close to impossible it is for Hillary to win.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

Not sure what results you saw 10 minutes ago - she was ahead in Indiana, and as expected they're both gonna head into the convention and the delegates there will decide it.

Not sure what results you saw 10 minutes ago - she was ahead in Indiana, and as expected they're both gonna head into the convention and the delegates there will decide it.

She is ahead in Indiana 53% to 47% with the majority of the votes in black counties yet to be counted...

He also is winning NC. 59% to 39%. NC has a lot more delegates up for grabs, and if the Super delegates take this as proof that Obama can weather the Rev. Wright storm, will hopefully make their decisions soon :)

You're just far too hopeful that it'll be resolved before the convention - which it won't.

He's beating her in NC more than she's winning in Indiana. So far, he's netting positive delegates today.

I look forward to how this gets spun as another excuse for Hillary to stay in it.

It may go to the convention, but if Hillary hangs on that long, she is still going to lose if Obama can destroy her like he is.

From the way Dean has been talking, it seems like he's going to try to bring it to a head before then. In the end, what use is it for either of them to win if they destroy each other in the process?

At least Obama's drama will be long gone as old news when McCain has his chance to attack... Can he really bring up Rev. Wright in the General Election when its been news for months?

I think this will hang onto either of them, should they win.

Many general election voters don't pay close attention during the primaries (hey, basketball and American Idol are on!).

Also, strongly partisan Republicans don't pay close attention to the Democratic drama during the primaries. Do you remember as much about Huckabee v. McCain v. Romney as you do Edwards v. Hillary v. Obama? Probably not. Same for the other side.

So, either way, this stuff most of us are paying attention now to will probably dredged back up in a few months, fully investigated and documented at that point.

52% to 48% in Indiana now!

according to MSNBC

75% votes are in, in Indiana

the remaining 350 thousand votes that are out, he only needs 54-55% of those to win Indiana...

All of the counties remaining are BIG vote areas for Obama, and less then 10% of each one of them is in.

nail biter i tell ya

This is a very slim chance... But

If Obama wins Indiana... making him the winner of both contests tonight.

Will Hillary quit?

And Hillary Supporters weigh in... Should she quit?

Gary holding back votes.

Obama needs 57% in Lake County.

Do-able.

2% HRC win me thinks. less than 10k votes.

220 thousand votes left to be counted in Indiana... All from Obama strongholds.

Clinton leads by 39 thousand.

2%

down to under 20k votes. Strange statement from Gary mayor.

Something fishy is afoot methinks.

Ahhh my old home state, making it messy at the end!!!

tbh tho we never claimed Gary, we just lumped it in with Chicago!!

I guess the people of Gary feel the same way

Strange statement from Gary mayor.
What was the statement? I didn't see.

What statement?

According to his numbers, in most districts Clinton’s turnout in the city of Gary was near non-existent. One precinct saw 126 voters turn out for Obama, while only four voted for Clinton.

Clay said the election is seeing a record turnout in the city.

“We’re used to having maybe a 22, 23 percent turnout for a primary. We’re seeing numbers as high as 85 to 95 percent,” Clay said. “The Gary people took care of business.”

"Let me tell you, when all the votes are counted, when Gary comes in, I think you're looking at something for the world to see," Clay, an Obama supporter, said in a telephone interview from Obama's Gary headquarters. "I don't know what the numbers are yet, but Gary has absolutely produced in large numbers for Obama here."

Clay said the results were late coming in from Lake County because of the large numbers of absentee ballots that had to be counted -- about 11,000. Under local practice, all of the cartridges from voting machines in Gary and nearby East Chicago are first collected at the local airport before being driven to the county headquarters to be tallied with the results from the rest of the county, he said. He said there were no major technical problems holding up the count.

"It takes a little time. We want to be sure that every vote is counted fair and right," he said. "I just talked to the director out there and they are working like junkyard dogs to get that done as soon as possible. They are taking some time but I told them to do it right. That's what taking the time."


