NationStates Jolt Archive

1) by redoing the primaries, their primaries WILL COUNT.
2) the Candidates chose not to spend money on them when the DNC levied the punishment.
3) they were never early influencers. the problem stemmed when they tried to become early influencers.
4) the 'rest of the country' isn't and shouldn't be pissed at them, but at the DNC for putting their party in that posisition. the GOP still counted their votes.


redoing their primaries means that the out-of-bounds primaries are not counted.


2&3 are why they moved the primaries up. they didnt meet their goals.

there is no sense in disenfranchising the voters of michigan and florida to the detriment of the party when there is a solution that fits the rules.

Seriously, did you even read what I wrote? If so, reread it. I didn't bring him up, I brought up my ability to teach him right from wrong being undermined by what he sees. And I *DON'T* know that the attack wasn't personal. How long have I been on this board in this incarnation. Even in my old one (Pledgeria before you ask), I didn't talk to everyone.


this ridiculous position causes me to doubt that you are a parent

my son was 11 in 1998 when clinton was being impeached over lying about a blowjob in the whitehouse. i had no problem using this as a discussion point on right and wrong.

Seriously, did you even read what I wrote? If so, reread it. I didn't bring him up, I brought up my ability to teach him right from wrong being undermined by what he sees. And I *DON'T* know that the attack wasn't personal. How long have I been on this board in this incarnation. Even in my old one (Pledgeria before you ask), I didn't talk to everyone.

Neo Art gave his/her point of view on the subject, which I disagreed with. That doesn't make it an "explanation" any more than does Ashmoria's opinion count as laying the facts. They're saying that the states have been punished enough. I say it doesn't go far enough and I said why. That's not theatrics any more than rolling your eyes at me is. Got it?

Uh...how, exactly, is that "not bringing him up" in the conversation? Are you for real?

Fine. You want the states' legitimately enfranchised voters to be punished for something Party officials did. I want the states to hold their primaries when they were supposed to be held, and golly gee, that's what's going to happen. No laws were broken, and Party policy was carried out to the letter. End of story.

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven;13527215]SNI{

Well, an honest attempt at the proof would be a good start.


HAHAHAHA and Fing Ha. You don't like my methodology then do 2 things. 1. Tell me why it is ineffective 2. Come up with a better method to show (notice I won't use prove) your opinions.

redoing their primaries means that the out-of-bounds primaries are not counted. yet their punishment of having their delegates stripped would be voided.

so, why not what I suggested. change the rules again but instead of a secondary primary at expense, why not have the remaining delegates vote and their majority determine the Democratic Presidental Nominee?

it's less costly
it upholds the punishment for rule breaking
it shows that the DNC will not tolerate rule breaking
and it's a step towards the popular vote being the determining factor instead of the electorial college.

there is no sense in disenfranchising the voters of michigan and florida to the detriment of the party when there is a solution that fits the rules.
and that solution is to keep their delegates stripped of their votes and determine the DNC Canidate through Delegate Majority vote.

yet their punishment of having their delegates stripped would be voided.

so, why not what I suggested. change the rules again but instead of a secondary primary at expense, why not have the remaining delegates vote and their majority determine the Democratic Presidental Nominee?

less costly,
it upholds the punishment for rule breaking
it shows that the DNC will not tolerate rule breaking
and it's a step towards the popular vote being the determining factor instead of the electorial college.


and that solution is to keep their delegates stripped of their votes and determine the DNC Canidate through Delegate Majority vote.

because it isnt sensible to lower the party's chances of winning in november when a solution can be made that does not violate the rules that were set 18 months ago.

now if the solution was to count the primaries as already voted, that would be wrong on many levels including the "why do we have rules" level. but thats not what they are proposing.

because it isnt sensible to lower the party's chances of winning in november when a solution can be made that does not violate the rules that were set 18 months ago.EXACTLY. the DNC shot themselves in the foot and now they know it. so what are they going to do? ignore the judgement they rendered on their own party, just like President Bush pardoning himself and his friends. that is what the DNC are doing by reholding Florida's and Mich's primaries. remember, the punisment was not that the primaries won't count, but that their Delegates would be stripped of their voting power. by reholding the primaries, they are reversing (or pardoning) those two states by reinstating their delegates voting powers.

now if the solution was to count the primaries as already voted, that would be wrong on many levels including the "why do we have rules" level. but thats not what they are proposing.
because the punishment is that the two states Delegates would be stripped of their voting powers. no matter how you look at it, any action that restores the delegates voting powers is removing the punishment. the primaries not counting is the MEDIA's interpretation of the DNC ruling.

EXACTLY. the DNC shot themselves in the foot and now they know it. so what are they going to do? ignore the judgement they rendered on their own party, just like President Bush pardoning himself and his friends. that is what the DNC are doing by reholding Florida's and Mich's primaries. remember, the punisment was not that the primaries won't count, but that their Delegates would be stripped of their voting power. by reholding the primaries, they are reversing (or pardoning) those two states by reinstating their delegates voting powers.


because the punishment is that the two states Delegates would be stripped of their voting powers. no matter how you look at it, any action that restores the delegates voting powers is removing the punishment. the primaries not counting is the MEDIA's interpretation of the DNC ruling.

Where did the DNC say that the early primaries would be voided AND that no further election could EVER be held?

That is your opinion.

and your opinion as well considering you think Hillary would win it. Check out NJ's legislature and realize the Dems rule the roost here whether we like it or not


Why is it a good possibility?

With Virginia electing Jim Webb it shows that the Democrats can win there. Also, I'd like to point you to this site which compiles Obama Vs. McCain votes as if they were held on March 10, 2008. They even break them down into colors of blue and red showing who would be out on top. Currently http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=13361

It shows Obama and McCain numbers from SurveyUSA, RACP avg.'s and others. Obama is slightly ahead in Virginia showing that he very well could win the state. These are multiple polls that show the same thing. In other words, a trend.


I am not clinging to one poll. That is what the others were doing. I called it "suspect" from the beginning.


Well certainly you can't blame Hillary for another person's comments?

The Buck Stops Here


Yup, she is willing to play rough to win. It is called politics. Can't blame her for the comments of another.

There's a difference between being witty, and playing it rough, and using attacks and race based politics. She had the opportunity to stand up right away after Ferraro said what she said. She could have said, "While I respect her I do not agree with her statements and she does not speak for me!" She also could have then made her step down from her position right away. She didn't because she and her advisers thought that this might stick and work for her. She allowed it to drag on and Ferraro continued to dig herself deeper into a hole and Hillary did not come out and condemn she said. John McCain had the class to apologize after someone (can't blame him for the words of another right?) attacked Obama based on race/religion. Hillary thought that it would be all right. It's the same shit that Bill did with his "you know Jessie Jackson won in SC too" line. It's cheap, tawdry, race based politics that has no place in 2008. The same women who screams about standing up to sexism is allowing her campaign to push racism. She could have slammed the door shut, but she didn't. She has little class.


Of course she wants to win, as does Obama.

She's willing to screw the party for her own self gain. By the time she gets done sliming Obama 3/4 of the GOP's job will be done for them. She thinks only of herself and not of the rest of the members who call themselves Democrats. She has already said Obama doesn't meet the criteria to be President or CinC, and "John McCain and I do." There's a difference between wanting to win and wanting to win no mater the costs.

Just like you want her to lose more than anything else. You are a self admitted card carrying Republican and as such, you come across as a biased, half baked wannabe Democrat. And as such, it does make it more difficult to separate fact from fiction.

Wait, I thought you said you can't prove facts. Facts will only come in November right? So what you're saying here in this post is that my opinion is biased, (although I present multiple polls, article, etc. emphasizing my point) bu your opinion is beyond reproach and somehow fair. For the record, I am a registered Republican because NJ and NY have closed primaries and you need to declare. I am a slight right leaning Libertarian who is more liberal on social issues. I vote based on the person and not the party. I will vote for Obama or McCain, I will not vote for Hillary. You want to draw the lines in blue and red between us but I will not allow you to paint with such a broad brush. Refute my polls, my methodology, which make up my opinion or give up. Answering everything with "that's your opinion" just makes you look worse and gets everyone else aggravated. OF COURSE IT'S MY OPINION, that's why I back it up with as much evidence as I can. Can you say the same? Refute the methodology, the info, and come up with a better way to present your evidence in a favorable light. Otherwise you'll just be seen (as you are right now) as a man clinging to an argument in the face of evidence to the contrary. Put up fella!

Where did the DNC say that the early primaries would be voided AND that no further election could EVER be held?
where did I say that the DNC would not count the early primaries? I said the DNC stripped the two states delegates of their votes.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/25/AR2007082500275.html?hpid=topnews).

The DNC's rules and bylaws committee, which enforces party rules, voted yesterday morning to strip Florida of all its delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver -- the harshest penalty at its disposal.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151/)
VIENNA, Va. - Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.

So please show me where holding later primaries would NOT counteract their punishment?

any action that restores the Delegates votes is the DNC pardoning themselves after they applied the sentence. thus any "later" primaries that would allow those two states to vote would infact counter their punishment.

EDIT: so if you can show me where any later primaries would not give votes to their delegates, then I have no other objection to reholding primaries.

but if later primaries does give their delegates voting rights, then the DNC did state that later primaries won't count because their state delegates are STRIPPED of their votes.

And what the hell does this say to the rest of the country about the consequences of cheating if they get a redo? "Yes, teacher. I cheated off my neighbor. But if you'll have to let me retake the test, and you must count the retest result as my actual grade." No, you dumb motherf--ker, you get an F.
Nice analogy and I agree. The Dems have to grow a backbone and stay committed to the rules.

where did I say that the DNC would not count the early primaries? I said the DNC stripped the two states delegates of their votes.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/25/AR2007082500275.html?hpid=topnews).



MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151/)


So please show me where holding later primaries would NOT counteract their punishment?

any action that restores the Delegates votes is the DNC pardoning themselves after they applied the sentence. thus any "later" primaries that would allow those two states to vote would infact counter their punishment.

EDIT: so if you can show me where any later primaries would not give votes to their delegates, then I have no other objection to reholding primaries.

but if later primaries does give their delegates voting rights, then the DNC did state that later primaries won't count because their state delegates are STRIPPED of their votes.

Okay. NOW I get it.

Okay. NOW I get it.

It seems that alot of people forgot that the punishment is that the delegates were stripped of their votes, not that the primary votes won't count.

it won't matter how many Primary Elections they hold, as long as they (Florida/Michigan/DNP) are counting on the Delegates, the votes won't count. now it was suggested doing a caucus in those two states, but that tends to be messy...

and the problem the DNC is encountering is if neither candidates get the required number of Delegate votes. that's why they are looking at getting the primaries re done, but the obstical they have to overcome is the lack of delegate votes for those two states.

Wait, I thought you said you can't prove facts. Facts will only come in November right? So what you're saying here in this post is that my opinion is biased, (although I present multiple polls, article, etc. emphasizing my point) bu your opinion is beyond reproach and somehow fair. For the record, I am a registered Republican because NJ and NY have closed primaries and you need to declare. I am a slight right leaning Libertarian who is more liberal on social issues. I vote based on the person and not the party. I will vote for Obama or McCain, I will not vote for Hillary. You want to draw the lines in blue and red between us but I will not allow you to paint with such a broad brush. Refute my polls, my methodology, which make up my opinion or give up. Answering everything with "that's your opinion" just makes you look worse and gets everyone else aggravated. OF COURSE IT'S MY OPINION, that's why I back it up with as much evidence as I can. Can you say the same? Refute the methodology, the info, and come up with a better way to present your evidence in a favorable light. Otherwise you'll just be seen (as you are right now) as a man clinging to an argument in the face of evidence to the contrary. Put up fella!
Many people have posted their biased opinions on this thread. Some would even expect us to take those opinions as fact, yet in regard to this nomination process, not too much is set in stone.

Some want to base their "evidence" on polls that are constantly changing. well, that is like building your house on the sand.

My opinion about red states versus blue states was based entirely upon my opinion. I don't expect anyone to accept them as fact. The fact is that there are red states and there are blue states and I truly believe there will still be blue states and red states when this election is over, despite Obama's speech from 2002.

There will be states that collectively don't want a woman President. There will be states that that collectively don't want a black President. There will be states that that collectively don't want a Republican President. There will be states that that collectively don't want a Democrat President. That is the reality.

Nothing wrong with trying to change that reality, but when I look at the disunity in Democrat party, I can see that Obama's dream is still a long way off.

Nice analogy and I agree. The Dems have to grow a backbone and stay committed to the rules.

Thank you.

I'd say the people discussing the Democrats weakling strategy were Republicans but its just an instinct. I mean, come on, the Democratic party is not here to shape our nation in a way that will run on fear and war. If you think a "backbone" is creating a nation that other countries refuse to be allied with then we don't want a back bone thank you very much.

I'd say the people discussing the Democrats weakling strategy were Republicans but its just an instinct. I mean, come on, the Democratic party is not here to shape our nation in a way that will run on fear and war. If you think a "backbone" is creating a nation that other countries refuse to be allied with then we don't want a back bone thank you very much.

good point.

Also, I'd like to point you to this site which compiles Obama Vs. McCain votes as if they were held on March 10, 2008. They even break them down into colors of blue and red showing who would be out on top. Currently http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=13361

It shows Obama and McCain numbers from SurveyUSA, RACP avg.'s and others. Obama is slightly ahead in Virginia showing that he very well could win the state. These are multiple polls that show the same thing. In other words, a trend.

You gotta be kidding me? That link is TOTALLY biased and extremely wrong.

One example:

Michigan(17) (Rasmussen & SurveyUSA) - Obama 46.5, McCain 32

Mmmmkay, now let's look at the links that he/she provided to back up those numbers:

Michigan 2008 Presidential Election (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/michigan_2008_presidential_election)

In Michigan, John McCain has a very modest advantage over both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during the early stages of Election 2008. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found McCain leading Clinton 46% to 43% and Obama 44% to 41%.

Survey USA (http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/)

Shows Obama with a 1% point lead.

The poll author's comment:

I didn't do one for Hillary because I don't plan to vote for her (and also because I don't have the time). However, the SurveyUSA poll shows Hillary losing to McCain by like 200 electoral college votes.
Yup, Hillary is 200 ECV behind McCain, yet the SurveyUSA poll that he links to shows Hillary 14 ECV ahead.


You call this evidence. :p

I'd say the people discussing the Democrats weakling strategy were Republicans but its just an instinct. I mean, come on, the Democratic party is not here to shape our nation in a way that will run on fear and war. If you think a "backbone" is creating a nation that other countries refuse to be allied with then we don't want a back bone thank you very much.

Except the 'backbone' that Sel Appa is referring to is the idea of reversing the DNC's ruling of stripping the Delegates of their voting powers due to the two states breaking the DNC's Rules.

Should the DNC retract their ruling because they just realized they shot themselves in the foot?

(one of the problems of a mega thread.)

Except the 'backbone' that Sel Appa is referring to is the idea of reversing the DNC's ruling of stripping the Delegates of their voting powers due to the two states breaking the DNC's Rules.
<snip>
(one of the problems of a mega thread.)

Yes, it is. I thought about leaving the original thread to stand alone. But then it occurred to me that it might act as a bit of a circuit-breaker. Five whole pages of people politely disagreeing with each other ...

Sweet sweet butter, I don't have an in!!! I've been busy for two days and now I don't have an in!!! There's no point in continuing the squabble over what an opinion is and the question of whether or not a redo is letting anyone get away with anything (they were told they would have to have their primaries on or after Feb. 4th and a redo has always been a provision talked about long ago) is moot and silly.

I don't have an in! I might be free, FREE!!! I can sing and dance and play! Other people can post in a thread I've clearly posted too much in!!!

EDIT: But then I went and did some reading...silly rabbit...

So, here's a take (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/13/making-obama-unelectable.aspx) on the Mark Penn/Clinton strategy-
Mark Penn declared today that Barack Obama "really can't win the general [election]." Of course, it's silly to say that Obama or Clinton "can't" win the general. There's not even good evidence to suggest that Obama is less likely than Clinton to win the general.
...
Both Obama and Clinton have significant drawbacks as general election candidates. I think Obama's potential -- that is, in situations when a high-profile Democrats is not reinforcing the GOP message every night -- is much greater than Clinton's The basic fundamentals are best captured by the Gallup Poll's favorable/unfavorable rating, which is the basic measure of a politician's popularity, for Clinton and Obama.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/GALhrcFAV.gif
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/GALobamaFAV.gif
That's an enormous difference -- a thirty-point gap. Obama has plenty of flaws as a general election candidate, but they're not as deeply-rooted as Clinton's.

As I said, Obama was running well ahead of Clinton in head-to-head matchups a few weeks ago, and now they're tied. After several more weeks of Clinton reinforcing McCain's message against Obama, Clinton will probably be performing better than Obama against McCain. This is the point I made in my TRB column. She needs to convince the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to split for her by about a 2-to-1 margin. The only way she can get a split like that is if she can persuasively argue that Obama is unelectable. And the only way she can do that is to make him unelectable. Some people have treated this as an unfortunate byproduct of Clinton's decision to continue her campaign. It's actually a central element of the strategy. Penn is already saying he's unelectable. It's not true, but by the time the convention rolls around, it may well be.
These numbers go back and are consistent over a year, before Obama was even close in the polls and are largely unchanged. It stops in February, so I'd be interested in seeing what March's numbers are going to look like, but it's hard to blame one candidates numbers given on the opponent.

The all or nothing gambit has a fair amount of risk to it.

