NationStates Jolt Archive

I would say so. If you think somebody is more or less fit to be president based on their race, then you are a racist, no?

If you say the race of the person you chose for your secretary mattered, would it be racist?

Hell, yes. Race has nothing to do with whether or not someone is qualified for the highest office in the land. Similarly if you chose by the sex of the candidates, you're a sexist.

What has gone on in the last eight years that we can't use these words when they apply? Geez, a woman says seperately to every black man who ran a remotely serious campaign for President that they are only prospering BECAUSE they're black and she's not a racist? In what world?

And one final bit.

Oregon.
10% racist
52% Obama
Nearly even and obviously much less than the margin Obama will win by.
So again they favor Clinton.

17% sexist
56% Clinton
44% Obama
Again, favoring Clinton dramatically when comparing the outcome.

So much for that whole sexist claim. Like everything she claims the numbers don't jive with her claims.

If you say the race of the person you chose for your secretary mattered, would it be racist?

Hell, yes. Race has nothing to do with whether or not someone is qualified for the highest office in the land. Similarly if you chose by the sex of the candidates, you're a sexist.

What has gone on in the last eight years that we can't use these words when they apply? Geez, a woman says seperately to every black man who ran a remotely serious campaign for President that they are only prospering BECAUSE they're black and she's not a racist? In what world?

The fact that this even needs to be said is a sad reflection on things, isn't it? And to a degree, this might be a good example of why not to haphazardly throw around the racist label-- because then people will dismiss it in cases like this where people really are being racist, saying "oh, you're just playing the race card."

And one final bit.

Oregon.
10% racist
52% Obama
Nearly even and obviously much less than the margin Obama will win by.
So again they favor Clinton.

17% sexist
56% Clinton
44% Obama
Again, favoring Clinton dramatically when comparing the outcome.

So much for that whole sexist claim. Like everything she claims the numbers don't jive with her claims.
Where do these numbers come from? :)

Where do these numbers come from? :)

Exit polls. CNN.

The fact that this even needs to be said is a sad reflection on things, isn't it? And to a degree, this might be a good example of why not to haphazardly throw around the racist label-- because then people will dismiss it in cases like this where people really are being racist, saying "oh, you're just playing the race card."

It really is sad. Seriously what does it take to call someone a racist? In what world could I walk into a restaurant and go, give me the white waitress. And you're talking about a waitress, how is it more acceptable when you're talking about the President of the US?

It really is sad. Seriously what does it take to call someone a racist? In what world could I walk into a restaurant and go, give me the white waitress. And you're talking about a waitress, how is it more acceptable when you're talking about the President of the US?

I'd like to argue with you someday. You'd be a formidable opponent...

I think we have disagreed before but I'm quoting that post if we ever get into it. :p

By the way, only in the count where you don't give Obama a single voter from Michigan does Hillary have a lead and then only by about 70K with a quarter of the counties not counted in OR.

What a lowly view she must have of supers to think they'll buy that message. "I don't want to disenfranchise any voters except for Obama supporters in MI and all of the people in caucus states."

EDIT: Final prediction before I sleep. I'm thinking the final count will having him winning by about 115K, dropping the lead she would have if someone actually believed that nonsensical way of counting votes to 40K. Honestly, in the most absurd of counts she still barely pulls a lead. You have to giggle that she considers THAT her strongest argument. Oh, and "I win the states that matter". I wonder what people in the states that "don't matter" think about that.

It really is sad. Seriously what does it take to call someone a racist? In what world could I walk into a restaurant and go, give me the white waitress. And you're talking about a waitress, how is it more acceptable when you're talking about the President of the US?

It's the same phenomenon as internet anonymity. They'll never have to look anyone in the eye when saying such idiocy so that makes it okay. They can be quietly and anonymously racist and no one will ever chide them for it.

You think that made ME proud? Almost one in five Ohioan voters said the same thing here. That disturbed the hell out of me. Just like being victimized by members of my own party disturbs me.

I was not speaking about you here Shal. My apologies for not making that clear. I appreciate that you are willing to debate now. I still think you rely too much on talking point, but that's just my opinion. Make it a great day, or not, the choice is yours! :)

The Big Three? Obama has an edge in most of the US. He has an edge so often that he averages nine points better than her. I know you don't want to deal with the FACT that he's polling better, but it's a fact.

Meanwhile, she lost. It's that simple. She lost. Say what you like. Get as bitter as you like. She lost. And she didn't lose because of us. She lost because she ran a bad campaign. She SHOULD have won. She had every reason to win. That Obama beat her while starting SO far behind says A LOT about her ability to run a campaign.

No, it's just easier to presume that this election will go exactly the way the prior two have. In order to believe that you need to ignore the 06 midterms, and the special elections in Ruby Red districts that attempted to attack Obama to get to their real target. These ads failed horribly. If these ads fail horribly in local elections in red red districts, how do you think they'll play out nationally in November?

I often find myself torn between two competing extremes.

On the one hand, an awful lot of Obama supporters are insufferably arrogant and elitist. One of them even called me a "beer-swilling, pickup-driving, gun-toting hick", even though I own neither a pickup truck nor a gun.

On the other, I have goose-stepping Republican morons who call me other, less pleasant names and who startle me daily with their lack of knowledge about things which they have strong opinions about.

Every time I talk to the conservatives, I get pushed towards voting for Obama. And every time I talk to the Obama supporters, I get pushed towards John McCain. It's like neither side WANTS my support, which confounds me because either way this is gonna be a close election.

Guilt by association is a logical fallacy. A few Obama supporters you know being assholes =/= Obama being a bad candidate.

I think we have disagreed before but I'm quoting that post if we ever get into it. :p

By all means. There are some people here I'd break a sweat against: You, Neo Art, etc. That's not to say I'd lose, but it IS to say I'd make a big effort. ;)

And we had one disagreement, mainly about a debate trick I used. But that was so quickly settled that it wasn't really an argument. :p

Hey, Clintonistas, lookie here!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080521/pl_nm/usa_poll_politics_dc

Obama leads McCain by 8. Obama leads Clinton by 26. Obama's better than McCain at the economy. Obama leads McCain on independents.

...and a grisly, grim "goodnight"!

You know looking at CNN's handy little delegate calculator (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html) thingy even if Hillary wins 100% of the remaining votes she'll still be behind in delegates.

Hey, Clintonistas, lookie here!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080521/pl_nm/usa_poll_politics_dc

Obama leads McCain by 8. Obama leads Clinton by 26. Obama's better than McCain at the economy. Obama leads McCain on independents.

...and a grisly, grim "goodnight"!

No, no, we've decided that Florida gets to pick the president this year, or Ohio, or where ever Clinton can eek out a lead because +1 campaigning has been such a bang up success for the Democrats in the last two elections.

You know looking at CNN's handy little delegate calculator (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html) thingy even if Hillary wins 100% of the remaining votes she'll still be behind in delegates.

At the risk of seeming snide, and keep in mind I mean no offense:

Yeah, that's what a delegate majority is. ;)

No, no, we've decided that Florida gets to pick the president this year, or Ohio, or where ever Clinton can eek out a lead because +1 campaigning has been such a bang up success for the Democrats in the last two elections.

Oh, no... You just activated my were-Deanna-Troi curse!

*Turns into Deanna Troi*

Captain... I sense... sarcasm.

At the risk of seeming snide, and keep in mind I mean no offense:

Yeah, that's what a delegate majority is. ;)

Didn't know he actually did well enough to lock that up last night. Still makes me wonder what the hell she's up to. There's no chance to win, absolutely none. So why is she throwing money at it?

No, no, we've decided that Florida gets to pick the president this year, or Ohio, or where ever Clinton can eek out a lead because +1 campaigning has been such a bang up success for the Democrats in the last two elections.

Well you know what "they"(whoever they are) say: "As <insert state Clinton has just won> goes, so goes the nation!"

Didn't know he actually did well enough to lock that up last night. Still makes me wonder what the hell she's up to. There's no chance to win, absolutely none. So why is she throwing money at it?

I think she's trying to get Obama to fall against McCain, out of either spite or cunning.

Well you know what "they"(whoever they are) say: "As <insert state Clinton has just won> goes, so goes the nation!"

Which is why we've only had Democratic presidents in the last several years: As New York went, so went the nation. *Nod*

Didn't know he actually did well enough to lock that up last night. Still makes me wonder what the hell she's up to. There's no chance to win, absolutely none. So why is she throwing money at it?

Well, she's decided that she'll not accept anything but the Michigan and Florida delegates exactly as they voted-instead of punishing them for voting early rewarding them by being decisive-which then moves the bar. Since there are less than 200 pledged delegates left to win, with Florida and Michigan there is no way either can reach threshold, and then if you include their popular vote and ignore every caucus state, you can claim that she has the lead in popular votes and (she hopes) SHAZAM! the super delegates declare her a winner.

Although, now that I think about it, one of them has to be able to reach threshold, wouldn't they? Edwards only has a small handful of delegates and they're drifting towards Obama. Between now and the end of this nonsense Obama might reach a point where it doesn't matter if you include Florida and Michigan or not. There is no one, no one, who is going to buy her "Obama gets nothing" argument for Michigan.

Of course she could win the last three primaries in huge blowous and make her stand there. I have no idea which way they are leaning.

Hey, Clintonistas, lookie here!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080521/pl_nm/usa_poll_politics_dc

Obama leads McCain by 8. Obama leads Clinton by 26. Obama's better than McCain at the economy. Obama leads McCain on independents.

...and a grisly, grim "goodnight"!



By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent Wed May 21, 7:17 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama has opened an 8-point national lead on Republican John McCain as the U.S. presidential rivals turn their focus to a general election race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Obama, who was tied with McCain in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup last month, moved to a 48 percent to 40 percent lead over the Arizona senator in May as he took command of his grueling Democratic presidential duel with rival Hillary Clinton.

The Illinois senator has not yet secured the Democratic presidential nomination to run against McCain in November.

The poll also found Obama expanded his lead over Clinton in the Democratic race to 26 percentage points, doubling his advantage from mid-April as Democrats begin to coalesce around Obama and prepare for the general election battle with McCain.

"Obama has been very resilient, bouncing back from rough periods and doing very well with independent voters," pollster John Zogby said. "The race with McCain is going to be very competitive."

The poll was taken Thursday through Sunday during a period when Obama came under attack from President George W. Bush and McCain for his promise to talk to hostile foreign leaders without preconditions.

Obama's gains followed a month in which he was plagued with a series of campaign controversies and suffered two big losses to Clinton in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

The poll was conducted after Obama denounced his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who made a series of public appearances that rekindled a controversy over his inflammatory comments on race and religion.

Obama also survived a furor over his comments about "bitter" small-town residents who cling to guns and religion out of frustration over their economic concerns.

Obama edged closer to clinching the Democratic nomination on Tuesday when he split two nominating contests with Clinton, beating the New York senator in Oregon and losing in Kentucky to gain a majority of pledged delegates won in state-by-state nominating contests.

The results put him within easy range of the 2,026 delegates needed for the nomination. Just three Democratic nominating contests remain before voting concludes on June 3.

OBAMA BETTER ON ECONOMY

The poll found Obama was seen as a better steward of the economy than McCain, leading 48 percent to 39 percent. McCain led Obama by 3 points last month on an issue that is certain to be crucial in their campaign.

Obama led McCain among independents, 47 percent to 35 percent, and led among some groups of voters who have backed Clinton during their Democratic primary battle, including Catholics, Jews, union households and voters making less than $35,000 a year.

McCain led among whites, NASCAR fans, and elderly voters. McCain led with voters who believed the United States was on the right track, and Obama led with the much higher percentage of voters who believed it was on the wrong track.