And WHOA!
http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/primary/sos_primary08?page=district&countyID=-1&partyID=-1&officeID=5&districtID=6&districtshortviewID=6&candidate=

Mike Pence WAS a heavy hitter for the Republicans.

November is gonna be fucking Bloodbath for the Republicans.

I just got this ad on CNN.com. LOL?

16,609 is the difference now... 95% reporting

The last 5% is still Lake County!

Hillary declared the apparent winner in Indiana... 51% to 49%

99% reporting

At least Obama's drama will be long gone as old news when McCain has his chance to attack... Can he really bring up Rev. Wright in the General Election when its been news for months?

Well, you know he will try.

Unbelieveable... She is asking for more donations and not dropping out... I guess we all knew she wouldn't quit. What a loser.

Shes gonna break the bank on this one.

Grats John McCain!!

on what?

25% of the Republican Primary voted for someone other than John McCain.

Longer that Hillary drags this out the better McCain's odds are at winning.

I've already heard folks bitching at the negativity and spite out of the two Democrats.

This long race is not helping them.

Hillary will win nomination I bet.
And Obama's pastor will have saved Obama's life helping him not to get elected. :)
The republicans will win the election.
GO GO Iran and American economy is next on the hit list!
/sarcasm off

Man...who needs soap operas....just watch the election. lol

Intrade has the odds of Clinton getting the nomination at 9% now.

As for winning the general election, the current odds stand at roughly:
Obama 53%
McCain 38%
Clinton 8%
Gore 2% (?!)
Paul <1%

Hillary will win nomination I bet.
And Obama's pastor will have saved Obama's life helping him not to get elected. :)
The republicans will win the election.
GO GO Iran and American economy is next on the hit list!
/sarcasm off

Man...who needs soap operas....just watch the election. lol

I'd like to know what gives you this idea. Is it the delegate count? Can't be that. Is it the popular vote? Can't be that. Is it momentum? Can't be that now.

Shes gonna break the bank on this one.
Literally.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080507/ap_on_el_pr/primary_rdp

Putting her money troubles into clearer focus, Clinton's campaign said Wednesday that she lent her campaign $6.4 million over the past month. Earlier this year, she gave her campaign $5 million.

on what?

25% of the Republican Primary voted for someone other than John McCain.

Yes, but given a choice between Clinton and McCain, not only are a large number of them going to go with McCain, a fair number of people who want Clinton over Obama want McCain over Clinton; especially after his own campaign, which has nothing to do so far except raise money, unleashes the cannonade of hypocrisy and disingenuity Obama has been too "clean" to bombard her over.

This country is poised to make a leap forward, and whether a gender leap or racial leap is the only question. John McCain cannot win the general election unless the Democrats completely fuck up between now and November.

My money says Obama will be elected.

Now, my cynical side also needs to be heard:

I have serious misgivings that Obama would see the end of his term. For those wishing harm to our nation, an Obama election is a dream plot. If he were to be assassinated, and the evidence orchestrated, we could end up with martial law, and the potential for another civil war. But, whether or not we would survive as a democracy is doubtful. He has ridden to the nomination on a wind of hope, but there is also an underlying tension as voiced in exit polls and interviews regarding the potential reaction should he be denied the nomination. I remember well the reaction to the assassintation of Dr. Martin Luther King. How much more terrible would be the reaction to the assassination of President Barak Obama? Those wishing to hurt our nation would have the means with Obama's election to bring this country to the brink of ruin.

That is my cynical side speaking out, and much as I dislike looking at the bad in folk's, I cannot help but recognize the possibility of the scenario and how it would affect this country.

What money Malse? He has opted for public funding. He is going to be massively outspent by Obama.

The public funding minus the $8 he spent on his last bus tour waiting for the Democrats to scuttle their ships for him.

Speaking of money, now this is pathetic:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Redirects directly to the donation page.

edit~

Found something funnier

http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2008/05/say-isn%E2%80%99t-this-election-just-like-a-great-football-game.html