It might be what fueled this (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5izQosMtCfjNjE1uAP6fQV2BZ_qWwD8VDE9MO1)-
On this presidential rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton can agree: They sometimes disagree with their trash-talking supporters and will try to cool it.
...
"They approached one another and spoke about how supporters for both campaigns have said things they reject," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. "They agreed that the contrasts between their respective records, qualifications and issues should be what drives this campaign, and nothing else."

An Obama adviser, speaking on a condition of anonymity about the private conversation, gave a similar account, while stressing that it was Obama who approached Clinton on the subject. They committed to making sure that their supporters don't get overheated in the future, the adviser said.

With Clinton and Obama in such a close race for the nomination, the campaign has grown increasingly acrimonious. Surrogates and aides to the candidates have stirred racial and gender divisions that Democrats fear will leave the eventual nominee badly damaged and battered heading into the general election.

Party members also fear that the rancor will make it difficult to unite the party for the November contest, undercutting Democrats' chances of winning the White House after eight years of President Bush.
We'll see how long that lasts.

It seems to me that as long as Penn is part of Clinton's campaign, the truce might be shaky.

McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html)

Ohio televangelist Rod Parsley- a man John McCain calls his spiritual advisor- has declared that Christianity (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Christianity mind you, dirty Papists don't count) should declare war on Islam and destroy everything about it.

While Barack Obama gets harangued and has to go to great efforts to publically denounce and reject the endorsement of Louis "Judaism is a gutter religion" Farrakhan, Johnny-Boy gets a pass from the "Liberal Media".

Funny how things work out huh?

Has anyone considered holding the primaries in a different order each election cycle? Draw the states out of a hat.

While I agree that Florida and Michigan broke the Democratic party's rules and have to be punished somehow (lest every state starts leapfrogging each other until primaries are held more than four years before a presidential election, which would be farcical) I have some sympathy for their resentment of the traditional order of primaries.

The earlier states get their priorities addressed by the candidates. Unless the contest is close, the last states to go to primaries get far less attention. That's pretty unfair, and "we've always done it that way" isn't a good enough reason to stop states bidding to be early in the primary process.

Has anyone considered holding the primaries in a different order each election cycle? Draw the states out of a hat.

While I agree that Florida and Michigan broke the Democratic party's rules and have to be punished somehow (lest every state starts leapfrogging each other until primaries are held more than four years before a presidential election, which would be farcical) I have some sympathy for their resentment of the traditional order of primaries.

The earlier states get their priorities addressed by the candidates. Unless the contest is close, the last states to go to primaries get far less attention. That's pretty unfair, and "we've always done it that way" isn't a good enough reason to stop states bidding to be early in the primary process.
The only state that benefits from the "we've always done it that way" mentality is New Hampshire, which actually has a bylaw or something like it that insists on its first in the nation status. The other three states that were allowed ahead of Feb. 4th were decided a year and a half ago to protect them, more or less, from irrelevance. If a big state were allowed to move ahead of them, they feared, the candidates would over look them and instead focus on what they call 'tarmac campaigning' (sort of like whistlestops, but with airports instead) rather than making a serious effort to actually address their states. You saw that with Guiliani's failed plan, and to a certain degree I think you're seeing that failed strategy with the Clinton campaign where half of her popular vote comes from just five states. However, this is really one of the first times in short memory where the 'big state' mentality hasn't necessarily worked. But it was Nevada, Iowa, and South Carolina's concern that they would be all but ignored unless they were allowed to be the early primary.

Allowed order is arranged every election year, it's just this year where two states decided that they had enough bully power to simply go against that and they would be seated because the parties had no balls. This isn't the first time something like this has happened, usually there is a clear front runner by the end who compels the comittee to seat them anyway. For some dumbass reason they didn't see a field with two strong candidates being this close and facing the reality of not actually being seated, so they had to lean on the option of redos.

Yes, it is. I thought about leaving the original thread to stand alone. But then it occurred to me that it might act as a bit of a circuit-breaker. Five whole pages of people politely disagreeing with each other ...

What?! Sure such a thing is impossible here on NSG, :D

Yes, it is. I thought about leaving the original thread to stand alone. But then it occurred to me that it might act as a bit of a circuit-breaker. Five whole pages of people politely disagreeing with each other ...

oh, don't get me wrong, that wasn't a complaint. :p

it does make the thread... er... mega thread interesting tho. :D

What did Florida and Michigan do, exactly? I mean, Florida screwed up royally during the 2000 presidential elections, but they still managed to count for something.I don't know what will end up getting done with Michigan, but as for Florida, I think it should be officially banned from participating in Presidential elections ever again.

You gotta be kidding me? That link is TOTALLY biased and extremely wrong.

One example:

Michigan(17) (Rasmussen & SurveyUSA) - Obama 46.5, McCain 32

Mmmmkay, now let's look at the links that he/she provided to back up those numbers:

Michigan 2008 Presidential Election (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/michigan_2008_presidential_election)

Yeah, you can check the rest of the sites I've already posted for you in what seems like forever now. Check out the rcp numbers sent. Pay attention to the states won by obama and how close those states were in 2004. Who crosses over to more Independants? Remember How close those states are and that Barack won those states.

Survey USA (http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/)

Shows Obama with a 1% point lead.

The poll author's comment:


Yup, Hillary is 200 ECV behind McCain, yet the SurveyUSA poll that he links to shows Hillary 14 ECV ahead.


You call this evidence. :p

Go back over the rest of the links I've given to you. As far as Virgina goes the results of the primary was a trouncing for Hillary. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/va/virginia_democratic_primary-507.html

Northern Virginia has continued to grow and it consists mainly of well educated individuals. Check out the demos for Virginia http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51000.html

These are all areas where Barack does well. Go back and look at my previous links regarding how Barack did better in states that were close in 2004.

Finally, you can blame someone for what someone says on their behalf. Hillary allowed Ferraro to continue before she finally had to bow out. If she can't shut her up she is going to continue bringing trouble for Hillary. In the end it really is a popularity contest. Clinton is not well liked by a lot of people. There are people who will go out just to vote against her. The longer this goes on the better it is for Barack.

Go back over the rest of the links I've given to you. As far as Virgina goes the results of the primary was a trouncing for Hillary. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/va/virginia_democratic_primary-507.html

Northern Virginia has continued to grow and it consists mainly of well educated individuals. Check out the demos for Virginia http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51000.html
We all know what happened in Virginia. What does this have to do with the grand scheme of things? I still believe that Virginia will stay Red.

These are all areas where Barack does well. Go back and look at my previous links regarding how Barack did better in states that were close in 2004.
I not only looked at that, I replied. I was waiting for your reply (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13526831&postcount=1938).

Finally, you can blame someone for what someone says on their behalf. Hillary allowed Ferraro to continue before she finally had to bow out. If she can't shut her up she is going to continue bringing trouble for Hillary. In the end it really is a popularity contest. Clinton is not well liked by a lot of people. There are people who will go out just to vote against her. The longer this goes on the better it is for Barack.
Ummm she is no longer with Hillary's campaign, and by your reasoning, that should make you sad? You still hate Hillary....nothing has changed.

BTW, that last link for polling that you submitted for proof, was the absolute worst amateur presentation I have seen here in my 4+ years here. Not only was it biased, it was totally dishonest.

Florida writer doesn't think Florida is as all important as it once was- (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/article418790.ece)
Sorry to say it, folks, but Florida may not be center of the political universe this year.
...
The standard Democratic path is to count on some 15 thoroughly Democratic states like New York and California to deliver about 200 electoral votes, and then focus on winning enough swing states to reach the winning number of 270. One Democratic governor once derided the strategy as competing in 16 states and "then hope for a triple bank-shot to win Ohio or Florida."

But the map is changing. Not only are big swing states such as Ohio looking more Democratic-leaning than they have in years, but a host of formerly red states from Virginia to Colorado look ripe for Democrats to pick off.

The Obama campaign is even talking up their ability to win such solidly red states as Kansas and North Carolina.

Right now it's a lot easier to see some red states going to blue,'' said pollster John Zogby, but he cautioned that despite the national political climate no one should underestimate the Democrats' ability to lose.

For Republicans, the basic electoral vote math remains the same: lose Florida, lose the election.
...
By most estimates, Obama would be more likely to de-emphasize Florida than Clinton.

The New York senator was the last Democrat to agree to boycott Florida's primary, has a deep network of supporters in Florida and sprinkled her campaign staff with veterans of Florida campaigns.

All along she has signaled her intention to run a traditional general election strategy focused heavily on the big three swing states: Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Her aides have been quietly fretting for months about how the delay in organizing Florida could hurt in the general election.

In contrast, Obama has always stressed a broader strategy to campaign across the country, rather than just a handful of key states, and his commitment to playing hard in Florida has never been certain.
...
Still, local Obama organizers have been active on their own, earlier this month organizing some 200 house parties across the state. The campaign insists both Michigan and Florida are priorities for November.

"If and when there is a nominee, one of the most important tasks in front of us is to make sure we campaign aggressively and build organizations in Michigan and Florida,'' said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. "That is going to be one of our first and most important tasks, to make up for lost ground."
...
Are we still America's biggest battleground state? Probably, but for the first time in a long time, don't bank on it.
There is plenty of hedging in the article that suggests that Florida is indeed a battleground state and will stay one, and it's not likely to be ignored by anyone. But this does once again underline the value and difference in the 50 state strategy of Obama over the 'traditional' +1 strategy of Clinton, which is the reason I bring this up. I don't think it's valuable to kiss off Florida any more than it is to kiss off any state.

By kissing off states that you've conceded ahead of time not only do you put undo stress on winning 'key' states, but you allow the other campaign to put that focus there as well, instead of forcing the Republican party, that's also still going to be looking at the 'old map,' to manage its resources to not only try and get McCain elected but also protect dwindling seats in congress and state government, opening the map even further not just for the nominee but for the party.

Don't expect the super delegates to ignore that reality. More and more it's looking like Clinton needs a Hail Mary to win this, and here's hoping she doesn't bring down the house trying.

haha, turns out telling caucuses that they suck is not a good way to pick up delegates in the multi-level caucus convention process. iowa held its next step in the process and obama gained 9 delegates over the previous count and clinton lost one of hers (and some edwards people are still holding out hope for him, as he still has 6 delegates coming to him out of iowa).

new iowa count (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/IA-D.phtml):
O 25
C 14
E 6

you'll note that his gain in delegates here is nearly twice as big as clinton's awesome firewall strategy got her. she's really just no good at this running for president thing.

haha, turns out telling caucuses that they suck is not a good way to pick up delegates in the multi-level caucus convention process. iowa held its next step in the process and obama gained 9 delegates over the previous count and clinton lost one of hers (and some edwards people are still holding out hope for him, as he still has 6 delegates coming to him out of iowa).

new iowa count (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/IA-D.phtml):
O 25
C 14
E 6

Stupid Clinton. I wish she'd learn to keep her mouth shut.

haha, turns out telling caucuses that they suck is not a good way to pick up delegates in the multi-level caucus convention process. iowa held its next step in the process and obama gained 9 delegates over the previous count and clinton lost one of hers (and some edwards people are still holding out hope for him, as he still has 6 delegates coming to him out of iowa).

new iowa count (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/IA-D.phtml):
O 25
C 14
E 6

you'll note that his gain in delegates here is nearly twice as big as clinton's awesome firewall strategy got her. she's really just no good at this running for president thing.

also of note is that the official vote certification took place in california, and obama grabbed 5 more delegates out there too.

I wish to continue discussion on a point from another election thread that was closed, but for some reason not merged into this thread.

Anyway, the discussion started with this comment (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13527607&postcount=7):

I very much doubt Clinton would prove a president superior to McCain, considering that she is more pro-war than he is. Obama might make a so-so leader, but I am still voting third-party.

To which I responded (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13527639&postcount=11):
This is far from the first time I've seen this sentiment stated on these forums and I have yet to see anyone actually back it up with any substance.

Clinton opposes the Iraq War, opposed the surge, and has sought to prevent the Bush Administration from starting a war with Iran. John McCain strongly supports the current war and is extremely hawkish when it comes to foreign relations. What exactly has Senator Clinton done or said that makes her more pro-war than John McCain?

To which TPE responded back (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13527807&postcount=21):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545321 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545321)

Now, TPE's reply is a link to an older thread based on an antiwar.org article by Stephen Zunes entitled Hillary Clinton's Illiberal Belligerence (http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12051).

My first response is that an article that claims Hillary Clinton is closer on foreign policy to Ronald Reagan than to George McGovern hardly proves that Clinton is more pro-war than Senator McCain.

Second, the article in question is hardly fair and balanced. On several issues, it equates Clinton's support for more diplomacy or for economic sanctions as being the same as war-mongering. Stephen Zunes is an ethusiastic supporter of Senator Obama and I agree with him in that choice. But I disagree with his smearing of Senator Clinton. For example, Zune says:

Clinton has also demonstrated a marked preference for military confrontation over negotiation. In a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, she called for a "tough-minded, muscular foreign and defense policy."

But if one goes to that actual speech (http://www.cfr.org/publication/6600/remarks_by_senator_hillary_rodham_clinton_transcript.html), you will see that Senator Clinton was NOT advocating military confrontation over negotiation. To the contrary, she said:

We need a tough-minded, muscular foreign and defense policy, one that not only respects our allies and seeks new friends as it strikes at known enemies, but which is understood and supported by the majority of the American people. The consequences of unilateralism, isolationism and overtly expressed preemptive defense, I think, are severe. We will end up with fewer nations, fewer intelligence services and fewer law enforcement personnel internationally helping to protect us against attacks, fewer nations helping to counterattack when we are struck, and less leverage in advancing democracy, freedom, open markets and other values that we believe elevate the people of the world even as they protect our people here at home.

This is not to propound some golden rule of international affairs, because I think it's rooted in the intelligence and the success of the 20th century. The more we throw our weight around, the more we encourage other nations to join with each other as a counterweight. We have a lot of problems besides Iraq and Afghanistan on the horizon. The number one problem remains the spread of weapons of mass destruction and those falling into the hands of either rogue nations or borderless terrorists. And so we have to have a united front of the world that cares about life more than death; that consists of builders instead of destroyers, standing together, fighting together, working together.

It is important that we remember the admonition, more than 40 years ago, of Dwight Eisenhower against arrogance. President Eisenhower said that "the people of the world must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect." I think we should listen to such wise counsel from our history, if we are to lead in the 21st century in a way that is keeping with our values and our interests.

We have many, many reasons to work more closely together, but the most important are our children, our future grandchildren, all the children who deserve from this generation of leadership the same commitment to building a safer, more secure world that we inherited from the last generation.



Now, there is much to criticize in that speech and in many of Senator Clinton's history and policy positions, but Zunes's article is less than helpful. Note that among the things he sharply criticizes Senator Clinton for is her support of the war in Afghanistan.

In sum, I reject the view that she is more hawkish than Senator McCain. That is simply not true. McCain supports the war in Iraq and is most belligerant towards Iran, Cuba, and other countries. On almost every point that Zune criticizes Clinton, worse could be said of McCain.

I wish to continue discussion on a point from another election thread that was closed, but for some reason not merged into this thread.

Anyway, the discussion started with this comment (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13527607&postcount=7):



To which I responded (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13527639&postcount=11):


To which TPE responded back (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13527807&postcount=21):



Now, TPE's reply is a link to an older thread based on an antiwar.org article by Stephen Zunes entitled Hillary Clinton's Illiberal Belligerence (http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12051).

My first response is that an article that claims Hillary Clinton is closer on foreign policy to Ronald Reagan than to George McGovern hardly proves that Clinton is more pro-war than Senator McCain.

Yet she is the roulette number that military contractors are placing their chips upon. From the aforementioned article: "Her presidential campaign has received far more money from defense contractors than any other candidate – Democrat or Republican..."

Second, the article in question is hardly fair and balanced.

I agree that it contains biases. However, I find that it does not contain any prejudices.

On several issues, it equates Clinton's support for more diplomacy or for economic sanctions as being the same as war-mongering. Stephen Zunes is an enthusiastic supporter of Senator Obama and I agree with him in that choice. But I disagree with his smearing of Senator Clinton. For example, Zune says:

Clinton has also demonstrated a marked preference for military confrontation over negotiation. In a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, she called for a "tough-minded, muscular foreign and defense policy."

But if one goes to that actual speech (http://www.cfr.org/publication/6600/remarks_by_senator_hillary_rodham_clinton_transcript.html), you will see that Senator Clinton was NOT advocating military confrontation over negotiation. To the contrary, she said:

We need a tough-minded, muscular foreign and defense policy, one that not only respects our allies and seeks new friends as it strikes at known enemies, but which is understood and supported by the majority of the American people. The consequences of unilateralism, isolationism and overtly expressed preemptive defense, I think, are severe. We will end up with fewer nations, fewer intelligence services and fewer law enforcement personnel internationally helping to protect us against attacks, fewer nations helping to counterattack when we are struck, and less leverage in advancing democracy, freedom, open markets and other values that we believe elevate the people of the world even as they protect our people here at home.

This is not to propound some golden rule of international affairs, because I think it's rooted in the intelligence and the success of the 20th century. The more we throw our weight around, the more we encourage other nations to join with each other as a counterweight. We have a lot of problems besides Iraq and Afghanistan on the horizon. The number one problem remains the spread of weapons of mass destruction and those falling into the hands of either rogue nations or borderless terrorists. And so we have to have a united front of the world that cares about life more than death; that consists of builders instead of destroyers, standing together, fighting together, working together.