"Clearly voters are looking for change. Every problem Obama has had in consolidating his base and reaching to the center, John McCain has the same sort of problem," Zogby said.

"It's McCain's lead among voters over the age of 65 that is keeping him within shouting distance of Obama," he said.

The poll found Clinton, who has shrugged off calls to quit the Democratic race, tied at 43 percent with McCain in the national poll. She led McCain by 47 percent to 40 percent on who would be the better manager of the economy.

Obama and Clinton have refrained from attacking each other in recent weeks as Obama has turned his focus to McCain.

But Zogby said the attacks on Obama by Bush and McCain, who have been critical of his willingness to talk to leaders of countries like Iran, did not appear to hurt Obama. If anything, he said, it reminded voters of McCain's ties to Bush, whose approval rating is still mired at record lows.

"The president is so unpopular. To inject himself into a presidential campaign does not help John McCain, particularly when McCain is tied to Bush," Zogby said.

The national survey of 516 likely Democratic primary voters had a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points. The poll of the national race between McCain and the two Democratic contenders surveyed 1,076 likely voters with a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

(Editing by Doina Chiacu)

(For more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online at http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/)

I just wanted to link to the article. You beat me to the link. However, I do have another interesting link

my link buttons is not working again for some reason. cut and paste http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10509.html

And since we're talking about links, let me link to a column about something that's happening in this very thread:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait21-2008may21,0,2243133.story

why isn't oregon done fucking counting yet?

why isn't oregon done fucking counting yet?

come on you fuckers - we're at 59% and there is a slight possibility of making it to the list. hurry the fuck up.

come on you fuckers - we're at 59% and there is a slight possibility of making it to the list. hurry the fuck up.

Mail in voting, plus, you know, not use to mattering.

plus, you know, not use to mattering.

Then they shouldn't have had any problem with this time either...

And since we're talking about links, let me link to a column about something that's happening in this very thread:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait21-2008may21,0,2243133.story

I understand what they're saying, but couldn't the same be said about older black people, as well?

What I find most interesting is that GF says that him telling Clinton that pretending to be a hunting buff is silly, but GF saying that Obama is only succeeding because he's black, the exact same thing she said to another black candidate for President, the only other black candidate for President, isn't racism.

I understand people take it personally but how can you be so sensitive to one kind of equality and so insensitive to another. It's that particular view that has been so amazing to me about the position some black people or women take toward LGBT's (not to hijack the topic).

Can't we ALL just get along. And all you idiots who keep calling her a hag, and a whore, and a bitch, and fifteen other words highlighting her gender aren't helping.

And all you idiots who keep calling her a hag, and a whore, and a bitch, and fifteen other words highlighting her gender aren't helping.

At all. *nod*

And since we're talking about links, let me link to a column about something that's happening in this very thread:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait21-2008may21,0,2243133.story

Yeah, I've seen other articles on this. Some "feminist" organizations apparently feel that any woman who doesn't vote for Clinton is somehow letting women down everywhere. It's ridiculous, because they are actually calling for......sexism!

Feminism is supposed to call for equal treatment regardless of sex or gender. That doesn't include voting for someone because she is female.

Hillary isn't losing because she is female. She's losing, in my opinion, because there was a better candidate. The fact that he happens to have a penis doesn't make him a lesser candidate any more than the fact that she has a vagina does so for her.

Can't we ALL just get along. And all you idiots who keep calling her a hag, and a whore, and a bitch, and fifteen other words highlighting her gender aren't helping.

Hey! Who are you calling an...

Ah well. I guess. :p

Anyways.

It took a lot of baiting from her side here for me to start calling her a hag.

And referring to her face as a "scolex" (wiki "tapeworm").

But I don't call her one due to her being female: Were she male, I'd settle for "SOB" due to the fact that she's shameless in her approach to politics.

I got a lot of crap from her supporters, and will, thus, personally enjoy her misery when she finally lets go of her delusions of electability. I would still root for her against McCain on account of her not being him.

Mail in voting, plus, you know, not use to mattering.

It's funny looking at a county with 500 votes and they take a full day to count them.

It took a lot of baiting from her side here for me to start calling her a hag.

And referring to her face as a "scolex" (wiki "tapeworm").

But I don't call her one due to her being female: Were she male, I'd settle for "SOB" due to the fact that she's shameless in her approach to politics.

So if people are angry enough at the Obama side, why not call him a ******? I mean, after all, so what if it completely derails any rational discussion and offends a lot of people who aren't Obama. I'm sure you'd have no problem with Republicans calling him an uppitty ******, yeah?

So if people are angry enough at the Obama side, why not call him a ******? I mean, after all, so what if it completely derails any rational discussion and offends a lot of people who aren't Obama. I'm sure you'd have no problem with Republicans calling him an uppitty ******, yeah?

You do realize that "******" is ABOUT race whereas "hag" isn't ABOUT gender, right?

Furthermore, the Obama side hasn't played the race card or gone "I can insult you and be a victim, but you're full of hatred for disagreeing with me.".

As for influent Republicans, on record, calling Obama the N-word, I'd be DELIGHTED to see that, because I know it'd obliterate Lt. Senile's chances.

(On a side note: Nice, we'll argue at last! ;) )

Yeah, I've seen other articles on this. Some "feminist" organizations apparently feel that any woman who doesn't vote for Clinton is somehow letting women down everywhere. It's ridiculous, because they are actually calling for......sexism!

Feminism is supposed to call for equal treatment regardless of sex or gender. That doesn't include voting for someone because she is female.

Hillary isn't losing because she is female. She's losing, in my opinion, because there was a better candidate. The fact that he happens to have a penis doesn't make him a lesser candidate any more than the fact that she has a vagina does so for her.

Actually, I've heard some feminists say the opposite. They don't want the first woman President to be seen as having got there by being the wife of a former President. And regardless of what you think of her now, Bill Clinton is what propelled her to the national stage, not her own merits. I would never claim she doesn't stand on her own merits now, but that he got her onto the stage is undeniable.

You do realize that "******" is ABOUT race whereas "hag" isn't ABOUT gender, right?

Furthermore, the Obama side hasn't played the race card or gone "I can insult you and be a victim, but you're full of hatred for disagreeing with me.".

As for influent Republicans, on record, calling Obama the N-word, I'd be DELIGHTED to see that, because I know it'd obliterate Private Senile's chances.

(On a side note: Nice, we'll argue at last! ;) )

Hag isn't? What's the male equivelent of hag?

Both sides have pointed out that racism and sexism are an issue in this election.

I'm not talking about influent Republicans. I'm talking about people like you.

And "Private Senile's" is equally idiotic.

You have to love the absolutely BRILLIANT strategy of some supporters of a candidate that wins on the issues of making it not about issues. Yeah, there's nothing utterly idiotic about gelling the entirety of the elderly behind a candidate that is being attacked for their age. Nope. Just good strategy, that is.

Hag isn't? What's the male equivelent of hag?

Both sides have pointed out that racism and sexism are an issue in this election.

I'm not talking about influent Republicans. I'm talking about people like you.

And "Private Senile's" is equally idiotic.

You have to love the absolutely BRILLIANT strategy of some supporters of a candidate that wins on the issues of making it not about issues. Yeah, there's nothing utterly idiotic about gelling the entirety of the elderly behind a candidate that is being attacked for their age. Nope. Just good strategy, that is.

It's not about the presence of a male equivalent: I believe that when you call someone the N-word, you're effectively applying that to their entire race. "Hag", on the other hand, doesn't strike me as working that way.

Sexism may be an issue, but using a gender-specific insult against a woman that has shown herself to be deserving of them isn't sexism, IMNSHO.

Most people who would call Obama the N-word lack the knowledge of how to use a computer. Or a shower.

And true, McCain was a lieutenant. Corrected. :p

Good thing I don't have much media access then. Then again I'd mind the strategy a bit more, if I did. As it is, however, I have little need to mince words. Michael Savage essentially called all Democrats perverts and pedophiles once, and he got no backlash. So yeah. But I'm conceding that last point on account of it being a good one and making me giggle. ;)

It's not about the presence of a male equivalent: I believe that when you call someone the N-word, you're effectively applying that to their entire race.

Why? Because you said so? It's actually commonly held that it doesn't apply to "all" black people but just the "wrong kind" of black people.


"Hag", on the other hand, doesn't strike me as working that way.

Well, if it doesn't strike you that your use of terms that have been typically used to attack women who were seen as too "manly". You're a whore if you're in charge of your sexuality. If you're older and don't cringe at the will of man, you're a hag. (Older and female, a twofer). A a bitch is again any woman who dares enter the domain of man. Is this always true? It doesn't have to be. They're loaded terms, and let's not pretend you didn't choose them for that exact reason. Why not call her a **** and fill out the whole stable of useless, hateful embarrassments for an argument?


Sexism may be an issue, but using a gender-specific insult against a woman that has shown herself to be deserving of them isn't sexism, IMNSHO.

According to you, it was her followers who made her "deserving". And, not so coincidentally, your insults tend to remain gender specific. How fun. Not like that could have an counter productive effects.

"Racism may be an issue, but using a race-specific insult against a ni.... I mean, against a black man who doesn't know his place... I mean, that has shown herself to be deserving of them isn't racism, IMNSHO."


Most people who would call Obama the N-word lack the knowledge of how to use a computer. Or a shower.

Well, hey, that's argument. Except it isn't. It's a fallacy. A pretty obvious one.


And true, McCain was a lieutenant. Corrected. :p

Good thing I don't have much media access then. Then again I'd mind the strategy a bit more, if I did. As it is, however, I have little need to mince words. Michael Savage essentially called all Democrats perverts and pedophiles once, and he got no backlash. So yeah.

Well, hey, we should always sink to the tactics of the lowest common denominator. It's not like there is any advantage to expecting, or even just hoping, for something better.

A guy in a bar once called my a honkey. Time for some payback. Clearly, all of them negros deserve it.

Snip.

I fold.

You win, it was hard to defend my side to begin with.

I'll admit that this whole thing boils down to my annoyance at people that toss crap at me whenever I disagree with them: I "hated America" for being against the Iraq war, I'm hateful for supporting Obama (One of my earlier, and a perfectly polite, post in this thread was greeted by the words "to hell with you" followed by a diatribe on how offensive and hateful I was being. Incidentally, that little number 2 by my name's side is linked to that).

So yeah.

(By the way, Hillary, if you ever read this forum, see what I did in the beginning of this post? It's called "quitting", and it's something I know when to do.) :p

The exit polls showed that they admitted that race was a factor in their choice.
Because someone states in an exit poll that race was a factor, is not the same as them actually admitting that they are racists?

Go into the advanced search screen and User Name type Jocabia and wait a moment. It will come up with all of the users whose name starts with Jocabia. There are only two. The second one will make you laugh. It was created by a user named Whittier who decided, despite my serving my country for 8 years that I must not like the US since I don't agree with the current administration's handling of the Iraq War. I didn't even say the war itself was wrong, but that the diplomacy leading up to it and our actual execution of it was deplorable. So, trust me, I'm aware of the lengths to which people will go. That guy basically sacrificed his nation for that little joke.

People do irrational things. That's not an excuse for us losing our heads and making things worse. Does that mean you can't poke once in a while? I don't think so. But it does mean we should consider whether our "poking" is counter-productive. Gelling people who would otherwise not support a candidate behind the candidate we're trying to defeat IS counter-productive.

Because someone states in an exit poll that race was a factor, is not the same as them actually admitting that they are racists?