It is important that we remember the admonition, more than 40 years ago, of Dwight Eisenhower against arrogance. President Eisenhower said that "the people of the world must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect." I think we should listen to such wise counsel from our history, if we are to lead in the 21st century in a way that is keeping with our values and our interests.

We have many, many reasons to work more closely together, but the most important are our children, our future grandchildren, all the children who deserve from this generation of leadership the same commitment to building a safer, more secure world that we inherited from the last generation.



Thank you for clearing that-up.

In sum, I reject the view that she is more hawkish than Senator McCain. That is simply not true. McCain supports the war in Iraq and is most belligerant towards Iran, Cuba, and other countries. On almost every point that Zune criticizes Clinton, worse could be said of McCain.

From the aforementioned article: Now, there is much to criticize in that speech and in many of Senator Clinton's history and policy positions, but Zunes's article is less than helpful. Note that among the things he sharply criticizes Senator Clinton for is her support of the war in Afghanistan. She has also defended the 1998 U.S. bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan which had provided that impoverished African country with more than half of its antibiotics and vaccines, falsely claiming it was a chemical weapons factory controlled by Osama bin Laden.

Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Clinton went well beyond the broad consensus that the United States should go after al-Qaeda cells and their leadership to declare that any country providing any "aid and comfort" to al-Qaeda "will now face the wrath of our country." When Bush echoed these words the following week in his nationally-televised speech, she declared "I'll stand behind Bush for a long time to come."

She certainly did. Clinton voted to authorize the president with wide-ranging authority to attack Afghanistan and was a strong supporter of the bombing campaign against that country, which resulted in more civilian deaths than the 9/11 attacks against the United States that had prompted them.

Despite recent pleas by the democratically elected Afghan president Harmid Karzai that the ongoing U.S. bombing and the over-emphasis on aggressive counter-insurgency operations was harming efforts to deal with the resurgence of violence by the Taliban and other radical groups, Clinton argues that our "overriding immediate objective of our foreign policy" toward Afghanistan "must be to significantly step up our military engagement."

Does the bold not disturb you?

Yet she is the roulette number that military contractors are placing their chips upon. From the aforementioned article: "Her presidential campaign has received far more money from defense contractors than any other candidate – Democrat or Republican..."



I agree that it contains biases. However, I find that it does not contain any prejudices.



Thank you for clearing that-up.



From the aforementioned article: Now, there is much to criticize in that speech and in many of Senator Clinton's history and policy positions, but Zunes's article is less than helpful. Note that among the things he sharply criticizes Senator Clinton for is her support of the war in Afghanistan. She has also defended the 1998 U.S. bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan which had provided that impoverished African country with more than half of its antibiotics and vaccines, falsely claiming it was a chemical weapons factory controlled by Osama bin Laden.

Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Clinton went well beyond the broad consensus that the United States should go after al-Qaeda cells and their leadership to declare that any country providing any "aid and comfort" to al-Qaeda "will now face the wrath of our country." When Bush echoed these words the following week in his nationally-televised speech, she declared "I'll stand behind Bush for a long time to come."

She certainly did. Clinton voted to authorize the president with wide-ranging authority to attack Afghanistan and was a strong supporter of the bombing campaign against that country, which resulted in more civilian deaths than the 9/11 attacks against the United States that had prompted them.

Despite recent pleas by the democratically elected Afghan president Harmid Karzai that the ongoing U.S. bombing and the over-emphasis on aggressive counter-insurgency operations was harming efforts to deal with the resurgence of violence by the Taliban and other radical groups, Clinton argues that our "overriding immediate objective of our foreign policy" toward Afghanistan "must be to significantly step up our military engagement."

Does the bold not disturb you?

And which of the things you just said does McCain disagree with? See attacking Clinton does not support your premise. You claimed she is MORE hawkish than McCain, so which of these things is McCain against?

And which of the things you just said does McCain disagree with? See attacking Clinton does not support your premise. You claimed she is MORE hawkish than McCain, so which of these things is McCain against?

The main reason I believe Clinton is more hawkish than McCain is because military contractors do.

The main reason I believe Clinton is more hawkish than McCain is because military contractors do.

source?

source?

http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/10/19/hillary-clinton-receives-the-largest-number-of-military-donationsfrom-the-defense-industry/

We all know what happened in Virginia. What does this have to do with the grand scheme of things? I still believe that Virginia will stay Red.


I not only looked at that, I replied. I was waiting for your reply (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13526831&postcount=1938).


Ummm she is no longer with Hillary's campaign, and by your reasoning, that should make you sad? You still hate Hillary....nothing has changed.

BTW, that last link for polling that you submitted for proof, was the absolute worst amateur presentation I have seen here in my 4+ years here. Not only was it biased, it was totally dishonest.

You explained nothing. You just said, "I say this." Being attacked by you for sources used is just ironic. Look back through this thread and see some of the blogs you have used. Go back and look at your stupid Youtube link. You can find fault with 1 link I've used against you in 136 pages. This is more of you just ignoring reasoning, then saying "I believe this because?" and you are wrong. All the polls are not relevant, my opinion is what is relevant. Obama is still ahead of Hillary at this point for popular vote, delegates, catching up in superdelegates, states won, and national polls for the nod. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Virginia is still in play for the reasons I already stated. The demographics are in favor of Obama as I showed you in their official census information. If all politics is local then Barack should have a good time in this state. Jim Webb will help solidify Barack in this state.

We all know what happened in Virginia. What does this have to do with the grand scheme of things? I still believe that Virginia will stay Red.


I not only looked at that, I replied. I was waiting for your reply (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13526831&postcount=1938).


Ummm she is no longer with Hillary's campaign, and by your reasoning, that should make you sad? You still hate Hillary....nothing has changed.

BTW, that last link for polling that you submitted for proof, was the absolute worst amateur presentation I have seen here in my 4+ years here. Not only was it biased, it was totally dishonest.

Obama fires Powers in a minute and Hillary waits around to see if things blow over. That's the difference in character between the two.

http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/10/19/hillary-clinton-receives-the-largest-number-of-military-donationsfrom-the-defense-industry/

"Insofar as defense workers making political donations reflect the interests of their employers, the contributions clearly suggest that the arms industry has reach the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed. Since their profits are so heavily dependent on government contracts, companies in this field want to be sure they do not have hostile relations with the White House.

The strong support for Clinton indicates that a majority of defense industry executives currently believe Clinton is a favorite to win the Democratic nomination and, in November, 2008, the general election."

Not as simple as "Defense contractors think Hillary is more hawkish than McCain."

"Insofar as defense workers making political donations reflect the interests of their employers, the contributions clearly suggest that the arms industry has reach the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed. Since their profits are so heavily dependent on government contracts, companies in this field want to be sure they do not have hostile relations with the White House.

The strong support for Clinton indicates that a majority of defense industry executives currently believe Clinton is a favorite to win the Democratic nomination and, in November, 2008, the general election."

Not as simple as "Defense contractors think Hillary is more hawkish than McCain."

I believe the companies are providing support for Clinton because she will give them more business than other candidates. To say that military companies are expecting to get more contracts in return for pledging their support is absurd. Are you saying that Hillary will buy from them with tax-payers money if they help her?

In addition, I urge you to remember that:

"She has even fought the Bush administration in restoring funding for some of the very few weapons systems the Bush administration has sought to cut in recent years."

-From the article which The Cat-Tribe and I were debating about.

Obama fires Powers in a minute
You tend to be over dramatic? Four days = minutes? And she resigned, was not "fired"?

Obama aide quits over Clinton "monster" comment (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080307/pl_nm/usa_politcs_obama_dc)

A foreign policy adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama resigned on Friday after calling campaign rival Hillary Clinton a "monster" during an interview with a British newspaper.

Samantha Power, a foreign policy aide on the Illinois senator's White House campaign, said the comments were inexcusable. They were published on Friday by The Scotsman newspaper.

"With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an adviser to the Obama campaign effective today," Power said in a statement.

"Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor and purpose of the Obama campaign."

and Hillary waits around to see if things blow over.
In about the same amount of days, Geraldine Ferraro also resigned her volunteer post. Your bias against Hillary keeps coming to the forefront?

That's the difference in character between the two.
Now what was that difference again?

You explained nothing. You just said, "I say this."
You made your case, and I made mine. I think your case is weaker based on the information that was available at that time.

Being attacked by you for sources used is just ironic.
That link you used was worse than weak, it was total fantasy. You didn't expect to get called on it?

Look back through this thread and see some of the blogs you have used.
The references I used there were to support that I was not the only one who held that perspective. I surely didn't use it to suggest that my opinion was right and that yours was wrong.

Go back and look at your stupid Youtube link.
I think that link actually raised some fundamentals points that were thoroughly debated. I still think the guy made some valid points.

You can find fault with 1 link I've used against you in 136 pages.
You really want to support that link? It was horrible wasn't it?

This is more of you just ignoring reasoning, then saying "I believe this because?" and you are wrong.A reasoned person would not accept that biased poll....period?

All the polls are not relevant, my opinion is what is relevant.
My opinion remains constant. The polls in the US are all over the map....perhaps the most volatile polls I have ever seen. On top of all that, it appears that Americans are poll crazy. You have daily polls that seem to rise and fall like a stock market ticker tape. It is almost insane.

Obama is still ahead of Hillary at this point for popular vote, delegates, catching up in superdelegates, states won, and national polls for the nod. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
It is pretty close huh? According to this one you linked to, Hillary has caught up somewhat and there is less than 1% seperating the two?

Virginia is still in play for the reasons I already stated. The demographics are in favor of Obama as I showed you in their official census information. If all politics is local then Barack should have a good time in this state. Jim Webb will help solidify Barack in this state.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda......crap shoot time. On that Survey USA poll, it showed Obama winning Virginia by a single solitary vote out of 600+ people who were polled. That poll clearly showed that Obama would win the general election 280 to McCain's 258. Give that single, solitary vote to McCain and the poll would have shown McCain winning the general election 271 to Obama's 267. You are going to hang your hat on that? Good luck.

You tend to be over dramatic? Four days = minutes? And she resigned, was not "fired"?

Obama aide quits over Clinton "monster" comment (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080307/pl_nm/usa_politcs_obama_dc)

A foreign policy adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama resigned on Friday after calling campaign rival Hillary Clinton a "monster" during an interview with a British newspaper.

Samantha Power, a foreign policy aide on the Illinois senator's White House campaign, said the comments were inexcusable. They were published on Friday by The Scotsman newspaper.

"With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an adviser to the Obama campaign effective today," Power said in a statement.

"Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor and purpose of the Obama campaign."

In about the same amount of days, Geraldine Ferraro also resigned her volunteer post. Your bias against Hillary keeps coming to the forefront?


Now what was that difference again?

timing of when statements were made known, presumably. also, ferraro's comments are actually bad.

http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/10/19/hillary-clinton-receives-the-largest-number-of-military-donationsfrom-the-defense-industry/

that doesn't support your claim at all. not even vaguely.

try another?

Sometimes, and this might be just the over-reporting of every little thing, I get really worried that Clinton sees the nomination as more important than the election (http://www.newsweek.com/id/123495)-
Clinton herself drew notice last week during a NEWSWEEK interview when she said her delegate numbers aren't "bleak at all," even though by most counts she trails Obama by more than 100. "Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to," she added. Although her campaign quickly denied it was waging any effort to "flip" Obama's pledged delegates, Clinton's remarks weren't academic.
...
A "good conscience" reason for a delegate to switch, Ickes told NEWSWEEK, would be if one candidate—such as, say, Clinton—was deemed more "electable." If delegates believe she has a better chance in November than Obama, Ickes said, "you bet" that would be a reason to change their vote. (He added, however, that the campaign is "focused" on winning over uncommitted superdelegates "at this point.")
...
One party official, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive matters, said the strategy behind Clinton's invocation of the 1982 rule was clear: "They're trying to open up a window for some of the Obama people to change their minds."
For fucks sake.

At some point someone in the party is going to have to write the 'it's over' note to her before she burns the place down.

Additionally, Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/03/17/swing_states/index.html)'s amusing and insightful take on the 'electability' argument. Not quoted because all I'd be saying is "Yeah"

At some point someone in the party is going to have to write the 'it's over' note to her before she burns the place down.
Would that be equivalent to giving up States as per Obama's 50 State strategy? Why should she quit? It ain't over until the fat lady sings, and although she may be clearing her throat, she hasn't sung a note.

Additionally, Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/03/17/swing_states/index.html)'s amusing and insightful take on the 'electability' argument. Not quoted because all I'd be saying is "Yeah"

The general election should be close and competitive, so be forewarned. There are also lots of Electoral College combinations where McCain could win. A reality to which both campaigns need to accommodate themselves is that November's winner, whether Democrat or Republican, absent remarkable circumstances, will get at most about 330 electoral votes. In 2000, an election that was a virtual popular vote tie nationally, 28 states were won by either Al Gore or George Bush by margins of 10 points or more. Fourteen of those states were won by 20 points or more. My point? Red states are very red, blue states very blue. That's why only about 20 states are considered true battlegrounds, and only three states (Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico) flipped custody between 2000 and 2004. Oh, and of these three, Hillary has won two, Barack one, but the net electors is about the same (IA = 7; NH + NM = 9).
Definitely insightful. Another that believes what I believe.....about those red states, that is?

http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/10/19/hillary-clinton-receives-the-largest-number-of-military-donationsfrom-the-defense-industry/

You realize that supports the idea that they think she's going to win, not that they think she's more hawkish. Regardless, that shows what they think, not if they're accurate. So again, what specifically hawkish things does Hillary want to do that McCain doesn't? I don't want to know who thinks she's more hawkish. I want you to give reasons. Are you capable?

Obama fires Powers in a minute and Hillary waits around to see if things blow over. That's the difference in character between the two.

So, waiting 5 days between the time Powers made her comment and firing her is...firing her in a minute? Well, sure, probably didn't take more than a minute to fire her, but probably not in the way you meant.

The thing that irritates me most about rabid Obama supporters is the way they excuse the behaviour in Obama that they decry in every other candidate out there.

First, someone should finish reading.

Speaking of swing states, can we call a cease-fire on the whole "our candidate does better in swing states" meme? Please consult this handy chart put together by Craig Gilbert, the Washington bureau chief for the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. It shows that, in the 20 closest states from 2004, 15 of which have held Democratic National Committee-sanctioned primaries or caucuses thus far, Obama has won eight to Clinton's seven.

D'oh.

Not to mention that the person who "agrees with you" actually doesn't. He's talking about 30 states. You discounted most of the US. He leaves 20 states up for grabs.

So, waiting 5 days between the time Powers made her comment and firing her is...firing her in a minute? Well, sure, probably didn't take more than a minute to fire her, but probably not in the way you meant.

The thing that irritates me most about rabid Obama supporters is the way they excuse the behaviour in Obama that they decry in every other candidate out there.

Nothing better than gross generalizations. Cuz that's not a fallacy or anything.

First, someone should finish reading.

D'oh.

Not to mention that the person who "agrees with you" actually doesn't. He's talking about 30 states. You discounted most of the US. He leaves 20 states up for grabs.
Practice what you preach? I did finish reading. D'oh!! Perhaps you didn't finish reading?

Assuming for the sake of argument that Obama carries Oregon on May 20 as he did neighboring Washington, and that Clinton wins re-votes in Michigan and Florida and her current polling lead in Pennsylvania holds up on primary day, April 22, that might in theory give her an advantage in seven states to his five, and a whopping Electoral College vote difference of 99 electors to Obama's 43. Even if you give Obama Nevada and New Mexico, which she won but in which (according to SurveyUSA results) he seems more competitive against McCain, she still leads 89 to 53. On the other hand, if he wins a Michigan re-vote or, in lieu of a re-vote, pulls ahead of her in Michigan polls, the states split 6-to-6 and the electors are almost identical: Clinton 72, Obama 70.
Kinda like the big state theory is there for a good reason? Not to mention that Hillary could take Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia.

Hillary to me has the most potential to cut into those red states.

Sometimes, and this might be just the over-reporting of every little thing, I get really worried that Clinton sees the nomination as more important than the election (http://www.newsweek.com/id/123495)-

For fucks sake.

At some point someone in the party is going to have to write the 'it's over' note to her before she burns the place down.

Additionally, Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/03/17/swing_states/index.html)'s amusing and insightful take on the 'electability' argument. Not quoted because all I'd be saying is "Yeah"

So much for Clinton believingin in the Democratic ideals of this country. This is one more reason why I do not like Hillary.

The massive amount of infighting is only going to weaken the Democratic party for the National election...looks like it's gonna be 4 more years of Bush in the form of McCain.

Would that be equivalent to giving up States as per Obama's 50 State strategy? Why should she quit? It ain't over until the fat lady sings, and although she may be clearing her throat, she hasn't sung a note.

Except for the fact that she cannot overtake him in pledged delegates nor the popular vote without full massive landslides. She's done.

Definitely insightful. Another that believes what I believe.....about those red states, that is?

And we've proven that is not necessarily the case.

Would that be equivalent to giving up States as per Obama's 50 State strategy? Why should she quit? It ain't over until the fat lady sings, and although she may be clearing her throat, she hasn't sung a note.
Missing the salient point, aren't ya, champ? That sentence didn't stand alone, now did it? No, no it didn't. Why, it was accompanied by a big ol' quote that put it in context, now wasn't? Yes, yes it was. And what was that context? Oh yes, the idea that Clinton is entertaining the strategy of flipping already pledged delegates. This has nothing to do with a 50 state strategy, now does it? No, no it doesn't. The comment in fact is in direct relation to acknowledging when defeat is at hand instead of trying to snatch victory from its jaws by doing something as destructive to party confidence like trying to flip pledged delegates, no matter how within the party rules it is.