Given that they're using someone's melanin amount per skin centimeter to decide on their policy, yes, that's the DEFINITION of racist.

Because someone states in an exit poll that race was a factor, is not the same as them actually admitting that they are racists?

I prefer having a white waitress. Does that not make me racist?

What happened to the word racist that choosing the highest position in the land based on race isn't considered racist? Seriously. Stop stating and defend your claim. Debate. Why ISN'T chosing candidates based on race racist? Define racist in a way that doesn't include that behavior.

Racism - racial prejudice or discrimination

Go into the advanced search screen and User Name type Jocabia and wait a moment. It will come up with all of the users whose name starts with Jocabia. There are only two. The second one will make you laugh. It was created by a user named Whittier who decided, despite my serving my country for 8 years that I must not like the US since I don't agree with the current administration's handling of the Iraq War. I didn't even say the war itself was wrong, but that the diplomacy leading up to it and our actual execution of it was deplorable. So, trust me, I'm aware of the lengths to which people will go. That guy basically sacrificed his nation for that little joke.

People do irrational things. That's not an excuse for us losing our heads and making things worse. Does that mean you can't poke once in a while? I don't think so. But it does mean we should consider whether our "poking" is counter-productive. Gelling people who would otherwise not support a candidate behind the candidate we're trying to defeat IS counter-productive.

Look up "Heikokuischildrapist".

Yep. Whittier as well. He put in NSwiki my entry as "A nation ran by a child molester" and so on.

And yeah, I get your point. I guess I'm just a little easier to infuriate than you are. :p

On a side note: Please don't make the mistake of assuming I'll be so easy to beat next time we argue. ;)

Because someone states in an exit poll that race was a factor, is not the same as them actually admitting that they are racists?

"I'm not racist, I just think black people make worse leaders!"

"I'm not racist, I just think black people make worse leaders!"

But better dancers? ;)

But better dancers? ;)

Which of course makes up for everything...

Define racist in a way that doesn't include that behavior.

"Well, they didn't LYNCH him..."

Because someone states that "race of the candidate mattered" in the exit polls, does that automatically make them "racist"?

I would say so. If you think somebody is more or less fit to be president based on their race, then you are a racist, no?

Just to point out, we had this same exchange already, but CH simply ignored the previous responses to a question/assertion and simply reasked/reasserted it later on when he thought that nobody'd remember.


Seems to be a recurring theme in this debate, doesn't it?

Just to point out, we had this same exchange already, but CH simply ignored the previous responses to a question/assertion and simply reasked/reasserted it later on when he thought that nobody'd remember.


Seems to be a recurring theme in this debate, doesn't it?

Shh! Don't point it out! You're almost being a hateful misogynist! :p

"Well, they didn't LYNCH him..."
Though they've still got the mob together waiting to see if his wife doesn't love America enough.

Though they've still got the mob together waiting to see if his wife doesn't love America enough.

Nice move!

You know what's strangely absent? A super delegate avalanche after reaching the pledged delegate majority. I thought for sure that would be the epilogue to that. Did they all pull the trigger last week or what?

Everyone's afraid of the stink Hillary is going to raise. She SAYS she is on the side of party unification but her words and actions seem to say otherwise.

Just to point out, we had this same exchange already, but CH simply ignored the previous responses to a question/assertion and simply reasked/reasserted it later on when he thought that nobody'd remember.


Seems to be a recurring theme in this debate, doesn't it?

Precisely. He's entirely stopped debating. Occasionally popping in to make a claim or post some poll with no commentary whatsoever is not debate. He refuses to defend any assertions. He refuses to address our claims. He refuses to answer questions. But he never misses a chance to attack Corny or me.

In fact, this post doesn't comment on the topic at all, and it's about 10 times more likely to get a response than the post where I actually ask him to defend his claim that choosing your candidate based on race isn't racism.

Everyone's afraid of the stink Hillary is going to raise. She SAYS she is on the side of party unification but her words and actions seem to say otherwise.

She's accomplished her goal. She's made it appear that the nomination is being decided by a bunch of powerful men over the will of the people. What I would love to see is the women supers demonstrate that they care about more than what sex the candidate is. They can do so freely and having the final decision made by women would totally undermine her argument. It's sad that such a thing is necessary.

As I showed in the exit polls all available evidence suggests of the people deciding based on sex OR race, they favor her. She seems to be at the benefit of both sexism and racism. And you can say what you like about those two things, but in the end, it only matters who people vote for and she is getting the bulk of the votes from both groups.

I'm bored so I will defend his claim for devils advocacy purposes.

If someone claims they voted a certain way because of the race of one of the candidates, they may not have anything against the race of the person they voted against but instead feel that the country as a whole is too racist to vote for that candidate and therefore if he/she becomes the nominee it could hand the election to the other party as a result.

So, one could see how that would make race a factor while not making the voter racist. que no?

I'm bored so I will defend his claim for devils advocacy purposes.

If someone claims they voted a certain way because of the race of one of the candidates, they may not have anything against the race of the person they voted against but instead feel that the country as a whole is too racist to vote for that candidate and therefore if he/she becomes the nominee it could hand the election to the other party as a result.

So, one could see how that would make race a factor while not making the voter racist. que no?

Put it simply, yes in NY, no in WV.

Put it simply, yes in NY, no in WV.

I wouldn't paint everyone with such a broad brush JUST because of their state of residence but I agree with the implication that there are more racists in WV than NY. Still, my assertion can still hold true, even in states where we would expect to find more racists.

I wouldn't paint everyone with such a broad brush JUST because of their state of residence but I agree with the implication that there are more racists in WV than NY. Still, my assertion can still hold true, even in states where we would expect to find more racists.

*Adds "mostly" to his assertions*

And true. :p

I'm bored so I will defend his claim for devils advocacy purposes.

If someone claims they voted a certain way because of the race of one of the candidates, they may not have anything against the race of the person they voted against but instead feel that the country as a whole is too racist to vote for that candidate and therefore if he/she becomes the nominee it could hand the election to the other party as a result.

So, one could see how that would make race a factor while not making the voter racist. que no?

Possibly. But then they'd be pandering to racism, which is only nominally better and perpetuates the problems of racism.

Possibly. But then they'd be pandering to racism, which is only nominally better and perpetuates the problems of racism.

I won't fight you on that.










Unless it's oil wrestling.

Possibly. But then they'd be pandering to racism, which is only nominally better and perpetuates the problems of racism.

Making excuses for 'other' peoples racism/sexism-"Oh, some faceless dude I don't know won't vote for him/her because he's black/she's a chick, so I'll just not vote for them so they don't have to...I'm not being racist or sexist, I'm preventing it!" It's a goof logic.

She's accomplished her goal. She's made it appear that the nomination is being decided by a bunch of powerful men over the will of the people. What I would love to see is the women supers demonstrate that they care about more than what sex the candidate is. They can do so freely and having the final decision made by women would totally undermine her argument. It's sad that such a thing is necessary.

As I showed in the exit polls all available evidence suggests of the people deciding based on sex OR race, they favor her. She seems to be at the benefit of both sexism and racism. And you can say what you like about those two things, but in the end, it only matters who people vote for and she is getting the bulk of the votes from both groups.


OH god I hope the super delegates get on the ball already.

Making excuses for 'other' peoples racism/sexism-"Oh, some faceless dude I don't know won't vote for him/her because he's black/she's a chick, so I'll just not vote for them so they don't have to...I'm not being racist or sexist, I'm preventing it!" It's a goof logic.

True, but it's still possible that they are idiots with crappy theories rather than racists.

I'm bored so I will defend his claim for devils advocacy purposes.

If someone claims they voted a certain way because of the race of one of the candidates, they may not have anything against the race of the person they voted against but instead feel that the country as a whole is too racist to vote for that candidate and therefore if he/she becomes the nominee it could hand the election to the other party as a result.

So, one could see how that would make race a factor while not making the voter racist. que no?

Let's pretend this is all or even most of them, which I don't accept. How do you explain that sexists FAVOR Clinton.

Let's pretend this is all or even most of them, which I don't accept. How do you explain that sexists FAVOR Clinton.

Even if it's true for one person, it's true. I would guess that the majority were actually racist personally.


Perhaps the majority of people saying they were sexist were women?

Even if it's true for one person, it's true. I would guess that the majority were actually racist personally.


Perhaps the majority of people saying they were sexist were women?

Which would make Clinton the beneficiary of both racism and sexism, contrary to her claim, even in your scenario. It also makes her pulling the majority of sexists, contrary to her claim. It means both racism and sexism are HURTING Obama, contrary to her claim.

At best you could possibly discount some of the racists. And if you do, then she's thoroughly benefitting from the idiot vote.

Which would make Clinton the beneficiary of both racism and sexism, contrary to her claim, even in your scenario. It also makes her pulling the majority of sexists, contrary to her claim. It means both racism and sexism are HURTING Obama, contrary to her claim.

At best you could possibly discount some of the racists. And if you do, then she's thoroughly benefitting from the idiot vote.

Doubt there was ever much dispute of that.

Off Topic: The deadline for this "round" in After Dark is midnight, in case you forgot.

Take a look at these new polls results:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2034087120080521?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Obama led McCain among independents, 47 percent to 35 percent, and led among some groups of voters who have backed Clinton during their Democratic primary battle, including Catholics, Jews, union households and voters making less than $35,000 a year.
If similar poll results continue to be found, it may be that Clinton's central argument for winning the nomination (and my primary defense of her) -- that she performs beter among key demographics that exist bountifully in swing states and can be counted on to vote -- may be hollow.

Also positive:
But Zogby said the attacks on Obama by Bush and McCain, who have been critical of his willingness to talk to leaders of countries like Iran, did not appear to hurt Obama. If anything, he said, it reminded voters of McCain's ties to Bush, whose approval rating is still mired at record lows.

Which would make Clinton the beneficiary of both racism and sexism, contrary to her claim, even in your scenario. It also makes her pulling the majority of sexists, contrary to her claim. It means both racism and sexism are HURTING Obama, contrary to her claim.

At best you could possibly discount some of the racists. And if you do, then she's thoroughly benefitting from the idiot vote.

Haha!


Hey I was only trying to make the claim that it is possible to declare that race mattered and not be racist. This devils advocacy stuff is hard.


Take a look at these new polls results:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2034087120080521?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true


If similar poll results continue to be found, it may be that Clinton's central argument for winning the nomination (and my primary defense of her) -- that she performs beter among key demographics that exist bountifully in swing states and can be counted on to vote -- may be hollow.

Also positive:

Oh I like the sound of this. How closely do you think the super delegates are paying attention to polls?

Haha!


Hey I was only trying to make the claim that it is possible to declare that race mattered and not be racist. This devils advocacy stuff is hard.
I agree with you there.

Oh I like the sound of this. How closely do you think the super delegates are paying attention to polls?

Probably not much at all -- I think that most have already made up their minds, and are waiting until the end of the primary season to declare. The only reason that this article stood out for me was because of its impact upon Clinton's claims about Obama's liability among the blue collar households. According to this poll, in a match-up with McCain, Obama has the upperhand in those demographics.

And if you do, then she's thoroughly benefitting from the idiot vote.

She SAID as much: "Blue-collar" is her code-word for that.

Snip.

Ah, so Bush's existence isn't entirely useless: He exists to damage the accursed Republican Party, and he's finally fulfilling his purpose in that sorry, unholy existence he calls a life.

The bell is tolling. Everyone is starting to here it and it has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's sex. She WAS a good candidate. She made some mistakes that were unrecoverable and then compounded them to point where, frankly, I can't imagine a ticket she would win on.

Some is not her fault. It's true that some people initially started hating her irrationally. Lots of people. A lot of her negatives were driven by her being a strong woman. But so were some of her positives driven by the same thing.

What's disappointing is that her biggest positive was that she was rational, strong and had the force of logic and intelligent thought behind her. Comparing her votes to Obama's they almost always lined up. She was also professorial. She was known for addressing arguments directly and clearly with the weight of the evidence behind her. TCT convinced me of that, much to my chagrin. The more I found out the more I liked her. I realized I'd been listening to pundits for some stupid reason and that my own research revealed her to be a very likeable candidate.

Then she started lying. I'm not talking about silly things like sniper fire. I'm talking about the popular vote count. FL and MI. The tax holiday. She's a brilliant woman. She knows none of these things are what she is now saying they are. People were looking for a likeable candidate. And she gave them a glimpse of that in New Hampshire when she finally went off-script.

And, NO, not because she cried, but just because she finally sounded like she was talking to us instead of reading something prepared for her. She found what worked and then decided to entirely go a different way. This is what saddens me. Someone finally showed me the candidate she should have been. That candidate would have beaten Obama. Or even joined Obama. Instead she took this approach that sincerely seemed like she would trample anyone and any ideal in order to get to where she wanted to be. She justified every silly notion that everyone had of her.

She became the liar, the manipulater, the person lusting for power. She appeared underhanded and illogical. She tore at the littlest thread with Obama. In a race where both cases were raising the country's conscience, where they BOTH were energizing new and old voters, a recordsetting year, a year that should have showed us how high politicians can rise, they instead chose to tear each other down and, in turn, make many of their energized voters bitter (yeah, I used that word). What a shame.

You know why I'll never be a successful politician? The above is totally anti-climactic. Dammit.

You know what's strangely absent? A super delegate avalanche after reaching the pledged delegate majority. I thought for sure that would be the epilogue to that. Did they all pull the trigger last week or what?

i guess some people are holding off until they figure out what the deal is with michigan and florida. of course, obama already has the majority even there unless clinton gets exactly what she wants, and obama doesn't get to keep even the 'uncommitted' delegates that have openly declared in favor of him.

also, some of the undeclared supers don't actually exist yet either, though i think that is a fairly low number at this point.

I love it when people just talk to the issue directly and put the stake to it.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05212008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/barack__the_furies_111822.htm?page=1

No, no, we've decided that Florida gets to pick the president this year, or Ohio, or where ever Clinton can eek out a lead because +1 campaigning has been such a bang up success for the Democrats in the last two elections.
My buddy is of the opinion that Florida and Ohio should never be allowed to participate in Presidential elections, ever again.

My buddy is of the opinion that Florida and Ohio should never be allowed to participate in Presidential elections, ever again.

Why Ohio?

And, Mr. Obama, here is what you say, "It really is a shame that the leadership of your states created this situation. They wasted your money. Creating an election result that will be unfair to ignore and unfair to count, due to one ignoring the will of those who voted, and the other ignoring the will of those who would have voted at all or voted differently had they known it would count. This left you in a position where you'd either have to spend more money to repeat the process or disenfranchise parts of your state. It's not fair what happened to you. What I propose to the honorable Mrs. Clinton is that we sit down with the leadership of the party, the leadership of their states and we draft results that reflect the current will of the people. It's clear they know us now and our position. It's clear they've had the benefit of seeing us campaign. It's clear the populations of those states and both Mrs. Clinton and myself wish the situation had been different. So let's do our best to reflect their will as we believe it would be if we had time to hold a valid election."

Game. Set. Match. That leaves Clinton either claiming she doesn't want to reflect the will of the people (we already know she doesn't because the MI leadership suggested they apportion the delegates according to how people said they would have voted if they'd both been on the ballot and she rejected that plan) or she has to allow the states to determine how their delegates are divided up. She doesn't want to do this because in doing so, Obama would still get enough to reach 2209.

Shoot, I made 20K posts and totally didn't notice. DANGIT. Now I have to wait till 30K.

Shoot, I made 20K posts and totally didn't notice. DANGIT. Now I have to wait till 30K.
You could use 25K

You could use 25K

Yay. Now, dammit, someone remind a fella next time.

I am happy to report now that when you count the popular votes of IA, NV, ME, WA, MI, and FL (caucus and disqualified states respectively) that Hillary Clinton now leads Barack Obama in the Popular Vote by approximately 63,373. We say approximately because these are estimates from those states that did not release vote totals along with caucus results.

Clinton is poised. She has a real opportunity to win the popular vote now, and I feel that if she does so, then she should be the nominee regardless of whether Obama has more pledged delegates or not.

I am happy to report now that when you count the popular votes of IA, NV, ME, WA, MI, and FL (caucus and disqualified states respectively) that Hillary Clinton now leads Barack Obama in the Popular Vote by approximately 63,373. We say approximately because these are estimates from those states that did not release vote totals along with caucus results.

Clinton is poised. She has a real opportunity to win the popular vote now, and I feel that if she does so, then she should be the nominee regardless of whether Obama has more pledged delegates or not.

And yet, if you give even half of the 'uncommitted votes' from Michigan, that lead goes away again...

It's a bit of a shell game to play. It's like saying in the fourth quarter that we're not scoring touchdowns, we're scoring yards ran.

Here's the dirty secret of making that count-the delegate math would be vastly different, too. You simply cannot, after the fact, legitimize an illigitimate election. There was a time to do this, and it was September of last year-but did she do it? No, in fact she supported it, saying the party had to protect the four states status as early voters. Did her campaign managers? No, her manager at the time said the same thing, and Ickes, her current one, actually voted to remove their delegates. So to strap on the noble chest and pretend this is about the voters is hollow. It's not. It's about a front runner who should have run away with this election who got out campaigned and is now desperate-and apparently hopes we're stupid.

And yet, if you give even half of the 'uncommitted votes' from Michigan, that lead goes away again...

It's a bit of a shell game to play. It's like saying in the fourth quarter that we're not scoring touchdowns, we're scoring yards ran.

Here's the dirty secret of making that count-the delegate math would be vastly different, too. You simply cannot, after the fact, legitimize an illigitimate election. There was a time to do this, and it was September of last year-but did she do it? No, in fact she supported it, saying the party had to protect the four states status as early voters. Did her campaign managers? No, her manager at the time said the same thing, and Ickes, her current one, actually voted to remove their delegates. So to strap on the noble chest and pretend this is about the voters is hollow. It's not. It's about a front runner who should have run away with this election who got out campaigned and is now desperate-and apparently hopes we're stupid.

Indeed. This is JASCM (just another sleazy clinton moment).

And yet, if you give even half of the 'uncommitted votes' from Michigan, that lead goes away again...

It's a bit of a shell game to play. It's like saying in the fourth quarter that we're not scoring touchdowns, we're scoring yards ran.

Here's the dirty secret of making that count-the delegate math would be vastly different, too. You simply cannot, after the fact, legitimize an illigitimate election. There was a time to do this, and it was September of last year-but did she do it? No, in fact she supported it, saying the party had to protect the four states status as early voters. Did her campaign managers? No, her manager at the time said the same thing, and Ickes, her current one, actually voted to remove their delegates. So to strap on the noble chest and pretend this is about the voters is hollow. It's not. It's about a front runner who should have run away with this election who got out campaigned and is now desperate-and apparently hopes we're stupid.

Regardless of her intentions, there is a greater question to be answered here. If she does indeed manage to overcome him in the popular vote, and he has more delegates, then what should the reaction be? Nancy Pelosi came out today and said, "it doesn't matter...the one who has the most delegates wins".

Says who?

The rules of the contest don't say anything like that. They just say, "You must reach a certain number of delegates to win". Obama cannot reach that number without superdelegates and neither can Clinton. That leaves you with only two rationales for choosing a candidate. Either you choose based on who the best candidate will be in the fall, or you choose based on popular vote, because theoretically the people are deciding. And right now, the people are deciding to keep Clinton in the race.

I have said before and I will say again too, that Clinton seems to have an edge in big swing states. The Obamites are claiming that they'll run a nontraditional campaign and CREATE new swing states. I don't buy it. All I see is that Clinton can hold most of the states (if not all) that John Kerry won, and that she has excellent shots in Ohio AND Florida, where he lost. You hold onto the Kerry coalition and take EITHER one of those from McCain and you are on the way to victory. The Obama plan requires a little more luck and a little more unpredictability. CNN hashed over it this morning on TV. If you are Barack Obama and you lose in Ohio and you lose in Florida, the stars have to align in a very precise way in order for you to win. It COULD happen. But if you are Obama, you have to throw the dice in a situation where Clinton might not have to. And the funny thing about dice is that sometimes they turn against you.

And yet, if you give even half of the 'uncommitted votes' from Michigan, that lead goes away again...
Bingo. Clinton has an unfair advantage in any popular vote count that includes Michigan, because while she receives votes from the state, Obama receives none, because his name wasn't on the ballot. Clinton's attempts at claiming popular vote victory are as disingenuous as they are desperate.

Bingo. Clinton has an unfair advantage in any popular vote count that includes Michigan, because while she receives votes from the state, Obama receives none, because his name wasn't on the ballot. Clinton's attempts at claiming popular vote victory are as disingenuous as they are desperate.

Yet to completely discount her votes from Michigan is also unfair, to both her and those who voted for her. Barack Obama in part helped to create this mess when he urged his supporters in Michigan to vote "Uncommitted" along with several other Democrats. We therefore can only conjecture on how many votes he would get.

Yet to completely discount her votes from Michigan is also unfair, to both her and those who voted for her. Barack Obama in part helped to create this mess when he urged his supporters in Michigan to vote "Uncommitted" along with several other Democrats. We therefore can only conjecture on how many votes he would get.

And logically, it surely follows that he deserves SOME of those votes. Not none. As you yourself just said, his supporters voted "Uncommitted". So how does one justify giving him NO votes, thereby disenfranchising those who voted for him?

EDIT: This is an all or nothing scenario. Either we don't count the Michigan votes, or we count ALL of them, even the ones for Obama. I'm sure a way could be found to allocate him a roughly representative number of the uncommitted votes.

Of course, that completely discounts those who didn't vote because they knew he wasn't on the ballot, but for the sake of party unity, I think Obama could let that one slide.

I am happy to report now that when you count the popular votes of IA, NV, ME, WA, MI, and FL (caucus and disqualified states respectively) that Hillary Clinton now leads Barack Obama in the Popular Vote by approximately 63,373. We say approximately because these are estimates from those states that did not release vote totals along with caucus results.

Clinton is poised. She has a real opportunity to win the popular vote now, and I feel that if she does so, then she should be the nominee regardless of whether Obama has more pledged delegates or not.

Only if by "enfranchising" the people in MI, you actually intend to prevent them from being able to vote for Obama.

She's not leading the popular vote unless you believe no one intended to vote for Obama in MI. This is, of course, ludicrous.

She can't claim to support voter enfranchisement when she was in favor of having PLEDGED DELEGATES vote against the will of the people.

She can't claim to support voter enfranchisement when she wants everyone that favored Obama in Michigan to be disenfranchised.

She can't claim to support voter enfranchisement when she was in favor of doing that and only now that the math is inconvenient to her she backtracks.

She can't claim to support voter enfranchisement when she wants superdelegates to ignore the will of the people.

She CAN claim she wants to win. That much has been shown: She wants to win so badly she's perfectly willing to tear the Democratic Party apart and get NOMINATED, not ELECTED, President, all due to her ego.

She can't even claim to want to win fair and square. She wants caucus states to be ignored, she wants Obama Michigan votes to be ignored, she wants, essentially, any vote that isn't for her to be ignored.