See the difference reading the whole post and recognizing context makes? You really aught to give it a whirl, slugger.




Definitely insightful. Another that believes what I believe.....about those red states, that is?

Ah, selective reading. Keeping religion and blind faith alive since reading began.

You are, in other words, downplaying each other's considerable strengths. But you're also downplaying your own weaknesses.

...
In conclusion, both of your candidates are potentially electable against -- or beatable by -- John McCain. And if all of the above analysis makes your head hurt, well, now you know how the rest of us feel.
I guess you missed most of the article that pointed out that quibbling about what state won in primaries or caucuses has fuck all to do with what they'll win in the general? Or that Kerry won 47 states in the primaries and yet somehow didn't win 47 states in the general? See, if you read the whole article, you see that the whole thing is actually unconvincing, which is the point.

And the big state strategy is what has left Clinton contemplating flipping pledged delegates.

Practice what you preach? I did finish reading. D'oh!! Perhaps you didn't finish reading?


Kinda like the big state theory is there for a good reason? Not to mention that Hillary could take Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia.

Hillary to me has the most potential to cut into those red states.
And Bjork believes in fairies. Doesn't make it true. The guy who 'agrees with you' doesn't-
The Clinton camp's ability to hold down traditional Democratic constituencies does bolster its claim that the party would have to worry less about keeping New Hampshire or Pennsylvania blue, but her lesser appeal to the "independents and some Republicans" Obama's campaign incessantly talks about means she might have trouble flipping some new states from red to blue. Obama's case is the inverse: More likely to open the map but, by virtue of doing so, adding a bit more risk of allowing some states to flip back from blue to red.

And the big state strategy is what has left Clinton contemplating flipping pledged delegates.

Because it like totally backfired on her.

Because it like totally backfired on her.

I don't know that it backfired, more her opponent had a better strategy.

You made your case, and I made mine. I think your case is weaker based on the information that was available at that time.


That link you used was worse than weak, it was total fantasy. You didn't expect to get called on it?


The references I used there were to support that I was not the only one who held that perspective. I surely didn't use it to suggest that my opinion was right and that yours was wrong.


I think that link actually raised some fundamentals points that were thoroughly debated. I still think the guy made some valid points.


You really want to support that link? It was horrible wasn't it?

A reasoned person would not accept that biased poll....period?


My opinion remains constant. The polls in the US are all over the map....perhaps the most volatile polls I have ever seen. On top of all that, it appears that Americans are poll crazy. You have daily polls that seem to rise and fall like a stock market ticker tape. It is almost insane.


It is pretty close huh? According to this one you linked to, Hillary has caught up somewhat and there is less than 1% seperating the two?


Shoulda, coulda, woulda......crap shoot time. On that Survey USA poll, it showed Obama winning Virginia by a single solitary vote out of 600+ people who were polled. That poll clearly showed that Obama would win the general election 280 to McCain's 258. Give that single, solitary vote to McCain and the poll would have shown McCain winning the general election 271 to Obama's 267. You are going to hang your hat on that? Good luck.

Once again, Hillary is behind in delegates, popular vote, and $. The link I gave you was so that you could look through it and find info. I'm tired of doing all the work for you just so you can say, "I disagree. Why? Because it's my opinion." You can keep clinging to that 1 link in 138 pages you don't like and think wasn't worthwhile. You can attack the chink in the armor, but remember that my sword is still deadly. Just the fact that Virginia is even that close bodes well for Obama. The less than 1% thing was the RCP average of the polls. That Hillary isn't and has not demolished Obama shows her weakness. She had everything from the start with the best name recognition possible. That she is even in this fight shows her weaknesses.

Polls are polls and show statistical analysis. It doesn't matter whether Obama won that poll by 1 vote for not. If he wins the state by 1 vote in the general who gets the electoral votes from that state? This link does a good job of summing up the red/swing state issue. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/23/obama-still-faces-red-sta_n_88145.html
More analysis regarding to the ability if Obama to woo Ind. and Rep.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/30061.html

I would cut, paste, and bold portions but you can just read the links and see what they say. I'm tired of doing all the grunt work for you to have you ignore the majority of it.

Missing the salient point, aren't ya, champ? That sentence didn't stand alone, now did it? No, no it didn't. Why, it was accompanied by a big ol' quote that put it in context, now wasn't? Yes, yes it was. And what was that context? Oh yes, the idea that Clinton is entertaining the strategy of flipping already pledged delegates. This has nothing to do with a 50 state strategy, now does it? No, no it doesn't. The comment in fact is in direct relation to acknowledging when defeat is at hand instead of trying to snatch victory from its jaws by doing something as destructive to party confidence like trying to flip pledged delegates, no matter how within the party rules it is.

See the difference reading the whole post and recognizing context makes? You really aught to give it a whirl, slugger.
Methinks that you are reading into that article what you want and disregarding the rest. While I may agree with certain thrusts of his points, such as, "both of your candidates are potentially electable against -- or beatable by -- John McCain", and "You keep tearing each other down, but you both have strong cases to make.", and "Red states are very red, blue states very blue.", I find myself questioning his methodology to reach some of his conclusions.

He has based much of his analysis on that same suspect poll by Survey USA which was floated out here a week or so ago. Although that poll did support some of my thoughts as to who would win what amongst the two of them, it did have some very weak footings. Everyone looked at that and saw Obama beating McCain 280 to 258, and the Obama crowd went wild. Unfortunately for the Obama crowd, it is only ONE poll, and when looked at in the light suggested Obama was really on tenuous ground if you actually believed that poll. I have stated it before and do so again.....according to that poll, Obama would have to win Virginia (a tall order?) to beat McCain if all other predictions fell in place. Clinton, had a stronger case for election by that poll.

However, it is only one poll. The jury is still out.

And no, that article didn't even hint about delegate flipping, nor did it suggest that Clinton should quit.

And I will disagree with the article, in that I believe that one candidate ultimately is "more electable" than the other, and that will weigh into the final outcome as to who will win the nomination, without a doubt.

I guess you missed most of the article that pointed out that quibbling about what state won in primaries or caucuses has fuck all to do with what they'll win in the general?
I missed it? I guess you haven't been following my argument through most of this thread? You also have turned a blind eye to the numerous Obama supporters that have strongly suggested that he has a great shot at winning those red states that he won.

Or that Kerry won 47 states in the primaries and yet somehow didn't win 47 states in the general? See, if you read the whole article, you see that the whole thing is actually unconvincing, which is the point.
Once again, I did read the whole article and I made my points of how I agree with certain points and disagree with others. And in regards to the Kerry winning 47 states, that was due to the fact that he didn't have as a strong competitor as Obama and Clinton have. And I would like to remind you how many here have trotted out the line that Obama has won so many states by such large margins argument.

And the big state strategy is what has left Clinton contemplating flipping pledged delegates.
Well, one thing about Hillary is that she will certainly challenge her opponents to the max. She is not a quitter, especially when the race is so close. That dogged determination may indeed reward her in the end. Time will tell.

Well, one thing about Hillary is that she will certainly challenge her opponents to the max. She is not a quitter, especially when the race is so close. That dogged determination may indeed reward her in the end. Time will tell.The exact same thing can be said for Obama.

Well, one thing about Hillary is that she will certainly challenge her opponents to the max. She is not a quitter, especially when the race is so close. That dogged determination may indeed reward her in the end. Time will tell.

except that her strategy cannot succeed.

it's one thing to never give up. it's another to keep doing the same thing and to expect different results.

You realize that supports the idea that they think she's going to win, not that they think she's more hawkish.

also of note is that the article is from october of last year, when she was far and away the clear favorite in the dem field. i would be surprised if they hadn't been primarily giving to the front running democrat in this season. still would be, in fact.

Methinks that you are reading into that article what you want and disregarding the rest. While I may agree with certain thrusts of his points, such as, "both of your candidates are potentially electable against -- or beatable by -- John McCain", and "You keep tearing each other down, but you both have strong cases to make.", and "Red states are very red, blue states very blue.", I find myself questioning his methodology to reach some of his conclusions.
That's rich. You've cherry picked all the 'pro-Clinton' points of the article, dismissed all of the 'pro-Obama' points in the article, completely misread some of it, decided that it proves that Clinton is more electable even though the article makes the case for both, and then accused me of reading into it what I want. I can't decide if it's hilarious or just sad.

He has based much of his analysis on that same suspect poll by Survey USA which was floated out here a week or so ago. Although that poll did support some of my thoughts as to who would win what amongst the two of them, it did have some very weak footings. Everyone looked at that and saw Obama beating McCain 280 to 258, and the Obama crowd went wild. Unfortunately for the Obama crowd, it is only ONE poll, and when looked at in the light suggested Obama was really on tenuous ground if you actually believed that poll. I have stated it before and do so again.....according to that poll, Obama would have to win Virginia (a tall order?) to beat McCain if all other predictions fell in place. Clinton, had a stronger case for election by that poll.

However, it is only one poll. The jury is still out.
Treaded to death, beating you again on it would be like hitting a kid in a wheelchair.

And no, that article didn't even hint about delegate flipping, nor did it suggest that Clinton should quit.
When you do stuff like this it's really really hard not to be insulting, because how do you point out that it refers to a separate article that was quoted in the post and is there for everyone to read without making suggestions about your level of honesty or comprehension?

And I will disagree with the article, in that I believe that one candidate ultimately is "more electable" than the other, and that will weigh into the final outcome as to who will win the nomination, without a doubt.


I missed it? I guess you haven't been following my argument through most of this thread? You also have turned a blind eye to the numerous Obama supporters that have strongly suggested that he has a great shot at winning those red states that he won.
Sweet zombie Jesus...you're the one taughting this 'who won what state' nonsense, and we've been pointing out that you're fudging the numbers to come to your sloppy conclusion. Seriously, I'm on location now, don't make me waste my precious free time doing another quote tree on you. You are the one championing the 'won the states in the primary, win them in the general,' states I've mentioned that he's won that are red the only thing I've suggested is either the polling indicates that he is currently strong there or his built in infrastructure from his 50 state strategy will assist races for congress and state races so that while he may not win the state he will force McCain to spend money there to protect those seats, stretching McCain thin.


Once again, I did read the whole article and I made my points of how I agree with certain points and disagree with others. And in regards to the Kerry winning 47 states, that was due to the fact that he didn't have as a strong competitor as Obama and Clinton have. And I would like to remind you how many here have trotted out the line that Obama has won so many states by such large margins argument.
Again pretending that these statements were made in a vacuum. Those comments were made in regard to Obama's legitimacy in the primary race.


Well, one thing about Hillary is that she will certainly challenge her opponents to the max. She is not a quitter, especially when the race is so close. That dogged determination may indeed reward her in the end. Time will tell.
Or destroy the entire party. At this point it's like letting someone win the race because they have a bomb strapped to them and if anyone passes that person they'll set it off.

Hillary will win because she has more desire and i think that america would rather have a woman president before an african american president and we all know that it wont be a republican afer what bush did.:sniper:

Hillary will win because she has more desire and i think that america would rather have a woman president before an african american president and we all know that it wont be a republican afer what bush did.:sniper:

Care to actually back all of that up?

You realize that supports the idea that they think she's going to win, not that they think she's more hawkish. Regardless, that shows what they think, not if they're accurate. So again, what specifically hawkish things does Hillary want to do that McCain doesn't? I don't want to know who thinks she's more hawkish. I want you to give reasons. Are you capable?

The article writers believe the contractors are just assuming Hillary will win. I do not believe an organization will provide money to a aspirant simply because they have a better chance of winning. I believe the organization is providing money to the same person they are voting for.

As for what she wants to do that McCain does not: "Vigorous engagements" in South America.

The article writers believe the contractors are just assuming Hillary will win. I do not believe an organization will provide money to a aspirant simply because they have a better chance of winning. I believe the organization is providing money to the same person they are voting for.

As for what she wants to do that McCain does not: "Vigorous engagements" in South America.

Evidence? I can show many things McCain supports that Hillary doesn't. Like 100 years in Iraq. Evidence your claim (this is the part where you pretend like you're not just going on the defense contractors bit).

The most expensive war in history McCain wants to continue for 100 more years. You've got a ton of work to do, son, if you're going to override that.

except that her strategy cannot succeed.

it's one thing to never give up. it's another to keep doing the same thing and to expect different results.

speaking of which (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/17/774959.aspx),

By our count, the Clinton campaign hasn’t publicly announced the support of a new superdelegate since just after February 5. Indeed, since Super Tuesday, Obama has gained 47 new superdelegates, while Clinton has lost seven (including Eliot Spitzer).

Once again, Hillary is behind in delegates, popular vote, and $. The link I gave you was so that you could look through it and find info.
Ummmm you still want to hang on to that embarassing link?

I'm tired of doing all the work for you just so you can say, "I disagree. Why? Because it's my opinion."
You think you are doing all the work for me? I do a lot of research on my own, as well as read posted links that supposedly support the opposing views, and that is how I am able to come forward with dissenting views, and formulate my opinion accordingly. Obviously, some of my opinions are just that....opinions, much like many opponents on this thread pose.

You can keep clinging to that 1 link in 138 pages you don't like and think wasn't worthwhile. You can attack the chink in the armor, but remember that my sword is still deadly.
Yup your sword is still deadly especially when you fall upon it? :p

Just the fact that Virginia is even that close bodes well for Obama.
That remains to be seen, depending if he gets the nomination. From the link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/23/obama-still-faces-red-sta_n_88145.html)that you posted in this reply:

Obama (Ill.) posted big wins over Clinton in caucuses in Plains and Mountain states such as Kansas, Nebraska and Idaho, but Republicans in those states scoff at the suggestion that victories in the small universe of Democrats there translate into strength in November.
Which kinda bolsters my point on all of this. Thanks.

The less than 1% thing was the RCP average of the polls. That Hillary isn't and has not demolished Obama shows her weakness.
Again that anti-Hillary bias is showing? It is not because Obama is doing well, it is because Hillary is not?

She had everything from the start with the best name recognition possible. That she is even in this fight shows her weaknesses.
See above.

Polls are polls and show statistical analysis. It doesn't matter whether Obama won that poll by 1 vote for not. If he wins the state by 1 vote in the general who gets the electoral votes from that state?
However, if you are going to bet the farm based on one poll that was based on a 1 point plurality, then you might be considered a bit foolish?

This link does a good job of summing up the red/swing state issue. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/23/obama-still-faces-red-sta_n_88145.html
It sure does and thanks for posting it. From the link you provided:

All along, Obama has argued that he can redraw the political map for Democrats by turning out unprecedented numbers of young voters and African Americans, and by attracting independents and even Republicans with his message of national reconciliation. But the picture emerging of his appeal in GOP strongholds and in swing states, even as he widens his delegate lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), is more complex than his claim to broad popularity in "red state" America would have one believe.

Obama (Ill.) posted big wins over Clinton in caucuses in Plains and Mountain states such as Kansas, Nebraska and Idaho, but Republicans in those states scoff at the suggestion that victories in the small universe of Democrats there translate into strength in November. In Tennessee and Oklahoma, Obama lost by wide margins to Clinton, who lived in nearby Arkansas. He narrowly won the primary in the swing state of Missouri, but did so thanks to the state's solidly Democratic cities, losing its more rural, and more conservative, areas to Clinton.

"If he's the nominee . . . he'll start off with a good urban base, but he'll have to get out and develop these other areas," said former Tennessee governor Ned McWherter, a Democrat and Clinton supporter.
Again, more support for my opinion regarding red states. Once again thanks for posting it.

More analysis regarding to the ability if Obama to woo Ind. and Rep.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/30061.html

I would cut, paste, and bold portions but you can just read the links and see what they say.
Okay, let's cut and paste and bold some portions of that link you posted:

Clinton aides dispute the enduring value of Obama's red-state victories.

"In reality, there are no `Red States' in a Democratic primary," said Clinton adviser Harold Ickes in a recent memo. "There are only Democratic voters who live in Republican states and represent a small percentage of the general election population."

He noted that 10 of Obama's victories came in "core" Republican states where Kerry lost by at least 15 percentage points: Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina and Utah.

"Even if Obama is `transcendent,' as his campaign has argued, the historic electoral trends and the current political environment suggest that translating those primary wins into November success will be close to impossible," Ickes wrote.

Clinton's Michigan chairman went so far as to dismiss Democratic delegates from red-state caucuses as "second-class," as though they shouldn't get full votes at the convention.

Clay F. Richards, who's watching the state-by-state results closely as assistant director of the Polling Institute at Connecticut's Quinnipiac University, agreed that winning a deep-red state in March is a far cry from winning it in November.

"I don't think a state like Wyoming is going to go Democratic just because Obama swept the Democratic caucuses there," Richards said.

But what about Clinton, whose aides also have boasted of her ability to win in red states?

She's won 14 states, eight of them Republican red states and six of them Democratic blue ones.

While she boasts of her wins in big states such as California and New York, those states are very likely to stay in the Democratic column regardless of who wins the nomination.

Her biggest primary win arguably was Ohio, the swing state that went for President Bush in 2004, giving him the general election. She won Ohio's Democratic primary by a solid 54-44 percent.

If she could win there in November while holding all the other states that Kerry won, she'd be on her way to the White House.

Said Richards: "From what we have seen, she would be the stronger candidate in the fall in these big swing states."
Once again, thanks for posting this article. :)

I'm tired of doing all the grunt work for you to have you ignore the majority of it.
By all means, keep posting the good links, such as these two. I assure you that I am not ignoring them at all. :D

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/poll.democrats/index.html

Fifty-two percent of registered Democrats questioned in a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say the senator from Illinois is their choice for president, with 45 percent supporting Clinton.

The poll also suggests Democrats are more enthusiastic about an Obama victory (45 percent) than for a victory by the senator from New York (38 percent).

Looks like the majority do want Obama after all.

This is developing on CNN:

Developing Story: The Florida Democratic Party says it will not stage another presidential primary

With that...Florida should not be seated at the Democratic National Convention.

obama is going to change the nation forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He rocks and has alot more qualificaions than Hillary whose only qualification is sleeping with Bill in the White house

obama is going to change the nation forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He rocks and has alot more qualificaions than Hillary whose only qualification is sleeping with Bill in the White house

Monikagate says she might not have even done that:p

This is developing on CNN:

With that...Florida should not be seated at the Democratic National Convention.
From the backyard clatter:

They're going to count the delegates as is for Florida. Michigan revotes Jun 03

Evidence? I can show many things McCain supports that Hillary doesn't. Like 100 years in Iraq. Evidence your claim (this is the part where you pretend like you're not just going on the defense contractors bit).

My source is the article that The Cat-Tribes and I were originally debating about.

The most expensive war in history McCain wants to continue for 100 more years. You've got a ton of work to do, son, if you're going to override that.

I believe Hillary leave military force in Iraq when she acquired the position of President. Since this is a matter of opinion, I merely bring-up the fact that Hillary is for starting new wars.

I strongly suggest you review the article we are discussing. Here are few snippets:

...rather than challenge President George W. Bush's dramatic increases in military spending, Senator Clinton argues that they are not enough and the United States needs to spend even more in subsequent years.

Pentagon officials and defense contractors have given Senator Clinton high marks for listening to their concerns, promoting their products and leveraging her ties to the Pentagon, comparing her favorably to the hawkish former Washington Senator "Scoop" Jackson and other pro-military Democrats of earlier eras.

when her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination Senator Barack Obama expressed his willingness to meet with Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro or other foreign leaders with whom the United States has differences, she denounced him for being "irresponsible and frankly naive."

Senator Clinton appears to have a history of advocating the blunt instrument of military force to deal with complex international problems. For example, she was one of the chief advocates in her husband's inner circle for the 11-week bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 to attempt to resolve the Kosovo crisis.

...when Senator Obama noted in August that the use of nuclear weapons – traditionally seen as a deterrent against other nuclear states – was not appropriate for use against terrorists, Clinton rebuked his logic by claiming that "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

...she has refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against such non-nuclear countries as Iran, even though such unilateral use of nuclear weapons directly contradicts the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the same treaty she claims the United States must unilaterally and rigorously enforce when it involves Iran and other countries our government doesn't like.

In Latin America, Senator Clinton argues that the Bush administration should take a more aggressive stance against the rise of left-leaning governments in the hemisphere, arguing that Bush has neglected these recent developments "at our peril."

Apparently wishing that the Bush administration could have somehow prevented the elections of leftist governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and elsewhere, she argues that "We must return to a policy of vigorous engagement."

Senator Clinton was also an outspoken supporter of Israel's massive military assault on the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip last summer, which took the lives of at least 800 civilians. She claimed that the carnage was justified since it would "send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians [and] to the Iranians," because, in her words, they oppose the United States and Israel's commitment to "life and freedom."

Regardless of whether or not you believe Clinton is worse than McCain, you must agree that she is not someone who should be running the country.

From the backyard clatter:

Source?

From the backyard clatter:

Proof that the DNC can't even stand by their own decisions and punishments metted for rule-breaking within their own party. :rolleyes:

so how are the Dems better than the Reps?

Proof that the DNC can't even stand by their own decisions and punishments metted for rule-breaking within their own party. :rolleyes:

so how are [the dems] better than the Reps?

As a whole?

Theyre not.

As a whole?

Theyre not.

yet everyone is focused on Dems and Reps... as if they are the only choices around.

I say NOTA!
Edit: err... party wise that is. :p

There really isn't much difference between the 3 of them. McCain is the most war-happy of the 3, but the other 2 support the Wars on Iraq, Iran, and Sudan as well (and Obama wants to invade Pakistan). On the economy, they're all advocates of the big government-big business alliance that caused our economic crisis to begin with (there actually was no big business or big government in America until the Civil War era when government decided to advance the interests of certain businesses at the expense at others; this would escalate during the "Progressive" era when America fell into the hands of the proto-fascist movement that became today's "liberalism" and "conservatism"). On the social issues, Obama is better than the others, but as his willingness to condemn his pastor Jeremiah Wright shows, he is a total fraud.

The electorate blew their chance to nominate a decent candidate when they failed to nominate Gravel, Kucinich, or Paul (I agree with each of them about 2/3rds of the time). However, the better choice will be the Democrat because they are less crazy than McCain and because the GOP's anti-war pro-freedom wing is stronger than the equivalent among the Democrats. If McCain can lose via a landslide, maybe the Republicans will abandon his ilk and nominate somebody who can end the bipartisan War on Whomever Washington Feels Like Killing This Week and the economic crisis in 2012.

This is developing on CNN:

With that...Florida should not be seated at the Democratic National Convention.

now with linkage
http://us.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/florida.primary.decision/index.html

now with linkage
http://us.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/florida.primary.decision/index.html

Thanks and this is telling:

"Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again. So we won't

Hopefully the DNC has the guts to follow through with Florida's punishment by not seating them.

Thanks and this is telling:



Hopefully the DNC has the guts to follow through with Florida's punishment by not seating them.

$20 says they cave.

Hopefully the DNC has the guts to follow through with Florida's punishment by not seating them.
lets not forget Michigan...

$20 says they cave.
I want in on that...

that they cave-in that is...

$20 says they cave.

If they cave, that would all but defeat them for the Republicans will play on that one like no tomorrow and that would really piss off alot of Democrats.

lets not forget Michigan...

Tentative date is June 3.

Tentative date is June 3.

see post 2081.

Source?
I said....from the backyard clatter. I really don't believe that the Dems would do that. It would certainly piss off the Obama camp. They would go ballistic.

I think that.. uhhh.. Hillary... uhh.. sucks! Yeah!

I think that.. uhhh.. Hillary... uhh.. sucks! Yeah!

but not enough to keep Slick Willie from straying! :D
*Rim Shot*

Hopefully the DNC has the guts to follow through with Florida's punishment by not seating them.
Hopefully, the Dems will arrive at a solution that will allow Florida delegates to be seated at the convention.

Hopefully, the Dems will arrive at a solution that will allow Florida delegates to be seated at the convention.

I have yet to hear a good arguement for why they should be seated.

Hopefully, the Dems will arrive at a solution that will allow Florida delegates to be seated at the convention.

1/185 of a vote each!

Hopefully, the Dems will arrive at a solution that will allow Florida delegates to be seated at the convention.
the only solution is to recind their punishment of stripping the delegate's votes... you know... cave in.

I used to blame the Republicans in FL for violating the rules intentionally thinking it wouldn't result in punsihment, but now it's the democratic voters fault. They said they don't want a legal vote. I don't feel sorry for them at all at this point. They knew the only way to count was to revote. They chose. Either they're happy with the current outcome of democratic nominee or they support the Republican leadership of the state. Either way, it's there decision.

I say give them six delegates. 3 for Hilary and 2 for Obama and they can know what it feels like to have your delegates completely overshadowed by larger states. They get seated and they also get to know why they can't move their primary up. Everyone wins.

I used to blame the Republicans in FL for violating the rules intentionally thinking it wouldn't result in punsihment, but now it's the democratic voters fault. They said they don't want a legal vote. I don't feel sorry for them at all at this point. They knew the only way to count was to revote. They chose. Either they're happy with the current outcome of democratic nominee or they support the Republican leadership of the state. Either way, it's there decision.

I say give them six delegates. 3 for Hilary and 2 for Obama and they can know what it feels like to have your delegates completely overshadowed by larger states. They get seated and they also get to know why they can't move their primary up. Everyone wins.

the same message can be drilled in by not giving their delegates any votes, not even a fraction of one. then with no delegates, they will feel like the states with far less delegates, learn their lessons about breaking rules and perhaps the DNC will learn the lesson about being heavy handed with their punishments.

speaking of which (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/17/774959.aspx),

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/supertrackermarch15.png
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=898

the only solution is to recind their punishment of stripping the delegate's votes... you know... cave in.

Agreed.

I have yet to hear a good arguement for why they should be seated.
Suicide for the Dems in the general election if they don't do something?

Judy sums it up for me:

Let me get this straight; a Republician moves the date for the Florida primary (over the objections of the Democrats) and the DNC takes away Flroida's delegates? The Democrats in Florida are being punished by their own party because of the actions of the Republicians. Seems a bit unfair to me. Do the Democrats plan on not allowing the people of Florida to vote in the election? I think that since both canidates were on the ballot than why can't the results simply be used as is?

Suicide for the Dems in the general election if they don't do something?

Judy sums it up for me:

Over the objection of Democrats? Apparently not in the state legislature that approved it without dissent.

now with linkage
http://us.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/florida.primary.decision/index.html

screw 'em

the florida delegates should not be seated.

screw 'em

the florida delegates should not be seated.
Even if it actually results in the Dems losing the general election?

Even if it actually results in the Dems losing the general election?

Why should it? They voted not to have a legal election.

Even if it actually results in the Dems losing the general election?

It wont.:rolleyes:

Even if it actually results in the Dems losing the general election? This is the Primary, as far as all are concerned, the Delegates are barred from participating in the Democratic National Convention... nothing about the General Election. if the Dems stand is so shakey that they could loose the General with this act, then they deserve to lose.

Suicide for the Dems in the general election if they don't do something?

Judy sums it up for me:

and if the DNC was not so quick on the trigger, then they wouldn't be in this mess. but no, instead of a myrad of other possible punishments, the DNC choose to levy the harshest one (especially if they knew, how can they not, that the republicans controlled Florida's House and Senate.)

Fortunatly, the punishment is only concerning Delegates to the Democratic Naitonal Convention, and not extended to the GENERAL Elections.

so if the Dems do loose the General Election because of this, then they have no one to blame but themseves.

but not enough to keep Slick Willie from straying! :D
*Rim Shot*

[/thread]

Agreed.

actually, there is one way around it. hold the primaries again (for michigan, since Florida is saing no) but instead of giving them the delegate votes, the winner by popular vote gets the equivalent of 1 delegate vote for the convention. thus the delegates are still stripped, and the state's voice is heard.

the only other way is for the delegates to vote and reguardless wether or not they get the required amount, the winner is the one with the most votes.

(You guys probably already talked about this but, I'm not going to go through 141 pages of discussion to find it)

So apparently Obama got himself in a bind with his church's pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Now the cherry on top is the fact that Obama is now saying he never knew Jeremiah Wright was like this. Which I find suspicious because he attended the same church for 20, had his daughter(s) baptized at the Church and last year donated $20,000 to the church. Now either Obama is lying about his ignorance of Jeremiah Wright, or for the past 20 year, he's been either listening to a walk-man (or Ipod) or sleeping during the sermon.

So far I see no way out for Obama, I mean what is he going to do? Anything he says is going to bite him in the ass. Even if this doesn't cost him the nomination, it may very well cost him the election because the Right Wing talk shows and radio program will be playing Jeremiah Wright's speeches over and over again. Hell by the time November rolls around everyone will be able to recite the speech.

(You guys probably already talked about this but, I'm not going to go through 141 pages of discussion to find it)

So apparently Obama got himself in a bind with his church's pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Now the cherry on top is the fact that Obama is now saying he never knew Jeremiah Wright was like this. Which I find suspicious because he attended the same church for 20, had his daughter(s) baptized at the Church and last year donated $20,000 to the church. Now either Obama is lying about his ignorance of Jeremiah Wright, or for the past 20 year, he's been either listening to a walk-man (or Ipod) or sleeping during the sermon.

So far I see no way out for Obama, I mean what is he going to do? Anything he says is going to bite him in the ass. Even if this doesn't cost him the nomination, it may very well cost him the election because the Right Wing talk shows and radio program will be playing Jeremiah Wright's speeches over and over again. Hell by the time November rolls around everyone will be able to recite the speech.


I dont consider the loons that would use said speeches to attack Obama as a legit threat.

I dont consider the loons that would use said speeches to attack Obama as a legit threat.

Have you heard the pastor's speech? He comes off as very Anti-America, and as racist as a Klansman, and Obama went to his church for 20 years, and is a spiritual advisor to Obama. I think there is a real concern there because now you have to wonder if Obama really believes what his pastor preach. You don't do something for 20 years unless you agree with the message and like what you hear.

Have you heard the pastor's speech? He comes off as very Anti-America, and as racist as a Klansman, and Obama went to his church for 20 years, and is a spiritual advisor to Obama. I think there is a real concern there because now you have to wonder if Obama really believes what his pastor preach. You don't do something for 20 years unless you agree with the message and like what you hear.

Obama is no more responsible for his pastor's comments than Hillary Clinton is responsible for Geraldine Ferraro's comments.


Really, I havent heard a lot about his Pastor. The media is making a bigger deal out of this than it is. Besides, you go to a place of worship for the spiritual messege, not the political messege. As long as he is not preaching radical Christianity such as blowng up abortion clinics I am not concerned.

One can easily point to the religious loons that have endorsed McCain, so its really a nonissue.

As an aside, his pastor is right in the two regards he is getting blasted for, America did bring 9/11 on itself by propping up the states it has, and America has royally fucked blacks.

Have you heard the pastor's speech? He comes off as very Anti-America, and as racist as a Klansman, and Obama went to his church for 20 years, and is a spiritual advisor to Obama. I think there is a real concern there because now you have to wonder if Obama really believes what his pastor preach. You don't do something for 20 years unless you agree with the message and like what you hear.
and the substance of those sermons?

normally, sermons are not for personal views, but religious messages. so unless they can pull transcripts showing a racial trend in his sermons at his church...

Ummmm you still want to hang on to that embarassing link?


You think you are doing all the work for me? I do a lot of research on my own, as well as read posted links that supposedly support the opposing views, and that is how I am able to come forward with dissenting views, and formulate my opinion accordingly. Obviously, some of my opinions are just that....opinions, much like many opponents on this thread pose.


Yup your sword is still deadly especially when you fall upon it? :p


That remains to be seen, depending if he gets the nomination. From the link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/23/obama-still-faces-red-sta_n_88145.html)that you posted in this reply:


Which kinda bolsters my point on all of this. Thanks.


Again that anti-Hillary bias is showing? It is not because Obama is doing well, it is because Hillary is not?


See above.


However, if you are going to bet the farm based on one poll that was based on a 1 point plurality, then you might be considered a bit foolish?


It sure does and thanks for posting it. From the link you provided:


Again, more support for my opinion regarding red states. Once again thanks for posting it.




Okay, let's cut and paste and bold some portions of that link you posted:


Once again, thanks for posting this article. :)


By all means, keep posting the good links, such as these two. I assure you that I am not ignoring them at all. :D

Wow, you truly just pick out the part you like from those articles now don't you? The red states they mention were not the ones that we have been debating in this thread. Is Obama going to turn every red state blue? Don't be ridiculous. He just has the ability to turn key states needed to get enough electoral votes. I'm not betting shit on one poll. I've paired polls and other information together for you in these pages. F that one link where you're claiming your little victory. It's on in a laundry list provided for you.

Article:
For Democrats desperate to reclaim the White House, the numbers have been tantalizing.

In winning Tuesday's primary in the key swing state of Wisconsin, Sen. Barack Obama drew support from tens of thousands of Republicans and independents. He pulled off the same feat in his landslide victory in the Virginia primary the week before, suggesting he could win the state in November. In South Carolina, he had more votes than the top two Republican contenders put together; in Kansas, his total topped the overall GOP turnout.

In winning Tuesday's primary in the key swing state of Wisconsin, Sen. Barack Obama drew support from tens of thousands of Republicans and independents. He pulled off the same feat in his landslide victory in the Virginia primary the week before, suggesting he could win the state in November. In South Carolina, he had more votes than the top two Republican contenders put together; in Kansas, his total topped the overall GOP turnout.

All along, Obama has argued that he can redraw the political map for Democrats by turning out unprecedented numbers of young voters and African Americans, and by attracting independents and even Republicans with his message of national reconciliation. But the picture emerging of his appeal in GOP strongholds and in swing states, even as he widens his delegate lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), is more complex than his claim to broad popularity in "red state" America would have one believe.

Some political scientists say this suggests that Obama will have an easier time with white voters in more racially homogeneous GOP-leaning states than in states where a mixed population has introduced a more difficult racial dynamic. The University of Kansas's Burdett Loomis points to Interstate 70, which cuts across Kansas, Missouri and southern Illinois, as a sort of dividing line between the red-state areas to the north, where Obama has done well and those areas where he has struggled.

"You get below I-70, and race may play a role," he said. "You get to southern Missouri, and you're really moving south. And Oklahoma has some of those elements, too."

In both Oklahoma and Tennessee, where Clinton won, an additional factor was that the Democratic establishment was behind her. While Obama had organizations in the states, he did not put in nearly as much effort as he did in red states with caucuses.