And she and her supporters try to play the "sexism victim", the "why are you being so hateful to me", the "waaaaahhh" card whenever they're called on it.

She does NOT have a popular vote advantage, because most uncommitted votes in Michigan were for Obama. She'll pretend, she'll try to cheat, to wheedle, to interfere, as much as the Clintons are bound to do, but she does NOT have that advantage, because votes for Obama in Michigan, the uncommitted ones, COUNT TOO.

And the Democratic Party will realize this.

Clinton got dragged kicking and screaming into an actual race without cheating. That she wants to cheat in Michigan now is not new.

Nor will it work. Obama will be the nominee.

So go ahead, clintonistas, call me hateful, cry all you like. And, really, if you're offended by how hateful my post is (because somehow, my measured posts are hateful, but much worse things coming from you aren't), I will direct you to Rhett Butler's last words. It won't change the facts.

Hillary will lose. And the Democrats will win in November, IN SPITE OF her, not BECAUSE of her.

She's not leading the popular vote unless you believe no one intended to vote for Obama in MI. This is, of course, ludicrous.

Either he does believe that and is under a VERY misguided impression, to play it safe, or he doesn't and wants Obama to have the nomination stolen from him at any cost.

Regardless of her intentions, there is a greater question to be answered here. If she does indeed manage to overcome him in the popular vote, and he has more delegates, then what should the reaction be? Nancy Pelosi came out today and said, "it doesn't matter...the one who has the most delegates wins".

Says who?
The rules that they all agreed to when they started this contest. You even say that-

The rules of the contest don't say anything like that. They just say, "You must reach a certain number of delegates to win".
That is pretty much the same thing. Super delegates exist to keep the party from being hijacked by activists that don't represent the party. Can you seriously make the case that Obama is such a candidate? Can you really? Outside of that, there is hardly an argument for overturning the primary results.

Obama cannot reach that number without superdelegates and neither can Clinton. That leaves you with only two rationales for choosing a candidate. Either you choose based on who the best candidate will be in the fall, or you choose based on popular vote, because theoretically the people are deciding. And right now, the people are deciding to keep Clinton in the race.
By any realistic metric, more are saying they want Obama to be the nominee. Even you admit that Obama supporters voted "undecided". How can you realistically make that claim?


I have said before and I will say again too, that Clinton seems to have an edge in big swing states. The Obamites are claiming that they'll run a nontraditional campaign and CREATE new swing states. I don't buy it. All I see is that Clinton can hold most of the states (if not all) that John Kerry won, and that she has excellent shots in Ohio AND Florida, where he lost. You hold onto the Kerry coalition and take EITHER one of those from McCain and you are on the way to victory. The Obama plan requires a little more luck and a little more unpredictability. CNN hashed over it this morning on TV. If you are Barack Obama and you lose in Ohio and you lose in Florida, the stars have to align in a very precise way in order for you to win. It COULD happen. But if you are Obama, you have to throw the dice in a situation where Clinton might not have to. And the funny thing about dice is that sometimes they turn against you.

The +1 game has lost the democrats two elections, but hey-it will work this time for sure! That chart you and CH keep putting up like it's late October hides something behind the who gets the minor splits-how many states become intractable. Just toggle back and forth (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May21.html)-"Strong" Dem states with Obama, 142 EC votes, 120 for Clinton. Strong Rep states with Obama, 102 EC votes, 145 with Clinton. Barely GOP with Clinton 47, 110 with Obama. That's an open map for Obama vs. the same map that has lost the Democrats election after election. In a series of special elections it's been demonstrated that inroads can and have been made if the party doesn't shackle itself to the +1/'here be dragons' type of closed map strategy.

Now, take into account a candidate that has consistently shown an ability to close polls with campaigning vs. a candidate who squandered a 20 point lead with massive name recognition and party goodwill and the electability argument seem patently ridiculous.

Snip.

Great points.

Now, gentlemen, place your bets on the response from the Clinton side:

Silence is at 2 to 1.

Repeating their statements with nothing to back it up is at 3 to 1.

Going "why are you so hateful, you sexist pig?" is at 4 to 1.

Pic-spam, 5 to 1.

Actual, meaningful discussion of the topic at hand... Uhm. How do you calculate an odd with no precedent for it?

Regardless of her intentions, there is a greater question to be answered here. If she does indeed manage to overcome him in the popular vote, and he has more delegates, then what should the reaction be? Nancy Pelosi came out today and said, "it doesn't matter...the one who has the most delegates wins".

Says who?

The rules of the contest don't say anything like that.

Actually, they do. She didn't say the most "pledge" delegates. And, yes, the one with the most delegates wins. And at the end of the day, you and I both know who that is.

They just say, "You must reach a certain number of delegates to win".

And that number is one more than half. That's called a majority.

One of the two of them will have that number by the nature of the game. However, it will take Supers to do it. And they are making their choice. The same choices that the other delegates made. At about 4 to 1. And much, much worse odds since WV. See, the supers tend to be the same people who decided the rules. When one candidate signs those rules and actively supports them until she starts losing by them, that doesn't tend to sit well with the "judges".


Obama cannot reach that number without superdelegates and neither can Clinton. That leaves you with only two rationales for choosing a candidate. Either you choose based on who the best candidate will be in the fall, or you choose based on popular vote, because theoretically the people are deciding. And right now, the people are deciding to keep Clinton in the race.

Or, you choose based on the legitimate contests and not by discounting ALL of the supporters of one of the candidates in one state while including the supporters of the other candidate from that state. Seriously, Clinton and her supporters have been mangling the idea of franchisement since the beginning of this. Franchisement doesn't mean "your vote doesn't count, but if you stay home, we're going to count the people who ignored us and voted anyway." Disenfranchisement includes changing the rules in the middle of the game.

See, there are TONS of rationales for choosing a candidate. The one whose policies and approach you support most is often one. And it's available to both voters and supers.


I have said before and I will say again too, that Clinton seems to have an edge in big swing states. The Obamites are claiming that they'll run a nontraditional campaign and CREATE new swing states. I don't buy it. All I see is that Clinton can hold most of the states (if not all) that John Kerry won, and that she has excellent shots in Ohio AND Florida, where he lost. You hold onto the Kerry coalition and take EITHER one of those from McCain and you are on the way to victory. The Obama plan requires a little more luck and a little more unpredictability. CNN hashed over it this morning on TV. If you are Barack Obama and you lose in Ohio and you lose in Florida, the stars have to align in a very precise way in order for you to win. It COULD happen. But if you are Obama, you have to throw the dice in a situation where Clinton might not have to. And the funny thing about dice is that sometimes they turn against you.

Except she doesn't. Obama brings CO, NM, VA into play. Clinton does worse than Obama in MI (which is odd since she is claiming that NO ONE planned to vote for him in that state, so much for the will of the voters). Clinton does worse than Obama in WI. Both win PA. It's a wash for Obama in OH. With Barr on the ticket, it's likely both of them will win ALL of those states and win the election.

I still find it astonishing that people could claim the candidate who couldn't handle a primary campaign properly is better suited for the general. Here's the thing. What happens if she loses according to the stated rules in the general? Will she whine till they change the rules there, too? Isn't 8 years of a President who makes the rules up as they go along enough?

Great points.

Now, gentlemen, place your bets on the response from the Clinton side <snip>

Heikoku 2, flamebait is B-A-D, got it?

I'm bored so I will defend his claim for devils advocacy purposes.

If someone claims they voted a certain way because of the race of one of the candidates, they may not have anything against the race of the person they voted against but instead feel that the country as a whole is too racist to vote for that candidate and therefore if he/she becomes the nominee it could hand the election to the other party as a result.

So, one could see how that would make race a factor while not making the voter racist. que no?
BINGO!! My exact sentiments indeed. Thanks for playing advocate. :)

BINGO!! My exact sentiments indeed. Thanks for playing advocate. :)

Are you ever going to reply to a poster or are you just going to pop in once in a while to stir shit? Though this time I note all you managed to say was "I agree". :rolleyes:

BINGO!! My exact sentiments indeed. Thanks for playing advocate. :)

You do realize even his Sam's theory is based on several premises and interpretations even she herself doesn't see as true? She said "devil's advocate" (not simply "advocate") for a reason, you know. And heck, she herself pointed out that the argument that can be made is foggy at best. But feel free to agree with the very unsupported position she didn't actually take.

Small side note: Obama's beating McCain in Ohio, Pennsylvania and tied with him in Florida (with Hillary still trying to hurt him there), and putting several other states in play, with much more money than McCain has.

What say you to that?

Heikoku 2, flamebait is B-A-D, got it?

*Takes a moment to spell it* :p

Oh. Okay.

Sorry, I'll stop.

I do have a question though, which I will PM you.

oregon still has a few precincts outstanding from a couple big counties, but unless they are huge for one candidate things should stay about where they are now. that being the case, it's time to update the big board again.

(i'm working my way through the list again now that more of the numbers have been certified. i'm also tossing out unviable votes and recalculating the way apportionment for statewide delegates is done, so there have been a few retroactive changes already)

Contests Obama has won with 60% or more of the vote:
Alaska (75%)
DC (75%)*
Dems Abroad (65%)*
Colorado (67%)
Georgia (67%)*
Hawaii (76%)
Idaho (79%)
Illinois (65%)*
Kansas (74%)
Maryland (60%)*
Minnesota (67%)
Mississippi (61%)*
Nebraska (68%)
North Dakota (61%)
Virginia (64%)*
Washington (68%)
Wyoming (61%)
Vermont (61%)*
The Virgin Islands (90%)*

And we should probably spot him Maine (59.52%) too, and maybe Oregon (58.85%)* while we're at it. Wisconsin* also falls just short of making the list at 58.75%.

Contests Clinton won with 60% or more of the vote:
Arkansas (70%)*
Kentucky (65%)*
West Virginia (67%)*

Her next highest is New York* at 58.98%, then Rhode Island (58.81%)*, and then Massachusetts* at 57.55%

* primary rather than caucus contest

You do realize even his Sam's theory is based on several premises and interpretations even she herself doesn't see as true? She said "devil's advocate" (not simply "advocate") for a reason, you know. And heck, she herself pointed out that the argument that can be made is foggy at best. But feel free to agree with the very unsupported position she didn't actually take.
1. Sumamba Buwhan = a guy

2. I think your "interpretation" of Sumamba Buwhan's comments are totally skewed. Where did you get "foggy at best"? Where do you get whether Sumamba Buwhan "doesn't see" the premise as "true"?

3. But go ahead and "feel free" to call people "racists" because they stated on an exit poll that race "mattered".

She can't claim to support voter enfranchisement when she was in favor of having PLEDGED DELEGATES vote against the will of the people.

She can't claim to support voter enfranchisement when she wants everyone that favored Obama in Michigan to be disenfranchised.

She can't claim to support voter enfranchisement when she was in favor of doing that and only now that the math is inconvenient to her she backtracks.

She can't claim to support voter enfranchisement when she wants superdelegates to ignore the will of the people.

She CAN claim she wants to win. That much has been shown: She wants to win so badly she's perfectly willing to tear the Democratic Party apart and get NOMINATED, not ELECTED, President, all due to her ego.

She can't even claim to want to win fair and square. She wants caucus states to be ignored, she wants Obama Michigan votes to be ignored, she wants, essentially, any vote that isn't for her to be ignored.

And she and her supporters try to play the "sexism victim", the "why are you being so hateful to me", the "waaaaahhh" card whenever they're called on it.