Huh, Virginia is in play for Obama like I said

The campaign points to Virginia as proof that Obama can win white voters in red states. Exit polls show that he won a slight majority of white voters, not just in Northern Virginia but also in the Richmond suburbs and parts of the Shenandoah Valley and Southside.

But Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D), one of several prominent red-state leaders to endorse Obama, said she is sure that he would be competitive in a state that George W. Bush carried by 25 points in 2004. "It would be in play for the first time in a very long time," she said. "He is one of those rare talents that taps into a real call to bring us together."

Christian Morgan, executive director of the Kansas Republican Party, ridiculed the possibility, noting that the Democratic caucus turnout of 37,000, while much higher than normal, was a fraction of the more than 1 million Kansans who vote in presidential elections. "It's pretty laughable that someone with the extremely liberal positions of Barack Obama could actually carry Kansas," he said. "Any interest Barack Obama has from Republicans in Kansas is of a circus nature -- they're curious what the hubbub is all about."

Annabeth Surbaugh, the Republican chairman of Johnson County, a suburb of Kansas City, was less sure, given how Obama had energized young people. "He may take [Kansas], not because he'd take it from Republicans but because he's getting people who haven't been in it before," she said. "I see it as a phenomenon. I wouldn't put money on him, but I wouldn't bet against it, either."

I looked at the article and look at all the other stuff I found. It's amazing what you find when you are looking at the whole picture.

He said Obama can compete this fall in traditionally Republican states that Clinton has no chance of winning, such as Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina.

"They (the Clinton camp) say that the Democratic nominee could not carry the Carolinas. We think that speaks to their weakness," Plouffe said. "North Carolina is going to be a central battleground if Barack Obama is our nominee."

Not seating Florida's delegates can very well cause the Dems to lose the election. It will almost certainly cost them Florida in the election and that is a swing of 50 electoral votes. 271 are needed to win and Florida = 25 of those.

Why should it? They voted not to have a legal election.
Should Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina also be stripped of their delegates then?

DNC Primary Rules/Disenfranchisement of FL & MI Voters (http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5465)

We already know that Florida and Michigan violated Rule 11.A. by moving their primaries to a date before the first Tuesday in February. There is no argument there, but what about Iowa, New Hampshire, and yes, South Carolina too.

Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as "no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Iowa), "no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February" (New Hampshire), and "no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February" (South Carolina).
Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

Under Rule 11.A., five states were in violation of the Democratic National Committee's Delegate Selection Rules, and as such, all five states should have been punished under Rule 20.C.1.a.
According to this article, the DNC could have opted for the 50% delegate penalty for Florida and Michigan, but instead opted for the total disenfranchisement of those States.

Another possible solution (http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=4EBAD4315D51C117B76BFA22F9B5D862?diaryId=2110):

Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, one of the main backers of the mail-in do-over, has another idea, one that might even fit within the rules. He has suggested that delegates be seated based on the Jan. 29 results, but with a half vote each. This would parallel the Republican penalty for states that broke its calendar rules, and the Republicans have accepted that and moved on.

The 50 percent penalty -- which some are dubbing the "Half Nelson" -- would fit within DNC rules, which have a mandatory 50 percent delegate penalty for calendar breakers -- "unless otherwise provided." The rules committee chose to otherwise provide last summer in the hopes of heading off the calendar jumping and enforcing the calendar. They could otherwise otherwise provide if they so choose when they meet next month.

This helps Nelson's candidate, Clinton, a little. Based on the Jan. 29 results, Clinton would have won 105 delegates, Obama 67 and the departed John Edwards 13. Make that 52 1/2, 33 1/2 and 6 1/2. The AP reports that Nelson discussed this idea with Clinton and Obama on the Senate floor last week.

Not seating Florida's delegates can very well cause the Dems to lose the election. It will almost certainly cost them Florida in the election and that is a swing of 50 electoral votes. 271 are needed to win and Florida = 25 of those.
I agree, except that it is a swing of 54 ECV. Florida = 27 ECV.

Another possible solution (http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=4EBAD4315D51C117B76BFA22F9B5D862?diaryId=2110):

The problem with both of the things you just brought up is with the voters. The voters in MI and FL did not get the benefit of a campaign, they didn't get to know their votes would count. As a result, they didn't get to analyze the issues in the same way as other voters in other states and some, obviously, didn't vote because they thought the vote would not count. In MI some candidates weren't on the ballot because they thought it wouldn't count. The voters got screwed by not having a legal election. Seating them at half, changes everything and screws the voters who stayed home believing the DNC.

For the other three states, people didn't vote expecting a penalty and they got real candidates really campaigning. Changing them now ONLY screws them.

Okay, I can't be arsed to read over 2000 posts. Has anyone pointed out that US elections aren't about ideology, they're about who gets their hands in the cookie jar? Democrat v. Republican couldn't matter less.

Should Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina also be stripped of their delegates then?

Um no because they did not violate party rules. :rolleyes:

According to this article, the DNC could have opted for the 50% delegate penalty for Florida and Michigan, but instead opted for the total disenfranchisement of those States.

Yep. And now Florida won't redo their primary and as such, they should not be seated at all.

SIDENOTE:

Hillary is coming to my university and though I have a soccer game to officiate, I am hoping to get a seat to hear her speak.

SIDENOTE:

Hillary is coming to my university and though I have a soccer game to officiate, I am hoping to get a seat to hear her speak.

Sorry to digress, but what in God's name inspired you to be a referee? If American footballers are anything like European equivalents, all you do is receive abuse and criticism for 90 minutes.

So since even I've given up on reading through the entire thread, I'll just ask: has anything important changed? At all?

The problem with both of the things you just brought up is with the voters. The voters in MI and FL did not get the benefit of a campaign, they didn't get to know their votes would count. As a result, they didn't get to analyze the issues in the same way as other voters in other states and some, obviously, didn't vote because they thought the vote would not count. In MI some candidates weren't on the ballot because they thought it wouldn't count. The voters got screwed by not having a legal election. Seating them at half, changes everything and screws the voters who stayed home believing the DNC.

For the other three states, people didn't vote expecting a penalty and they got real candidates really campaigning. Changing them now ONLY screws them.
That doesn't answer why the harsh penalties were applied to the more important states (Michigan and Florida), and not the other states that violated the same rule. Most Obama supporters on here have been vocally active decrying any seating of those delegates. I would like to see if they believe that the rules should apply equally.

That doesn't answer why the harsh penalties were applied to the more important states (Michigan and Florida), and not the other states that violated the same rule. Most Obama supporters on here have been vocally active decrying any seating of those delegates. I would like to see if they believe that the rules should apply equally.

It doesn't answer. And it should be answered. But the concern should be the voters. The fact is they didn't. And because of that, three of the states had elections where the voters were treated as normal, and two of them were not valid elections.

So since even I've given up on reading through the entire thread, I'll just ask: has anything important changed? At all?

Haven't you since joined the Navy? Or was that just before this thread?

Haven't you since joined the Navy? Or was that just before this thread?

No, I did that way before I ever joined NSG.

Oh, wait, we're not talking about me. Let's talk about me. Did we mention that I'm bald?

Let's talk about me. Did we mention that I'm bald?
ALL of you is bald? *reminisces*

ALL of you is bald? *reminisces*

No that was just for you and Sin that time.

So since even I've given up on reading through the entire thread, I'll just ask: has anything important changed? At all?
Not especially, no.



The worst thing about Florida's decision is the damn "I told you so" dance my girlfriend is going to do on my head.

Sorry to digress, but what in God's name inspired you to be a referee? If American footballers are anything like European equivalents, all you do is receive abuse and criticism for 90 minutes.

Um actually...it is High School so the games are less than 90 minutes and its good exercise.

This article is very interesting regarding the Obama preacher "scandal." It points out that the Religious Right say far worse things and are called patriotic Americans. It's written by an author whose father and he were a major player in the rise of the right by religious means. Do you still think Wright's comments are such a big deal?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html

This article is very interesting regarding the Obama preacher "scandal." It points out that the Religious Right say far worse things and are called patriotic Americans. It's written by an author whose father and he were a major player in the rise of the right by religious means. Do you still think Wright's comments are such a big deal?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html

obama is supposed to give a speech today about his relationship to his minister. i hope i get a chance to see it all.

the only thing about the minister that bugs me is hearing the same sound bite over and over. it is giving people the impression that he said this every sunday and never talked about religious things.

the conservative radio talk show guys are using it as a great chance to make racists statements. one guy (didnt catch his name) on sunday used it as his chance to blame obama for the guy who murdered those college students in north carolina!

This article is very interesting regarding the Obama preacher "scandal." It points out that the Religious Right say far worse things and are called patriotic Americans. It's written by an author whose father and he were a major player in the rise of the right by religious means. Do you still think Wright's comments are such a big deal?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html

just read the article.

i was making this point myself. too bad the radio guy on sunday couldnt hear me yelling it at him in my car on the way back from the airport.

This article is very interesting regarding the Obama preacher "scandal." It points out that the Religious Right say far worse things and are called patriotic Americans. It's written by an author whose father and he were a major player in the rise of the right by religious means. Do you still think Wright's comments are such a big deal?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html

i think two things: firstly, nobody actually believes that obama believes what wright says in these instances. nobody. therefore, this is silly already. but second, we know lots of right-wingers actually do believe the hateful and insane bullshit that the 'moral majority' has been spewing for decades. so it isn't just hypocrisy, but pure insanity to even care what wright says.

my other thought is that obama's choice of church was clearly a social one - before he was a black guy running for president, he was an atheist/non-religious half-white guy from hawaii with an ivy league education trying to work as a community organizer on the southside.

i think two things: firstly, nobody actually believes that obama believes what wright says in these instances. nobody. therefore, this is silly already. but second, we know lots of right-wingers actually do believe the hateful and insane bullshit that the 'moral majority' has been spewing for decades. so it isn't just hypocrisy, but pure insanity to even care what wright says.

my other thought is that obama's choice of church was clearly a social one - before he was a black guy running for president, he was an atheist/non-religious half-white guy from hawaii with an ivy league education trying to work as a community organizer on the southside.

The problem is that there are stupid people who would believe this. The media outlets know this so they keep it in the que. Controversy sells advertising due to its ability to draw people in. I wish people were smarter than to follow this, but I'm a pragmatist and I know that won't happen.

The problem is that there are stupid people who would believe this. The media outlets know this so they keep it in the que. Controversy sells advertising due to its ability to draw people in. I wish people were smarter than to follow this, but I'm a pragmatist and I know that won't happen.

i think an effective policy might be to get reporters to admit that they don't believe and they don't know anyone who believes any of the shit that they talk about on these sorts of issues. just ask them point blank whether they do or not.

text of obama's "a more perfect union" speech (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/The_speech.html)

i think two things: firstly, nobody actually believes that obama believes what wright says in these instances. nobody. therefore, this is silly already. but second, we know lots of right-wingers actually do believe the hateful and insane bullshit that the 'moral majority' has been spewing for decades. so it isn't just hypocrisy, but pure insanity to even care what wright says.

my other thought is that obama's choice of church was clearly a social one - before he was a black guy running for president, he was an atheist/non-religious half-white guy from hawaii with an ivy league education trying to work as a community organizer on the southside.

What I love is some of the same people hollering about his church are saying we have to watch out because he's a Muslim. Which is it? Is he blindly following this minister or not? I mean, dear God, his middle name is Hussein!

That doesn't answer why the harsh penalties were applied to the more important states (Michigan and Florida), and not the other states that violated the same rule. Most Obama supporters on here have been vocally active decrying any seating of those delegates. I would like to see if they believe that the rules should apply equally.
the reason? who knows. but it was levied on Florida and Michigan.

Should Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina also be stripped of their delegates then? they should. but because TRADITIONALLY, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina always held theirs first and (i believe) they moved there up in response to Florida and Michigan...

According to this article, the DNC could have opted for the 50% delegate penalty for Florida and Michigan, but instead opted for the total disenfranchisement of those States.
yep, they could've, but they didn't.

I honestly think that the controversy about his pastor will help Obama. For two reasons: 1: Now it's being widely publicized that Obama belongs to a christian church, which might clue in those who still think he's a muslim, and 2: it will draw out the latent racism in many of his opponents.

This article is very interesting regarding the Obama preacher "scandal." It points out that the Religious Right say far worse things and are called patriotic Americans. It's written by an author whose father and he were a major player in the rise of the right by religious means. Do you still think Wright's comments are such a big deal?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html
At the bottom of this article, was the following:

Both the far right Republicans and the stop-at-nothing Clintons are using the "scandal" of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency. Funny thing is, the racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama's minister had a valid point.
The Clinton's "are using the "scandal" of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency"???

Also, isn't this a reverse smear?:

the racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama's minister had a valid point
How can he verify those comments?

the reason? who knows. but it was levied on Florida and Michigan.

they should. but because TRADITIONALLY, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina always held theirs first and (i believe) they moved there up in response to Florida and Michigan...

yep, they could've, but they didn't.
All of this clearly indicates what I stated before and that is that the Democratic party are masochistic. They make rules to protect a few million voters in small states and when Michigan and Florida broke those rules, they punished them to the fullest extent, and in the process they disenfranchised 19,000,000 voters.

When Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina violated the rules that were put in place to protect them, there is no punishment whatsoever.

The mind boggles.....

All of this clearly indicates what I stated before and that is that the Democratic party are masochistic. They make rules to protect a few million voters in small states and when Michigan and Florida broke those rules, they punished them to the fullest extent, and in the process they disenfranchised 19,000,000 voters.

When Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina violated the rules that were put in place to protect them, there is no punishment whatsoever.

The mind boggles.....
hey, I'm not disagreeing with you there. :p

all it shows is that the Dems and the Reps are cut from the same cloth.

GO INDIES!

hey, I'm not disagreeing with you there. :p

all it shows is that the Dems and the Reps are cut from the same cloth.

GO INDIES!
At least the Reps were smart enough to apply the 50% rule to Florida and Michigan and move on. The added benefit that the Reps achieved was to campaign in very important ECV states.

At least the Reps were smart enough to apply the 50% rule to Florida and Michigan and move on. The added benefit that the Reps achieved was to campaign in very important ECV states.

not only that, but they can still say "we heard your voice and it still counts."

of course with their trackrecord with Pres Bush... they kinda do need all the advantages they can get. :p

Wish the Dems stops giving it to them tho...

As for what she wants to do that McCain does not: "Vigorous engagements" in South America.

Um. What the hell is wrong with "vigorous engagement" in South America?

When the United Nations calls for "vigorous engagement (http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2004/sc8222.html)" in the Middle East is that warmongering? Or is it a call for attention and diplomacy?

I know Zunes wants to make a bogeyman of the term "vigorous engagement" but neither he nor you provides any support for the assertion that there is anything wrong with either that term or with Clinton's policies towards Latin America.

BTW, do you have any idea what McCain's foreign policy would be like? Check out McCain OntheIssues (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/John_McCain.htm#Foreign_Policy) and tell me he isn't more belligerent than Senator Clinton. For example, Zunes criticizes Clinton because she hasn't denounced the embargo against Cuba, but McCain not only supports that embargo but also would seek to indict and prosecute Raul and Fidel Castro (for murder, apparently).

dmx on the issues (http://www.xxlmag.com/online/?p=20332):

"Ooh, we have a Black president now. They should’ve done that shit a long time ago, we wouldn’t be in the fuckin’ position we in now... They done fucked this shit up then give it to the Black people, 'Here you take it.'"

text of obama's "a more perfect union" speech (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/The_speech.html)

Wow.

I hope Obama wins

I hope Obama wins

Ahaha. Wow. Just wow. What a first post to make, and what a thread to make it in. Welcome :p

(Before you blast me, I happen to agree)

The radio stations have been pounding Obama on this minister thing for days! I wonder how badly this will hurt him. Will it put Hilary back in the race? *barf* And if Obama still wins the nomination, will we have to listen to this drek until Novemer?! *projectile barf*

I'm not a big Obama fan, but this crap is sickening!

The radio stations have been pounding Obama on this minister thing for days! I wonder how badly this will hurt him. Will it put Hilary back in the race? *barf* And if Obama still wins the nomination, will we have to listen to this drek until Novemer?! *projectile barf*

I'm not a big Obama fan, but this crap is sickening!

if you dont listen to conservative talk radio and stay away from fox news you should be fine.

That doesn't answer why the harsh penalties were applied to the more important states (Michigan and Florida), and not the other states that violated the same rule.

because the dnc rules committee voted not to, on the basis of making a fucking point about the intent of the rules and the dnc controlling the primary calendar. it is not 'the same rule'.

listen, do you think the primary system is a bit fucked? because if so, you absolutely need to be in favor of steps that bring it under control. what you are hoping for makes it a free-for-all.

Should Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina also be stripped of their delegates then?


No, because a year and a half ago those three states were allowed by the committee to have their elections early. They petitioned the DNC and the DNC agreed to it.

The interesting thing about the minister's words are that the emotion behind them is very real and prevalent, not only in the black community, but in other cultural communities as well. The issue of race has been ignored in this political season. A positive of that is we don't have an overkill of negativity regarding this. This is a discussion we need to have as a nation.

While Wright is inflammatory, the basis for his arguments are not entirely irrelevant. He was right that 9/11 was a direct result of US foreign policy. It doesn't mean it should have happened, but just that there were reasons. Oh, and it wasn't "they hate our freedom." Us foreign policy, especially in the Middle East has been very shortsighted. We have worked to overthrow leaders by assisting their opposition forces. We've also gone as far as assassinating leaders and installing puppets. These have been the same policies we have used in much of South America as well. Notice, each group consists of "people of color." They are non WASP, non European people. Pretending that the US has not done these things is ignorant. Some do it willfully so their beautiful image of our country is not tarnished. We tolerated slavery for longer than other western nations. We denied rights to women and "colored" people for too long. We finally passed a Civil Rights Act to do what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution already covered. We had to pass amendments to reiterate the creed of our nation. We had to force integration of schools as late as the 1970's.

Ignoring race and the hatred it brings is just idiotic. Ignoring that there are reasons for that hate is ignorant. People don't just wake up and decide they are angry at another group of people. It happens through systematic repression and hatred expressed to their particular group. It happens through the mistreatment of people of color and other groups. It happens when people allow Apartheid to take place in South Africa. It happens when the British decide they are going to take over India when 500 million people were living there just fine without European intervention. Europeans have tried to conquer the rest of the world on so many occasions, it would take a doctorate level dissertation to go through. To pretend that these things don't matter is ignorant. To believe that "white is right" all of the time is ignorant. Refusing to recognize that there are reasons, some legitimate and some not, for why this divide exists. Obama wants to work to help bridge this gap and be the president for all people. This has been his message from the start and remains true. It's time for America to accept its faults like any other nation should. You may not like the messenger here, but the message is clear. The message also has some basis for its tone and ideology. I love America, but I'm not ignorant (best word to describe all things in this post) of the things we have done to hurt others.

Wow.

That would be my reaction along with a swelling pride in 'Merikuh.

So are the news agencies replaying the most damning sounding parts of Obama's speech over and over yet?

Someone told me that this is already hurting Obama in the polls.

And yet while Obama keeps getting crucified over Wright's sermons, the "Liberal Media" gives a pass to John McCain and his connection to Rod "Kill Teh Ebil Moslems" Parsley.

Go figure.

So are the news agencies replaying the most damning sounding parts of Obama's speech over and over yet?

Someone told me that this is already hurting Obama in the polls.

i havent been watching cnn or listening to the radio.

there were damning parts of that speech? i must be a liberal democrat, i thought it was pretty good. i was very pleased that he didnt throw his minister under the bus. it shows good character on his part.

So are the news agencies replaying the most damning sounding parts of Obama's speech over and over yet?

Someone told me that this is already hurting Obama in the polls.

Mostly they've been fawning over it. I think it's too early to tell what it'd do to him in the polls. What effect you're seeing now is from the Wright thing itself.

So are the news agencies replaying the most damning sounding parts of Obama's speech over and over yet?

Someone told me that this is already hurting Obama in the polls.

IMHO this is all due to the Hillary victimization game she has been playing since that SNL skit. Only in American politics can the silver spoon bred white lady claim she is being victimized in comparison to a black man who grew up on the south side of Chicago. This is why Hillary is in the pocket of so many special interest groups, including the defense lobbyists. At this point they are working hard to dirty Obama to makes it seem "fair and balanced."

IMHO this is all due to the Hillary victimization game she has been playing since that SNL skit. Only in American politics can the silver spoon bred white lady claim she is being victimized in comparison to a black man who grew up on the south side of Chicago. This is why Hillary is in the pocket of so many special interest groups, including the defense lobbyists. At this point they are working hard to dirty Obama to makes it seem "fair and balanced."

Just for the record, I don't think Obama grew up on the south side of Chicago. He grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii. He went to Chicago after he got his law degree and worked in community organizing. (IIRC)

i havent been watching cnn or listening to the radio.

there were damning parts of that speech? i must be a liberal democrat, i thought it was pretty good. i was very pleased that he didnt throw his minister under the bus. it shows good character on his part.

no there were damning sounding parts of the speech when taken out of context. I thought it was an amazing speech. I'd like to hear what HIllary thought of it.

Mostly they've been fawning over it. I think it's too early to tell what it'd do to him in the polls. What effect you're seeing now is from the Wright thing itself.


Yeah NPR seemed to do a good job pointing out the good stuff

no there were damning sounding parts of the speech when taken out of context. I thought it was an amazing speech. I'd like to hear what HIllary thought of it.

What even sounded damning? from what I read, it seemed like you would have to chop it all to hell to make any piece of it not sound brilliantly presidential.

Just for the record, I don't think Obama grew up on the south side of Chicago. He grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii. He went to Chicago after he got his law degree and worked in community organizing. (IIRC)

You are correct and I was hasty in my information. Trying to multitask on doing my actual job while being here makes it difficult. Just don't tell the boss.

What even sounded damning? from what I read, it seemed like you would have to chop it all to hell to make any piece of it not sound brilliantly presidential.

If they only played the bit where he said he couldnt disown the Paster alone, it might give the unrealistic impression that he was endorsing what's been said.

For the record, I listened to all 37 minutes and thought it was the best speech on race in America since King's Dream.

And yet while Obama keeps getting crucified over Wright's sermons, the "Liberal Media" gives a pass to John McCain and his connection to Rod "Kill Teh Ebil Moslems" Parsley.

Go figure.



Which is actually pissing me off, but there is a reason for that.

In America, angry black men scare whitey, so any connection wit angry black men make Americans reluctant to vote for him.

However, in current American politics, it is perfectly acceptable to demonize Muslims. Especially when theyre Christian, because to do otherwise would be "religiously intolerant".


Its all about who the acceptable scapegoats are to the public.

If they only played the bit where he said he couldnt disown the Paster alone, it might give the unrealistic impression that he was endorsing what's been said.

For the record, I listened to all 37 minutes and thought it was the best speech on race in America since King's Dream.

yeah, but then you would have to take like half a sentence out of a 37 minute speech. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised at the dishonesty being used against him. It looks like the republicans will be playing the "he's not patriotic enough" attack this election.

What even sounded damning? from what I read, it seemed like you would have to chop it all to hell to make any piece of it not sound brilliantly presidential.

pretty much this:
If they only played the bit where he said he couldnt disown the Paster alone, it might give the unrealistic impression that he was endorsing what's been said.

For the record, I listened to all 37 minutes and thought it was the best speech on race in America since King's Dream.

I agree - an amazing speech - usually after 10 minutes of anything I can barely pay attention but his speech had me wanting more.

yeah, but then you would have to take like half a sentence out of a 37 minute speech. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised at the dishonesty being used against him. It looks like the republicans will be playing the "he's not patriotic enough" attack this election.

Yep, you would and I have already seen it done. People are already saying "OMG, he agrees with his former pastors anti_American comments"

"did you even listen to or read his speech?"

"No, but I got the gist of it from the news"

"No, you didn't"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Doover_is_dead.html

Yes I know it is a blog but this is the first I've seen this. Looks like Michigan will not hold a revote either.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Doover_is_dead.html

Yes I know it is a blog but this is the first I've seen this. Looks like Michigan will not hold a revote either.

*sigh*

I'm honestly beginning to wonder if there are forces at work specifically trying to damage the legitimacy of this nomination.

I'm honestly beginning to wonder if there are forces at work specifically trying to damage the legitimacy of this nomination.
Forces at work specifically trying to damage the legitimacy of this nomination = Democrats themselves. :(

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Doover_is_dead.html

Yes I know it is a blog but this is the first I've seen this. Looks like Michigan will not hold a revote either.

I saw that earlier. Drug their feet and now they're stuck. Now we'll have to see what happens in Pennsylvania to know what's next. If she gets a big enough win, she'll have to push for them to be seated 'as is' in order for that to be close enough for the supers to push her over. It's not likely, I posted someone's math on that earlier-the credentials committee won't have enough Clinton votes on it to force the seating. So then she's got to hope that Pennsylvania creates the momentum she's been unable to create so far and start winning by Obama margins.

Forces at work specifically trying to damage the legitimacy of this nomination = Democrats themselves. :(

:)

I watched about ten minutes of the speech. I think I'm coming around, I think I just favoured Clinton because she was on the scene first.

I particularly liked this passage:

For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

.... That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

...

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

He's right there. The common form of racism isn't "kill them all" but "it's not fair." It's displaced resentment from people whose lives just aren't working out as they'd like for any number of reasons.

The contrast between the written text of Obama's speech, and the verbal delivery is quite interesting. I'm much less impressed with the transcript, now that I read it through ... which is I guess a tribute to Obama's powers as a speaker.

Despite the repeated use of "black or white or latino or asian" and such phrases, the only real substance in there is to do with black/white race division.

What is glaringly missing is reference to "illegal" immigration. Surely when Americans talk about race, immigrant workers and border control come up??

I watched about ten minutes of the speech. I think I'm coming around, I think I just favoured Clinton because she was on the scene first.

I particularly liked this passage:



He's right there. The common form of racism isn't "kill them all" but "it's not fair." It's displaced resentment from people whose lives just aren't working out as they'd like for any number of reasons.

i liked jon stewarts comment on last night's daily show--ohmygod a politician is talking to his audience as if they are adults!

The contrast between the written text of Obama's speech, and the verbal delivery is quite interesting. I'm much less impressed with the transcript, now that I read it through ... which is I guess a tribute to Obama's powers as a speaker.

Despite the repeated use of "black or white or latino or asian" and such phrases, the only real substance in there is to do with black/white race division.

What is glaringly missing is reference to "illegal" immigration. Surely when Americans talk about race, immigrant workers and border control come up??

no that comes under a different "line item".

you cant demonize latin american illegal immigrants as latinos without alienating all the voters who are latinos (as the republicans have found out)

and yes when we talk about illegal immigration we mean mexicans and central americans who cross the border illegally. we dont mean those who come from canada and europe legally then over stay their visas. or at least thats what the republicans, lou dobbs, and conservative radio talk show hosts mean.

i liked jon stewarts comment on last night's daily show--ohmygod a politician is talking to his audience as if they are adults!

That made me laugh.


Sadly, its proven that talking to the American public like theyre adults is a mistake. I think thats Obama's biggest weakness, he puts too much faith in the people of America.

i liked jon stewarts comment on last night's daily show--ohmygod a politician is talking to his audience as if they are adults!

:)
As a non-American, watching sound-bites of the President for four years on the news is probably all the difference it's going to make to me. And I'm enjoying his speaking more than Clinton's, so yay for him!

:)
As a non-American, watching sound-bites of the President for four years on the news is probably all the difference it's going to make to me. And I'm enjoying his speaking more than Clinton's, so yay for him!

it will be a pleasure to have a president who knows what he (or she) is talking about and who knows how to pronounce every word in his (or her) speeches.

when i hear bush make some stupid declarative statement as if his point of view (lie) is the obvious truth i want to slap his face.

John McCain is a fake, Hillary Clinton is a monster, and Barack Obama is a racist, a liar, a demagogue, and a hypocrite. I don't much care for any of them, but lately Obama has been getting on my nerves. Last thing I'd want is "100 Years In Iraq" McCain, but the sad part is, he's almost the lesser of three evils.

Regardless, I'll probably be writing a name in.

John McCain is a fake

Why?

Hillary Clinton is a monster

Why?

Barack Obama is a racist, a liar, a demagogue, and a hypocrite.

Why?


To quote you earlier:
I don't understand why folks find ad hominem insults toward their "political opponents" to be considered actual arguments. This is what seems to happen a lot, especially with colleges.

Id wager you're the hypocrit.


Regardless, I'll probably be writing a name in.


Let me guess...Ron Paul?

John McCain is a fake, Hillary Clinton is a monster, and Barack Obama is a racist, a liar, a demagogue, and a hypocrite. I don't much care for any of them, but lately Obama has been getting on my nerves. Last thing I'd want is "100 Years In Iraq" McCain, but the sad part is, he's almost the lesser of three evils.

Regardless, I'll probably be writing a name in.

there isnt a 3rd party that you would support by voting for their candidate?

no that comes under a different "line item".

Mm, I didn't mean he should have laid out a full position on naturalizing unauthorized immigrants or any such ... it just feels like he's talking about civil rights and completely ignoring an important race question which is probably growing with time.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the speech has been mis-characterized as "Obama's statement on race"? It wasn't a speech to put an issue on the table, but to manage the Reverend Wright matter.

(If it had been my speech, I probably would have tried to make common cause with some statement like "non-citizens working in the US may not quite be slaves, but they are filling the role slaves once did, sustaining un-American industries and class roles which would not be possible if they were paid a fair wage" ... thereby completely hijacking my speech and crashing my campaign. Ho-Bot self destructs, the headlines would read. Hehe.)

you cant demonize latin american illegal immigrants as latinos without alienating all the voters who are latinos (as the republicans have found out) ... and you don't stand to win any votes from them either. *nod*

and yes when we talk about illegal immigration we mean mexicans and central americans who cross the border illegally. we dont mean those who come from canada and europe legally then over stay their visas. or at least thats what the republicans, lou dobbs, and conservative radio talk show hosts mean.

I guess Obama doesn't need to debate those people, is probably trying to please the centre. I can't help feeling this speech was aimed at african americans, while trying not to offend anyone else.

In Australia, any debate about race goes quickly to either what government should do to or for Aborigines, or the level and source of immigrants. There was very little slavery here ... makes for a quite different focus.

Mm, I didn't mean he should have laid out a full position on naturalizing unauthorized immigrants or any such ... it just feels like he's talking about civil rights and completely ignoring an important race question which is probably growing with time.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the speech has been mis-characterized as "Obama's statement on race"? It wasn't a speech to put an issue on the table, but to manage the Reverend Wright comments.

(If it had been my speech, I probably would have tried to make common cause with some statement like "non-citizens working in the US may not quite be slaves, but they are filling the role slaves once did, sustaining un-American industries and class roles which would not be possible if they were paid a fair wage" ... thereby completely hijacking my speech and crashing my campaign. Ho-Bot self destructs, the headlines would read. Hehe.)

... and you don't stand to win any votes from them either. *nod*



I guess Obama doesn't need to debate those people, is probably trying to please the centre. I can't help feeling this speech was aimed at african americans, while trying not to offend anyone else.

In Australia, any debate about race goes quickly to either what government should do to or for Aborigines, or the level and source of immigrants. There was very little slavery here ... makes for a quite different focus.

yeah.

in the US we tend to think of race as black and white. he did throw a small bone to hispanics, asians and native americans but, as you say, he did not address their issues. we can hope that he will do that some day soom.

Obama is a racist!?! Clearly the conservatives now are making up mythical bogeyman to replace the lack of real ones.

Obama is a racist!?! Clearly the conservatives now are making up mythical bogeyman to replace the lack of real ones.

Isnt that what theyve always been doing?

John McCain is a fake, Hillary Clinton is a monster, and Barack Obama is a racist, a liar, a demagogue, and a hypocrite. I don't much care for any of them, but lately Obama has been getting on my nerves. Last thing I'd want is "100 Years In Iraq" McCain, but the sad part is, he's almost the lesser of three evils.

Look on the bright side, 90% of what any President tries to do never happens. :D

John McCain is a fake, Hillary Clinton is a monster, and Barack Obama is a racist, a liar, a demagogue, and a hypocrite. I don't much care for any of them, but lately Obama has been getting on my nerves. Last thing I'd want is "100 Years In Iraq" McCain, but the sad part is, he's almost the lesser of three evils.

Regardless, I'll probably be writing a name in.

How is Obama a racist?

How is Obama a racist?

And how has he lied or is a hypocrite?

And also, being an articulate and good speaker doesn't make him a demagogue.

And how has he lied or is a hypocrite?

And also, being an articulate and good speaker doesn't make him a demagogue.

I asked him to adress his accusations against all three candidates on the previous page. My guess is he wont.

Andaras, off-topic I know, but what does that line in your sig mean? "I support a CRIMINAL ideology"?

Andaras, off-topic I know, but what does that line in your sig mean? "I support a CRIMINAL ideology"?

Hes refering to his support for communism/marxism/socialism. He's being tounge in cheek.

Thats why criminal is red.

Hes refering to his support for communism/marxism/socialism. He's being tounge in cheek.

Well, I have a rough idea of Andaras's preferred ideology. Just wondering if there's a law against being a lefty ... or if he's hinting at something a bit less, er, acceptable.

Thats why criminal is red.

Y'know, if someone asked me a direct question like that, I'd be pretty pissed off at a third party who leapt in and answered for me as you just did. Hmm?

Y'know, if someone asked me a direct question like that, I'd be pretty pissed off at a third party who leapt in and answered for me as you just did. Hmm?

You'll live.

Ron Paul '08 ya'll.

I asked him to adress his accusations against all three candidates on the previous page. My guess is he wont.

Roger that.

I was curious whether the "John McCain is a fake ..." post was a hit-and-run, so I looked at Oakondra's recent posting history. I almost fell off my chair laughing.

A post a minute, in "Should Holocaust denial be illegal?" and "which Guitar Hero game is the best?" threads. Around two to four minutes in this thread.

I don't think that whatever Oakondra's post here was supposed to mean could possibly matter.

Is that too harsh? :D

Roger that.

I was curious whether the "John McCain is a fake ..." post was a hit-and-run, so I looked at Oakondra's recent posting history. I almost fell off my chair laughing.

A post a minute, in "Should Holocaust denial be illegal?" and "which Guitar Hero game is the best?" threads. Around two to four minutes in this thread.

I don't think that whatever Oakondra's post here was supposed to mean could possibly matter.

Is that too harsh? :D


Id say its accurate.

Ron Paul '08 ya'll.

Right on. Thaw him out, run him for president. With Nader for VP.

Er, we ARE talking 3008, right?

That made me laugh.