She does NOT have a popular vote advantage, because most uncommitted votes in Michigan were for Obama. She'll pretend, she'll try to cheat, to wheedle, to interfere, as much as the Clintons are bound to do, but she does NOT have that advantage, because votes for Obama in Michigan, the uncommitted ones, COUNT TOO.

And the Democratic Party will realize this.

Clinton got dragged kicking and screaming into an actual race without cheating. That she wants to cheat in Michigan now is not new.

Nor will it work. Obama will be the nominee.

So go ahead, clintonistas, call me hateful, cry all you like. And, really, if you're offended by how hateful my post is (because somehow, my measured posts are hateful, but much worse things coming from you aren't), I will direct you to Rhett Butler's last words. It won't change the facts.

Hillary will lose. And the Democrats will win in November, IN SPITE OF her, not BECAUSE of her.

It is highly ironic that you should make that argument when, just the other day, Sen. Robert Byrd (a superdelegate) declared his support for Barack Obama despite the fact that Clinton crushed Obama in his home state of West Virginia overwhelmingly. Other delegates such as John Kerry and Edward Kennedy have also endorsed Obama despite the fact that Clinton won their states as well. So what you're really saying is, "Damn Hillary for fishing for crossover votes! Only WE should be allowed to do that!".

Or pehaps we should talk about the Nevada caucus, where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but Barack Obama got more delegates.

Or perhaps we should talk about Texas, wher Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but Barack Obama got more delegates.

The real fact is that the Obama campaign and their supporters are all against the structural rules of this race...unless it benefits them to take a contrary position. They prevented a revote in Michigan and Florida that could have settled this, and now he and his supporters are opposed to any counting of delegates or votes from those two states that would in any way alter the outcome of the race. THAT is political opportunism, gentlemen. That is precisely the type of old style politics Obama claims to be working against. In addition, the fact is that the lead that I counted INCLUDED estimated vote counts from the caucus states. Even with them in, she leads by 60,000 votes.

Obama may win the nomination. But he will not win the general election. A whole bunch of Democrats such as myself are prepared to flip from blue to red in major swing states like Ohio that went decisively for Clinton. McCain will paint him as a wild-eyed, inexperienced, appeasing leftist-liberal and that message WILL resonate in this area regardless of whether it is true or not. I am telling you that even in winning, you will lose because of how you have treated Clinton's supporters.

Obama may win the nomination. But he will not win the general election. A whole bunch of Democrats such as myself are prepared to flip from blue to red in major swing states like Ohio that went decisively for Clinton. McCain will paint him as a wild-eyed, inexperienced, appeasing leftist-liberal and that message WILL resonate in this area regardless of whether it is true or not. I am telling you that even in winning, you will lose because of how you have treated Clinton's supporters.

You're an enormously bitter little person aren't you? You can rant and rave about how Obama can't win all you want to, but at the moment the polls disagree rather sharply with that assessment.

It is highly ironic that you should make that argument when, just the other day, Sen. Robert Byrd (a superdelegate) declared his support for Barack Obama despite the fact that Clinton crushed Obama in his home state of West Virginia overwhelmingly. Other delegates such as John Kerry and Edward Kennedy have also endorsed Obama despite the fact that Clinton won their states as well. So what you're really saying is, "Damn Hillary for fishing for crossover votes! Only WE should be allowed to do that!".
How exactly has Obama "been fishing for crossover votes"?

The real fact is that the Obama campaign and their supporters are all against the structural rules of this race...unless it benefits them to take a contrary position. They prevented a revote in Michigan and Florida that could have settled this, and now he and his supporters are opposed to any counting of delegates or votes from those two states that would in any way alter the outcome of the race. THAT is political opportunism, gentlemen. That is precisely the type of old style politics Obama claims to be working against. In addition, the fact is that the lead that I counted INCLUDED estimated vote counts from the caucus states. Even with them in, she leads by 60,000 votes.
You have no grip on reality do you?

Political opportunism would be Clinton supporting the party's decision to strip them of their delegates up until her underwhelming performance on Super Tuesday, and then deciding that something, anything should be done to make sure that the votes from those primaries got counted.

It is highly ironic that you should make that argument when, just the other day, Sen. Robert Byrd (a superdelegate) declared his support for Barack Obama despite the fact that Clinton crushed Obama in his home state of West Virginia overwhelmingly. Other delegates such as John Kerry and Edward Kennedy have also endorsed Obama despite the fact that Clinton won their states as well. So what you're really saying is, "Damn Hillary for fishing for crossover votes! Only WE should be allowed to do that!".

Or pehaps we should talk about the Nevada caucus, where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but Barack Obama got more delegates.

Or perhaps we should talk about Texas, wher Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but Barack Obama got more delegates.

The real fact is that the Obama campaign and their supporters are all against the structural rules of this race...unless it benefits them to take a contrary position. They prevented a revote in Michigan and Florida that could have settled this, and now he and his supporters are opposed to any counting of delegates or votes from those two states that would in any way alter the outcome of the race. THAT is political opportunism, gentlemen. That is precisely the type of old style politics Obama claims to be working against. In addition, the fact is that the lead that I counted INCLUDED estimated vote counts from the caucus states. Even with them in, she leads by 60,000 votes.

Obama may win the nomination. But he will not win the general election. A whole bunch of Democrats such as myself are prepared to flip from blue to red in major swing states like Ohio that went decisively for Clinton. McCain will paint him as a wild-eyed, inexperienced, appeasing leftist-liberal and that message WILL resonate in this area regardless of whether it is true or not. I am telling you that even in winning, you will lose because of how you have treated Clinton's supporters.

1- Hillary herself claimed superdelegates should "vote their consciousness". They did. For Obama.

2- Hillary now wants Michigan not to include ANY votes for Obama, seemingly assuming that no one there wanted to vote for him. And here you are, claiming that's fair.

3- You sure have a lot of nerve calling Obama a political opportunist when CLINTON flip-flopped about the rules when it stopped suiting her.

4- Yes, Obama will win the election. As we speak, he's about 8 points ahead of McCain, and has, yes, the lead in swing states. That you feel willing to put your country at risk out of spite for imagined slights, all after YOU gave out much worse than you ever took HERE, is something for YOU to deal with, not me nor Obama. Your and Hillary's claims of slight aren't about being mistreated, they are about being disagreed with. And that is just sad.

1. Sumamba Buwhan = a guy

2. I think your "interpretation" of Sumamba Buwhan's comments are totally skewed. Where did you get "foggy at best"? Where do you get whether Sumamba Buwhan "doesn't see" the premise as "true"?

3. But go ahead and "feel free" to call people "racists" because they stated on an exit poll that race "mattered".

1- Nothing that surgery won't solve.

2- http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/devil%27s_advocate

3- I appreciate you giving me the freedom to call a spade a shovel. I, however, will continue to refuse to you or others the freedom to call me "hateful" for disagreeing with them all the while spewing much worse things.

Obama may win the nomination. But he will not win the general election.

Doubtful. The signs all point to Obama winning the nomination. And the general election signs - 8 years of a GOP, bad economy, an unpopular war (expect this to come bite McCain hard in August), etc.- all point to the party in power losing hard. That goes double if he picks Hagel or Bloomberg as VP candidate.

A whole bunch of Democrats such as myself are prepared to flip from blue to red in major swing states like Ohio that went decisively for Clinton. McCain will paint him as a wild-eyed, inexperienced, appeasing leftist-liberal and that message WILL resonate in this area regardless of whether it is true or not. I am telling you that even in winning, you will lose because of how you have treated Clinton's supporters.

I honestly never understod that position. I can understand the Obama Republican and Independent vote going against Clinton, because of her baggage, but for the life of me I can neither understand nor expect the claim that Clinton voters would go for McCain in droves. Why on earth would they do so? (The only possible reason I could think of is cryptoracism... And I already suspect the Clintons of that...)

If indeed there's a real reason, I expect a grand realignment in US polyticks.

I am telling you that even in winning, you will lose because of how you have treated Clinton's supporters.
I believe that there is a lot of truth in that statement.

In 2004, the GOP swift boated Kerry.

In 2008, the Obamalites swift boated Hillary.

Bye, bye any chance of the Presidency.

1- Hillary herself claimed superdelegates should "vote their consciousness". They did. For Obama.

2- Hillary now wants Michigan not to include ANY votes for Obama, seemingly assuming that no one there wanted to vote for him. And here you are, claiming that's fair.

3- You sure have a lot of nerve calling Obama a political opportunist when CLINTON flip-flopped about the rules when it stopped suiting her.

4- Yes, Obama will win the election. As we speak, he's about 8 points ahead of McCain, and has, yes, the lead in swing states. That you feel willing to put your country at risk out of spite for imagined slights, all after YOU gave out much worse than you ever took HERE, is something for YOU to deal with, not me nor Obama. Your and Hillary's claims of slight aren't about being mistreated, they are about being disagreed with. And that is just sad.


It's quite easy for you to be gracious in victory, so to speak.

From my perspective, however, my candidate is being cheated out of a chance to win. And the OTHER guy's supporters are being insufferably arrogant about the whole situation. At the same time, my local McCain supporters are making more of a bid for my vote than anyone from the Obama campaign has made. I am a staunch Democrat. I have voted straight Democratic tickets since I became old enough to vote in 2000. Can you imagine the type of anger that would get me to seriously question who I will vote for? If you don't, perhaps you should meditate on it for a while and then return to me with your answers.

I believe that there is a lot of truth in that statement.

In 2004, the GOP swift boated Kerry.

In 2008, the Obamalites swift boated Hillary.

Bye, bye any chance of the Presidency.

I agree. I think if Obama prevails, the McCain prevails. I do not believe Barack Obama can win on the current electoral map.

From my perspective, however, my candidate is being cheated out of a chance to win.

Something you have yet to back up with ANYTHING but your opinion and the skewed notion that Clinton deserves all votes in Michigan while Obama deserves none.

Can you imagine the type of anger that would get me to seriously question who I will vote for? If you don't, perhaps you should meditate on it for a while and then return to me with your answers.

I don't care, and I won't. Because your "anger" is unwarranted and because it means nothing. Hillary's a child crying foul after another child's mother bought the other child's the toy.

I agree. I think if Obama prevails, the McCain prevails. I do not believe Barack Obama can win on the current electoral map.

Neither reality nor the polls care what you believe or think.

In 2008, the Obamalites swift boated Hillary.

Pray tell, HOW?

Did Obama put up an ad with a phone ringing at 3 AM?

Did Obama go "Oh, Hillary's not a Muslim - that I know of"?

Or, well, what?

Neither reality nor the polls care what you believe or think.

Meh, let CH and Shal live in their own little world.

Meh, let CH and Shal live in their own little world.

I'm willing to, but I won't let them take this thread with them.

I believe that there is a lot of truth in that statement.

In 2004, the GOP swift boated Kerry.

In 2008, the Obamalites swift boated Hillary.

Bye, bye any chance of the Presidency.

How the hell do you figure? Wait a minute, never mind. You won't reply anyway. I've seen a lot of shit from Hillary's fan club about how they're being abused and I'm not seeing it. You're just losing, badly. You're losing the election, you're losing the argument about the election, and you're losing the argument about your dodgy math.

The fact you're losing does not mean you're being picked on. It means you're supporting a weak candidate who got beaten. Not by much, but still beaten soundly.

Neither reality nor the polls care what you believe or think.

We will see. If Ohio delivers John McCain the Presidency this November, I suppose one of us will be vindicated.

4- Yes, Obama will win the election. As we speak, he's about 8 points ahead of McCain,
Yet Hillary is up on McCain by 12 points. Top that. :)

and has, yes, the lead in swing states.
Which ones?