Sadly, its proven that talking to the American public like theyre adults is a mistake. I think thats Obama's biggest weakness, he puts too much faith in the people of America.

Now you're just being a dick. In all seriousness though, I'd say you're underselling the intelligence of Americans. A number of us are probably that stupid, another group likely act like it because they feel like it and/or think its funny and the last third are probably fairly intelligent, but are so crippled by apathy that you don't hear from them anyway.

Hes refering to his support for communism/marxism/socialism. He's being tounge in cheek.

Thats why criminal is red.

Well kinda, it's actually because a member (can't remember who) said I support a criminal ideology.

Well kinda, it's actually because a member (can't remember who) said I support a criminal ideology.

'kay. Found it. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13532327) It was Greater Trostia.

I guess if your ideology involved something banned by hate speech laws, it might be technically correct.

I was hoping it was something about robbing banks. I'm a huge fan of robbing banks, but find it's usually better not to shout about it. ;)

John McCain is a fake, Hillary Clinton is a monster, and Barack Obama is a racist, a liar, a demagogue, and a hypocrite. I don't much care for any of them, but lately Obama has been getting on my nerves. Last thing I'd want is "100 Years In Iraq" McCain, but the sad part is, he's almost the lesser of three evils.

Regardless, I'll probably be writing a name in.

I'm most curious to see this evidence that Senator Obama is:
(1) a racist,
(2) a liar,
(3) a demagogue, and
(4) a hypocrite.

I wait with bated breath for your further explanation.

OMG, The Cat-Tribe made a mistake! An actual mistake!

OK, it's a pathetically insignificant spelling mistake, but it's a mistake and I saw it!

I wait with baited breath for your further explanation.

That should be "bated." "Baited breath" is what you get when you go fishing but don't catch anything and have to eat the worms instead.

I'm most curious to see this evidence that Senator Obama is:
(1) a racist,He's black.
(2) a liar,He's from Chicago.
(3) a demagogue, andHe's popular.
(4) a hypocrite.He's a politician.

See? That logic's unassailable!

I'm sure most of you are now familiar with the new statistic from the CDC showing that 1 in 4 teenager girls in the U.S. have sexually transmitted diseases.

This is combined with increasing, unequivocal evidence that comprehensive sex education is very effective in protecting our kids, but that abstinence only programs are entirely ineffective.

Also, as explained in this link (http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/09/Opinion/Why_McCain_should_wor.shtml), an intelligent person might think that someone as rabidly anti-abortion as McCain would be backing approaches to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thereby, ipso facto, fewer abortions. Well, think again. McCain is an antagonist of sensible family planning and effective sex education. In 2005, he voted "no" on a $100-million allocation for preventive health care services targeted at reducing unintended pregnancies, particularly teen pregnancies. In 2006, he voted against funding for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education for teens. McCain is much more comfortable with President Bush's wasteful and utterly ineffective abstinence-only approach.

Statement (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/164102.aspx)from John McCain's campaign from last May:

Senator McCain strongly opposes efforts by the Democratic-controlled Congress to eliminate abstinence-only sex education classes for school-aged children. Senator McCain believes the correct policy for educating young children on this subject is to promote abstinence as the only safe and responsible alternative. To do otherwise is to send a mixed signal to children that, on the one hand they should not be sexually active, but on the other here is the way to go about it. As any parent knows, ambiguity and equivocation leads to problems when it comes to teaching children right from wrong. Senator McCain believes that there are many negative forces in today’s society that promote irresponsible and dangerous behavior to our children. The public education system should not join this chorus of moral equivocation and ambiguity.”

Finally, as explained in this link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/the-mcmoderate_b_88275.html), most Americans would be stunned to learn McCain won't -- or can't -- say whether he even supports the right to use contraception. Last March, according to the New York Times, McCain fumbled through this exchange about contraception with a reporter aboard his campaign bus:

"Reporter: "Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"

Mr. McCain: "Well I think it's a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes -- and I was just reading the thing he wrote -- that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn't succeed, then he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I'm not very wise on it."

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: "I haven't thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don't know if I would use taxpayers' money for it [contraception]."

Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's policy, which is just abstinence?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy."

Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."

Q: "I mean, I think you'd probably agree it probably does help stop it?"

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I'm sure I've taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception -- I'm sure I'm opposed to government spending on it, I'm sure I support the president's policies on it."

Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: 'No, we're not going to distribute them,' knowing that?"

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn's thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn's paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I've never gotten into these issues before."

FYI, my link further notes that the Coburn that McCain has chosen as his mentor on all things reproductive is Senator Tom Coburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn), R-Oklahoma, which is like having the Taliban head up the Office for Women's Initiatives. (Think that's an extreme comparison? Keep in mind Coburn wants the death penalty for abortion providers and that Coburn has said that homosexuality is the greatest threat to American freedom.)

Finally, most Americans would be stunned to learn McCain won't -- or can't -- say whether he even supports the right to use contraception. Last March, according to the New York Times, McCain fumbled through this exchange about contraception with a reporter aboard his campaign bus ;

"Reporter: "Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"

Mr. McCain: "Well I think it's a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes -- and I was just reading the thing he wrote -- that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn't succeed, then he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I'm not very wise on it."

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: "I haven't thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don't know if I would use taxpayers' money for it [contraception]."

Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's policy, which is just abstinence?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy."

Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."

Q: "I mean, I think you'd probably agree it probably does help stop it?"

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I'm sure I've taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception -- I'm sure I'm opposed to government spending on it, I'm sure I support the president's policies on it."

Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: 'No, we're not going to distribute them,' knowing that?"

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn's thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn's paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I've never gotten into these issues before."
link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/the-mcmoderate_b_88275.html)


That's horrifying. Yeah, maybe he could have had a bit of a mental block about condoms being a form of contraception, (maybe thinking "does the pill affect STD's? I dunno") but the reporter leads him right to it. And he doesn't know.

... or perhaps even more worryingly, can't understand the question?


TCT, this appears both in the article you link to (Huffington Post) and in your post (not as a quote):

Finally, most Americans would be stunned to learn McCain won't -- or can't -- say whether he even supports the right to use contraception. Last March, according to the New York Times, McCain fumbled through this exchange about contraception with a reporter aboard his campaign bus ;

Does that mean you are the same person as CP, author of the blog?

TCT, this appears both in the article you link to (Huffington Post) and in your post (not as a quote):

Does that mean you are the same person as CP, author of the blog?

Sorry if there was any confusion in the way I quoted and/or paraphrased from the sources I linked. I thought I'd been clear, but your query has prompted me to clean it up a bit. Most of the words in my post are not mine and I didn't mean to imply they were.

I have an announcement to make:

Yesterday, I changed my voting address to my current one and in the process CHANGED PARTIES so that I can vote for Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania Primary on April 22.

Sorry if there was any confusion in the way I quoted and/or paraphrased from the sources I linked. I thought I'd been clear, but your query has prompted me to clean it up a bit. Most of the words in my post are not mine and I didn't mean to imply they were.

Hey, fine. I only really mentioned it because I was surprised at the idea you were female ... I can't remember why, but I've long thought of you as a fella.

Of course a lot of NSGers dip their oar elsewhere on the internet or in paper print, I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear you blog somewhere like that.

I have an announcement to make:

Yesterday, I changed my voting address to my current one and in the process CHANGED PARTIES so that I can vote for Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania Primary on April 22.

I sigged this, assuming some of your old sparring-partners would follow the link.

Since they haven't, I'll say: very interesting!

Why? Are you actually going to vote for him if he's up against McCain?
Or is this a "throwing yourself on the grenade" gesture to stave off a Clinton candidacy/Presidency?

I sigged this, assuming some of your old sparring-partners would follow the link.

Since they haven't, I'll say: very interesting!

Why? Are you actually going to vote for him if he's up against McCain?
Or is this a "throwing yourself on the grenade" gesture to stave off a Clinton candidacy/Presidency?

In answer:

1) More than likely

and

2) No.

I have an announcement to make:

Yesterday, I changed my voting address to my current one and in the process CHANGED PARTIES so that I can vote for Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania Primary on April 22.

are you going to re-register as a republican as soon as its over?

In answer:

1) More than likely

OK, next question. Would you vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination?

I think I know the answer to that, so here's another: what's the issue which swung your vote?

OK, next question. Would you vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination?

I think I know the answer to that, so here's another: what's the issue which swung your vote?

I personally would not. I'm posting this because I know someone is going to mention a gallup poll amongst Democrats for whom they wish to be the nominee. It shows a lead for Clinton beyond the margin of error. However, these are the numbers for the averages of all polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

They have reformatted their page and I love it. All the important info is right there for you to view on one page. If you want deeper analysis you can get that too.

OK, next question. Would you vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination?

No!

I think I know the answer to that, so here's another: what's the issue which swung your vote?

Obama at least campaigns in all states and does not write them off. Clinton has done that on numerous occassions and wants the DNC to relent on punishment of Florida and Michigan.

Obama at least campaigns in all states and does not write them off. Clinton has done that on numerous occassions and wants the DNC to relent on punishment of Florida and Michigan.
And that is the reason that you are changing from Republican to Democrat? :p

are you going to re-register as a republican as soon as its over?
I believe that Corny wants Obama to beat Hillary because he detests anything Clinton. He has ever since I have been here. I also think that if Hillary won the nomination, he would be truly afraid that she would win the general.

I look for Corny to go back to the Republicans no matter who wins the nomination for the Dems.

These are just my beliefs based on his strong Republican outpourings the past 4 years.

Obama at least campaigns in all states and does not write them off. Clinton has done that on numerous occassions and wants the DNC to relent on punishment of Florida and Michigan.
I believe he didn't campaign in Michigan and Florida when he heard they wouldn't have the delegate votes, and it's been reported that he pulled his name from the Michigan primary ballot in deference to New Hampshire.

and HE certainly didn't come to Hawaii (neither did Clinton.)

No!



Obama at least campaigns in all states and does not write them off. Clinton has done that on numerous occassions and wants the DNC to relent on punishment of Florida and Michigan.

Hillary (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/hillary-clinton/states/)

Barack (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/barack-obama/states/)

I believe that Corny wants Obama to beat Hillary because he detests anything Clinton. He has ever since I have been here. I also think that if Hillary won the nomination, he would be truly afraid that she would win the general.

I look for Corny to go back to the Republicans no matter who wins the nomination for the Dems.

These are just my beliefs based on his strong Republican outpourings the past 4 years.

well me too. but he may have been liberalized by the fiasco of the bush administration enough to think that it might be better to work with the democrats than the republicans.

I believe he didn't campaign in Michigan and Florida when he heard they wouldn't have the delegate votes, and it's been reported that he pulled his name from the Michigan primary ballot in deference to New Hampshire.

and HE certainly didn't come to Hawaii (neither did Clinton.)

The rules required neither of them to campaign in those two states. As far as Hawaii, I don't know if or why he didn't campaign there.

yeah.

in the US we tend to think of race as black and white. he did throw a small bone to hispanics, asians and native americans but, as you say, he did not address their issues. we can hope that he will do that some day soom.

He may not have addressed the Latino/immigrant populations much in this speech, but he has in the past. He's addressed the anger over illegal immigration, for instance, in very similar terms - pointing out that the ire towards immigrants (even illegal ones) is often misplaced anger about lost jobs and unethical corporate practices.

I can't recall offhand any particular references to Asian or Native American populations, though.

Obama at least campaigns in all states and does not write them off. Clinton has done that on numerous occassions and wants the DNC to relent on punishment of Florida and Michigan.

The rules required neither of them to campaign in those two states. As far as Hawaii, I don't know if or why he didn't campaign there.
yep, but it does disprove Corneliu's claim that Obama campaigned in all states. now his supporters campaigned in all states, but he didn't.

and as for Hawaii, the only candidate to come to Hawaii (in my memory) was Chaney.

everyone else sent their daughters, sisters, cousins, etc... at least the Reps sent the Vice-Presidental candidate...

Well, I have a rough idea of Andaras's preferred ideology. Just wondering if there's a law against being a lefty ... or if he's hinting at something a bit less, er, acceptable.

To be a state employee in my state, you do have to sign a pledge that you are not and have never been a member of the Communist Party.

yep, but it does disprove Corneliu's claim that Obama campaigned in all states. now his supporters campaigned in all states, but he didn't.

and as for Hawaii, the only candidate to come to Hawaii (in my memory) was Chaney.

everyone else sent their daughters, sisters, cousins, etc... at least the Reps sent the Vice-Presidental candidate...

The mainland apologizes. We hope there weren't too many casualties.

The mainland apologizes. We hope there weren't too many casualties.

not too bad. Hawaii always votes Democrat for president. reguardless of who's running.

they announce the winner before Hawaii's polls even close, much less get all the votes counted. it's a wonder that Hawaii has low voter turnout.

As far as Hawaii, I don't know if or why he didn't campaign there.

it takes too fucking long to get to while busy moving directly from campaigning in the potomac primary to campaigning in the more delegate-rich 'cheese, beer, and favre' primary. you'd have to sacrifice effectively two days just in traveling.

poor hawai'i

not too bad. Hawaii always votes Democrat for president. reguardless of who's running.

and just when lingle broke the post-colonial democratic hold, the national republican party throws itself under the bus of economic collapse, permanent war, and hating people of color. well played on their part.

they announce the winner before Hawaii's polls even close, much less get all the votes counted. it's a wonder that Hawaii has low voter turnout.

you know, hawaii should probably vote the day before

poor hawai'i

Yeah, I suppose they'll just have to console themselves with the fact that they're in Hawai'i.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/20/michigan.florida/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker

It is official. No michigan do over.

it takes too fucking long to get to while busy moving directly from campaigning in the potomac primary to campaigning in the more delegate-rich 'cheese, beer, and favre' primary. you'd have to sacrifice effectively two days just in traveling. yep.. two whole days gone... so how was the snow up there? :p

poor hawai'i agreed. :( :p

and just when lingle broke the post-colonial democratic hold, the national republican party throws itself under the bus of economic collapse, permanent war, and hating people of color. well played on their part. To Be Honest, While Lingle did become Gov... the legislature is still Dem controlled.

you know, hawaii should probably vote the day before... I'll go with that!

Hillary (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/hillary-clinton/states/)

Barack (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/barack-obama/states/)
I guess that puts a little dent in Corny's calculations?

I guess that puts a little dent in Corny's calculations?

which calculations?

Obama at least campaigns in all states and does not write them off. Clinton has done that on numerous occassions

Hillary (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/hillary-clinton/states/)

Barack (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/barack-obama/states/)

which calculations?
The ones above.

The ones above.

Considering the fact that Clinton has abandoned many states while Obama has made the effort to go to all states...

The ones above.

are we really adding calculations to the list of things you don't understand? is this game you are playing even fun anymore?

Clinton didn't go to 8 states in the continental US, Obama didn't go to 4. If you slide over to the "total visits" tab, however, you'll see that both candidates really don't visit flyover country and instead focus on the few key states that matter. I don't really think Obama has focused his campaigning on substantially more states than Clinton has, despite what his people would have you believe.

Clinton didn't go to 8 states in the continental US, Obama didn't go to 4. If you slide over to the "total visits" tab, however, you'll see that both candidates really don't visit flyover country and instead focus on the few key states that matter. I don't really think Obama has focused his campaigning on substantially more states than Clinton has, despite what his people would have you believe.

somewhere back in the mists of this thread i had a link to a rolling stone article about obama's ground game. there is a reason why he not only wins those 'flyover' state, but wins fucking huge. and what corny was referring to was the clinton camp's open dismissal of various states as unimportant. and presumably her more subtle dismissals, like not even trying in virginia.

somewhere back in the mists of this thread i had a link to a rolling stone article about obama's ground game. there is a reason why he not only wins those 'flyover' state, but wins fucking huge. and what corny was referring to was the clinton camp's open dismissal of various states as unimportant. and presumably her more subtle dismissals, like not even trying in virginia.

The key here is that Obama uses that ground game in every state. We're used to judging campaigning by stops, but when the majority of your campaigning involves motivating the voters to campaign to each other, you can't stop counting at the number of airports they hit for fundraisers. I'd be interested in seeing the amoung of investment each candidate has had in each state.

somewhere back in the mists of this thread i had a link to a rolling stone article about obama's ground game. there is a reason why he not only wins those 'flyover' state, but wins fucking huge.
My thoughts on a lot of those red states that Obama won huge? Firstly, the voters don't want a female President. Secondly the voters believe that it will be easier for McCain to beat Obama.

what corny was referring to was the clinton camp's open dismissal of various states as unimportant.
I don't really see that, when looking at the Washington Post comparisons.

and presumably her more subtle dismissals, like not even trying in virginia.
Not even trying in Virginia? Not only did Clinton have more total visits to Virginia, 19 to Obama's 11, more visits to Virginia in 2008 (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/hillary-clinton/states/va/)15 to Obama's 6 (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/barack-obama/states/va/), but according to the article, she raised $829,046 from Apr.-June 2007, compared to Obama's $386,513 Apr.-June 2007.

Yup, I guess Clinton wasn't really trying.....by your standards?

To Be Honest, While Lingle did become Gov... the legislature is still Dem controlled.

well, given that the repubs were the colonial overlords, lingle is an impressive improvement for the party.

My thoughts on a lot of those red states that Obama won huge? Firstly, the voters don't want a female President. Secondly the voters believe that it will be easier for McCain to beat Obama.

How many of them are open primaries? Are you saying that the majority of Democrats are so sexist that they would rather have a Republican in office than a woman?

Please tell me I'm wrong.