Man, the Hillary groups are the ones wanting the rules BROKEN (not just bent) to favor Hillary (The Obama campaign said they were willing to even give concessions in delegates to get all of MI and FL delegates seated) and have all these womens groups vowing to vote against Obama if he wins the nomination, and the Clintonistas call the Obamaites arrogant!

How the hell do you figure? Wait a minute, never mind. You won't reply anyway. I've seen a lot of shit from Hillary's fan club about how they're being abused and I'm not seeing it. You're just losing, badly. You're losing the election, you're losing the argument about the election, and you're losing the argument about your dodgy math.

The fact you're losing does not mean you're being picked on. It means you're supporting a weak candidate who got beaten. Not by much, but still beaten soundly.

We will see who the weak candidate is. It may come to pass that not even the sunny-happy Obama-optimism can change the demographic reality on the ground.

We will see. If Ohio delivers John McCain the Presidency this November, I suppose one of us will be vindicated.

You mean that state in which Obama's currently ahead, even though Hillary's trying to drag him down?

Well... THOSE states, I guess I should say.

..

We will see who the weak candidate is. It may come to pass that not even the sunny-happy Obama-optimism can change the demographic reality on the ground.

You mean the optimism based on just about all of the polls, all of those taken with Clinton hammering on Obama in the hopes of getting McCain elected?

We will see who the weak candidate is. It may come to pass that not even the sunny-happy Obama-optimism can change the demographic reality on the ground.

Madam I'm afraid your vitriolic hatred of Obama has caused you to lose your tenuous grip on reality. The demographic reality right now is that John McCain is losing.

..

Okay, I'll concede that you have two points.

You mean that state in which Obama's currently ahead, even though Hillary's trying to drag him down?

Well... THOSE states, I guess I should say.

Like heck! I LIVE in Ohio, and I am more familiar with the Ohio polls than any other. Right now, Obama is dead even in Ohio with McCain, whereas Clinton is somewhat ahead of McCain.

Okay, I'll concede that you have two points.

Actually, I'm hoping that was intended as light-hearted humor, because I thought it was rather funny. :)

Like heck! I LIVE in Ohio, and I am more familiar with the Ohio polls than any other. Right now, Obama is dead even in Ohio with McCain, whereas Clinton is somewhat ahead of McCain.

Even assuming this to be true, when Hillary finally makes herself useful and starts campaigning FOR him, it will change.

It's quite easy for you to be gracious in victory, so to speak.

From my perspective, however, my candidate is being cheated out of a chance to win.

This is another point where we seem to have a complete break down of understanding. Your candidate agreed to a set of rules, and when things started going againste her, she wants a new set of rules favoring her. How is keeping in the original rules cheating? I see your candidate as attempting to cheat.

And the OTHER guy's supporters are being insufferably arrogant about the whole situation. At the same time, my local McCain supporters are making more of a bid for my vote than anyone from the Obama campaign has made. I am a staunch Democrat. I have voted straight Democratic tickets since I became old enough to vote in 2000. Can you imagine the type of anger that would get me to seriously question who I will vote for? If you don't, perhaps you should meditate on it for a while and then return to me with your answers.

Again, as I stated above, I do not understand the position you're taking, and I do not expect it to be widespread.

I agree. I think if Obama prevails, the McCain prevails. I do not believe Barack Obama can win on the current electoral map.

Pray tell, HOW?

Did Obama put up an ad with a phone ringing at 3 AM?

Did Obama go "Oh, Hillary's not a Muslim - that I know of"?

Or, well, what?

Add in the "Obama is teh BLACK CANDIDATE!" campaign and the "White people like me better" campaigns that came out of the Clinton campaign.

And name one ad from the Obama side that comes near a Swift Boat like attack.

Actually, I'm hoping that was intended as light-hearted humor, because I thought it was rather funny. :)

Yup. Humor, yes. Light-hearted, maybe. :p

Even assuming this to be true, when Hillary finally makes herself useful and starts campaigning FOR him, it will change.

Makes herself useful? That's sort of arrogant. She is already useful. If she helps Obama, I'll be surprised. If I were her I think helping Obama after all this would be a difficult and bitter pill to swallow.

Makes herself useful? That's sort of arrogant. She is already useful. If she helps Obama, I'll be surprised. If I were her I think helping Obama after all this would be a difficult and bitter pill to swallow.

I thought you were following this more closely. Their campaigns have already started planning fundraisers together for the general election.

Makes herself useful? That's sort of arrogant. She is already useful. If she helps Obama, I'll be surprised. If I were her I think helping Obama after all this would be a difficult and bitter pill to swallow.

Actually, it's not: Her candidacy is doomed, she knows that and she keeps on hammering Obama, and, yes, helping McCain in November. As such, she is, currently, useless or worse. As for helping Obama, unless she wants to leave the Democratic Party, she will. Given that the Democratic Party is just about her only chance to ever become President, even AFTER Obama's 8 years, I think her choice is easy.

Makes herself useful? That's sort of arrogant. She is already useful. If she helps Obama, I'll be surprised. If I were her I think helping Obama after all this would be a difficult and bitter pill to swallow.

Right now she's greatly useful. If you're John McCain. But you've said repeatedly that you support McCain. So it's a small thing that you consider her useful.

You mean that state in which Obama's currently ahead,
He is (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ohio.html)?

How well is Obama polling in Missouri (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/missouri.html)? Florida (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/florida.html)?

The Missouri bellwether is a political phenomenon that notes that the state of Missouri has voted for the winner in every U.S. Presidential election beginning in 1904 except in 1956.

even though Hillary's trying to drag him down?
How so?

How so?

By spending a fortune her campaign doesn't have on a non-stop stream of attack ads whilst her supporters shriek like rabid weasels?

He is (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ohio.html)?

How well is Obama polling in Missouri (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/missouri.html)? Florida (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/florida.html)?




How so?

A recent poll shows Obama leading McCain nationwide by about 8 points.

As for "how" is she trying to attack him, what does "HE'S BLACK" sound like to you as evidence?

By spending a fortune her campaign doesn't have on a non-stop stream of attack ads whilst her supporters shriek like rabid weasels?

Do rabid weasels shriek a lot?

Do rabid weasels shriek a lot?

They might.

Do rabid weasels shriek a lot?

Not wholly sure, but I was trying to get poetical.

Makes herself useful? That's sort of arrogant. She is already useful. If she helps Obama, I'll be surprised. If I were her I think helping Obama after all this would be a difficult and bitter pill to swallow.

I'm not so sure. I still suspect she's attempting a Hail Mary Tonya Harding for 2012...

Actually, it's not: Her candidacy is doomed, she knows that and she keeps on hammering Obama, and, yes, helping McCain in November. As such, she is, currently, useless or worse. As for helping Obama, unless she wants to leave the Democratic Party, she will. Given that the Democratic Party is just about her only chance to ever become President, even AFTER Obama's 8 years, I think her choice is easy.

Not only that, but she'll be responsible for loosing a generation of voters to the DP if she does carry out the Tonya Harding plan.

And if she manages to weasel out the DP nomination, she'll have done so as well.

I believe that there is a lot of truth in that statement.

In 2004, the GOP swift boated Kerry.

In 2008, the Obamalites swift boated Hillary.

Bye, bye any chance of the Presidency.

How, exactly, was Hillary swiftboated?


From my perspective, however, my candidate is being cheated out of a chance to win.

How is she being cheated out of anything?

By the rules of the contest, she is losing. No one had to cheat to come to that result.

And the OTHER guy's supporters are being insufferably arrogant about the whole situation.

Really? You aren't exactly being polite, yourself, you know.

Really? You aren't exactly being polite, yourself, you know.

Ya know, the vitrol of the intraparty battles this year is one reason I suspect we're in for a realignment.

Don't let McCain's having sewed up the nomination in all but the official crowning fool you. The GOP's internal strife is just as nasty this year - possibly more so than the dems. The Dem's internal strife is just more in the spotlight.

And just wait until Obama pulls a Lincoln and runs a bipartisan ticket, as I suspect he's planning to.... :)

BINGO!! My exact sentiments indeed. Thanks for playing advocate. :)

Except he gave in because the point is entirely unlikely and doesn't explain that both those who decide based on skin color and those who decide based on sex choose her. Are they also choosing her because they think a man can't win as well?

Meanwhile, none of it changes that Hillary benefits from BOTH racism and sexism. Because whether people are voting for her to protect Dems from racism or because they are racist, she is benefitting from racism.

Makes herself useful? That's sort of arrogant. She is already useful. If she helps Obama, I'll be surprised. If I were her I think helping Obama after all this would be a difficult and bitter pill to swallow.

She already said she would do it if he gets the nomination. It may be a "bitter pill to swallow", but she'd be breaking her word if she didn't.

Ya know, the vitrol of the intraparty battles this year is one reason I suspect we're in for a realignment.

Meh. Some of us aren't really party loyalists anyways. To me, the argument, "What matters is that a Dem wins in the fall" rings very, very hollow.

Don't let McCain's having sewed up the nomination in all but the official crowning fool you. The GOP's internal strife is just as nasty this year - possibly more so than the dems. The Dem's internal strife is just more in the spotlight.

Indeed. I get some right-wing newsletters that point it out regularly.

1. Sumamba Buwhan = a guy

2. I think your "interpretation" of Sumamba Buwhan's comments are totally skewed. Where did you get "foggy at best"? Where do you get whether Sumamba Buwhan "doesn't see" the premise as "true"?

3. But go ahead and "feel free" to call people "racists" because they stated on an exit poll that race "mattered".
2. SB plainly said it. And "foggy at best" is what you call completely making crap up that is entirely unlikely. SB said that he doesn't believe the claim but was just playing at advocate. SB said the claim was entirely unbelievable, in fact.
3. They didn't say race "mattered". They said they voted based on it.

She already said she would do it if he gets the nomination. It may be a "bitter pill to swallow", but she'd be breaking her word if she didn't.

Which actually is strong indication that she will, at least if she thinks she has anything to gain from doing so.

Which actually is strong indication that she will, at least if she thinks she has anything to gain from doing so.

In past she's proven most adept at doing precisely what she thinks will benefit her. Facts and morals be damned.

Indeed. I get some right-wing newsletters that point it out regularly.

Could you forward, link, or whatever, them to me?

I honestly never understod that position. I can understand the Obama Republican and Independent vote going against Clinton, because of her baggage, but for the life of me I can neither understand nor expect the claim that Clinton voters would go for McCain in droves. Why on earth would they do so? (The only possible reason I could think of is cryptoracism... And I already suspect the Clintons of that...)

If indeed there's a real reason, I expect a grand realignment in US polyticks.

it kinda looks like straight up irrational lashing out - doing anything to hurt the other person, even if it hurts you just as bad.

frankly this is one of two things that most saddens me about the clinton campaign and some of her supporters. the other is the apparent inability to do math. way to break those stereotypes!

Meh. Some of us aren't really party loyalists anyways. To me, the argument, "What matters is that a Dem wins in the fall" rings very, very hollow.

Indeed so. I'll note that I'm primarily an independent, who's switched officially registered parties more than once.

But a lot of folks are, although in apparantly decreasing numbers. Note that we're overdue for one - they averaging about 36 years 1860, 1896, 1932, 1968, 2004...

Indeed. I get some right-wing newsletters that point it out regularly.

:)


Shalrirorchia: You've been asked by several here to answer for certain assertions. Do you have the lot of us on ignore?

It is highly ironic that you should make that argument when, just the other day, Sen. Robert Byrd (a superdelegate) declared his support for Barack Obama despite the fact that Clinton crushed Obama in his home state of West Virginia overwhelmingly. Other delegates such as John Kerry and Edward Kennedy have also endorsed Obama despite the fact that Clinton won their states as well. So what you're really saying is, "Damn Hillary for fishing for crossover votes! Only WE should be allowed to do that!".

No one is saying she shouldn't be permitted to do that. We're saying if Obama loses because the supers overrode all of the other contests there is going to be an uproar. You know it. We know it. Fortunately, they not only AREN'T going to do that, but they're already giving it to Obama. Obama will have 2025 by June 3 (well, let's give a day or so just to be on the safe side, but after that last primary there will be a flood. No one wants to be 2026 as CTOAN once pointed out). If they seat the delegates in any of the manners proposed by the two states, Obama will make 2209 just as easily. Obama will have the delegates he needs after the last primary.


Or pehaps we should talk about the Nevada caucus, where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but Barack Obama got more delegates.[/QUOTE]

I love that you claim Hillary is being cheated while complaining about the actual rules of the contest. Obama got more delegates based on the rules. No more. No less.


Or perhaps we should talk about Texas, wher Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but Barack Obama got more delegates.

Again, those are the rules. You're not mad because Hillary is being cheated. Your mad because Hillary Clinton doesn't know how to win within the rules.


The real fact is that the Obama campaign and their supporters are all against the structural rules of this race...unless it benefits them to take a contrary position. They prevented a revote in Michigan and Florida that could have settled this, and now he and his supporters are opposed to any counting of delegates or votes from those two states that would in any way alter the outcome of the race. THAT is political opportunism, gentlemen. That is precisely the type of old style politics Obama claims to be working against. In addition, the fact is that the lead that I counted INCLUDED estimated vote counts from the caucus states. Even with them in, she leads by 60,000 votes.

They didn't prevent a revote in MI and FL. I would like to see a source for that claim that doesn't come from the Clinton camp.



Obama may win the nomination. But he will not win the general election. A whole bunch of Democrats such as myself are prepared to flip from blue to red in major swing states like Ohio that went decisively for Clinton. McCain will paint him as a wild-eyed, inexperienced, appeasing leftist-liberal and that message WILL resonate in this area regardless of whether it is true or not. I am telling you that even in winning, you will lose because of how you have treated Clinton's supporters.

I always just wonder at this claim. See, both Clinton and Obama agree that if McCain wins people will die. We will continue the Bush style foreign aggression. We will continue to be aggressive to Iran which most agree is leading up to a war and we will continue as is in Iraq. You're essentially saying you'd rather kill people than make Obama supporters happy.

But even ignoring the war bit. McCain is more of the same on the economy. He's more of the same on health care. More of the same on national debt and on taxes. More of the same on so many things. This isn't '92 where a bad vote simply meant the economy might grow a bit more slowly.

I'm sorry, but if Clinton wins. I'm not silly enough to condemn my fellow Marines to die needlessly. It's sad that you're spiteful enough to do so.

it kinda looks like straight up irrational lashing out - doing anything to hurt the other person, even if it hurts you just as bad.

frankly this is one of two things that most saddens me about the clinton campaign and some of her supporters. the other is the apparent inability to do math. way to break those stereotypes!

I do wonder about that. I really would like to hear Shalrirorchia's answer.

it kinda looks like straight up irrational lashing out - doing anything to hurt the other person, even if it hurts you just as bad.

frankly this is one of two things that most saddens me about the clinton campaign and some of her supporters. the other is the apparent inability to do math. way to break those stereotypes!

"My candidate wins or the soldier gets it." If threatening the well-being of America's military is the way you try to get leverage to win the candidacy, then count me out.

Dem, I'm not a Democrat either. For me, I'll vote for any candidate who is setting out to end the war in Iraq.

Ya know, the vitrol of the intraparty battles this year is one reason I suspect we're in for a realignment.

Don't let McCain's having sewed up the nomination in all but the official crowning fool you. The GOP's internal strife is just as nasty this year - possibly more so than the dems. The Dem's internal strife is just more in the spotlight.

And just wait until Obama pulls a Lincoln and runs a bipartisan ticket, as I suspect he's planning to.... :)

For some reason, I've got my fingers crossed he's going to ask Colin Powell. I'm not entirely sure why, or if that'd be a good thing.

A recent poll shows Obama leading McCain nationwide by about 8 points.
And a recent poll shows Clinton up by 12. And?

As for "how" is she trying to attack him, what does "HE'S BLACK" sound like to you as evidence?
You are calling Clinton a "racist"?

I believe that there is a lot of truth in that statement.

In 2004, the GOP swift boated Kerry.

In 2008, the Obamalites swift boated Hillary.

Bye, bye any chance of the Presidency.

Like when they paraded around pictures of her in Somolian garb to fuel the OMG, She's a Muslim! fears?

Or when they played select clips of his former pastor over and over again to fuel the OMG She's a black radical! fears?

Or when they made hay over a comment made at a fund raiser to imply he thinks she' better than everyone else and poor white people are bitter?

Oh, wait...

And yet to spite all of that, the realitively unknown junior senator still managed to beat a 20 point front runner with the greatest name recognition in the party since Kennedy.

Several people have asked you this and you've ignored every one of them. You or Sal, please answer the question, how was she 'swift boated,' in what way was this election 'stolen' from her?

2. SB plainly said it. And "foggy at best" is what you call completely making crap up that is entirely unlikely. SB said that he doesn't believe the claim but was just playing at advocate. SB said the claim was entirely unbelievable, in fact.
He did?

3. They didn't say race "mattered". They said they voted based on it.
And that automatically makes them "racist"?

Like when they paraded around pictures of her in Somolian garb to fuel the OMG, She's a Muslim! fears?

Or when they played select clips of his former pastor over and over again to fuel the OMG She's a black radical! fears?

Or when they made hay over a comment made at a fund raiser to imply he thinks she' better than everyone else and poor white people are bitter?

Oh, wait...

And yet to spite all of that, the realitively unknown junior senator still managed to beat a 20 point front runner with the greatest name recognition in the party since Kennedy.

Several people have asked you this and you've ignored every one of them. You or Sal, please answer the question, how was she 'swift boated,' in what way was this election 'stolen' from her?

How much are you willing to stake that this post is never addressed by one of them?

And a recent poll shows Clinton up by 12. And?


You are calling Clinton a "racist"?

And my poll is about a month more recent than yours.

Interpret my words as you feel like.

And that automatically makes them "racist"?

Personally, I'd say yes.

He did?


And that automatically makes them "racist"?

Yup.

And that does, yes.

How much are you willing to stake that this post is never addressed by one of them?

Well, seeing as I'm not the first person to ask the question and after four pages it still goes unanswered...

Obama will have 2025 by June 3 (well, let's give a day or so just to be on the safe side, but after that last primary there will be a flood. No one wants to be 2026 as CTOAN once pointed out). If they seat the delegates in any of the manners proposed by the two states, Obama will make 2209 just as easily. Obama will have the delegates he needs after the last primary.

or, as the last fallback point, by june 21st, when the remaining add-ons will all have been chosen, and a bunch of states have their conventions making final delegate selections.

check out poblano's rundown of scenarios
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/can-obama-clinch-on-june-3rd.html

once again, math ftw!

You are calling Clinton a "racist"?

more likely she's mainly just whistling at them

Why Ohio?
The Diebold fiasco in 2004. There is no way of knowing whether Bush or Kerry really took that state.

or, as the last fallback point, by june 21st, when the remaining add-ons will all have been chosen, and a bunch of states have their conventions making final delegate selections.

check out poblano's rundown of scenarios
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/can-obama-clinch-on-june-3rd.html

once again, math ftw!

That's not the point anymore, even in their bravado they know they've lost. Now it's about assigning the blame-it's the mean ol' Obama supporters, it's some phantom swift boating that no one can point out, it was stolen from her in some undefined way...the leprechauns they captured for wishes screwed them...whatever...

And that automatically makes them "racist"?

By definition.

I notice that you've failed so far to defend your "swiftboating" claim.

Now do you intend to defend a single claim you've made recently, or just do driveby posts every once in a while?

For some reason, I've got my fingers crossed he's going to ask Colin Powell. I'm not entirely sure why, or if that'd be a good thing.

I'm hedging towards Hagel or Bloomberg, but that'd be a good ticket as well.

Several people have asked you this and you've ignored every one of them. You or Sal, please answer the question, how was she 'swift boated,' in what way was this election 'stolen' from her?
How much are you willing to stake that this post is never addressed by one of them?

I'll stake the Obama line in my sig for a month if either does so fully and accurately.

And, CH, I'll be so bold: yes, I currently see the Clintons as racists by their actions and words from this campaign.

That's not the point anymore, even in their bravado they know they've lost. Now it's about assigning the blame-it's the mean ol' Obama supporters, it's some phantom swift boating that no one can point out, it was stolen from her in some undefined way...the leprechauns they captured for wishes screwed them...whatever...

"goddamn genies! i should have been more specific..."

"goddamn genies! i should have been more specific..."

"That old lady warned me about the monkey paw, but I thought it was just about the smell..."

Yet Hillary is up on McCain by 12 points. Top that. :)


Which ones?

Again, selective evidence. The polls ALL taken together have Obama ahead. Even your own evidence demonstrates that Obama has MORE solid states and leaves McCain with LESS solid states than a matchup with Hillary. (One of many arguments you avoid totally.) Current polls have Obama winning CO, VA, NM, WI, IA, all states that Clinton is losing. They both are winning PA.

Amusingly, most of these polls aren't actually using Barr. Even your own polls neglect this. Barr is expected to pull a fairly high percentage. Remember this is a year where many, many Republicans actually find the idea of McCain in office terrifying. This isn't like Nader where it was a side issue. To these Republicans the problems with McCain are everything. This is much more like Perot by all estimations.

I think obama should win. I can't stand his policies. But I think having Obama as president would send the right signal about the country. So there you go, I am the uber swing voter.

I think obama should win. I can't stand his policies. But I think having Obama as president would send the right signal about the country. So there you go, I am the uber swing voter.

What don't you like about his policies?

And a recent poll shows Clinton up by 12. And?


You are calling Clinton a "racist"?

Actually, he's saying that Clinton panders to racists. And sexists.

He did?

Yup. You really should check your evidence before you spout off. Besides, do you know what a devil's advocate is?

And that automatically makes them "racist"?

We discussed this. You refused to actually respond to any points. Seriously, goldfish arguments aren't any fun. See, those of us who actually pay attention already know how this conversation goes. See, this is the part where I ask you if you think I'd be racist if I chose my waitress based on skin color and you don't answer the question.

Then I also point out how she gets roughly the same percentage of sexists and you avoid that point as well.

By definition.

I notice that you've failed so far to defend your "swiftboating" claim.

Now do you intend to defend a single claim you've made recently, or just do driveby posts every once in a while?

Surprisingly enough he's now offline. We'll see him in a day or two.

Okay, I have a question for you. I don't mean this sarcastically or anything; it's an honest question.

What's worse? Some people being unkind to you, or 4 more years of Bush-style politics? If Obama does indeed get the nomination, can you not set aside your hurt feelings and vote based on the candidates' policies and encourage your fellow Clinton supporters to do the same? Or, barring that, vote 3rd party instead of voting for Bush III?

Sal, (or CH, answering from the perspective of if you were American) could you please answer this? I'm going to keep re-asking until you do, as I genuinely am curious. Are you really willing to let a third (if adopted) member of the House of Bush into the white house just because of hurt feelings?

Hey I was only trying to make the claim that it is possible to declare that race mattered and not be racist. This devils advocacy stuff is hard.

Yup, he did.

Since we've reached the "crying" part of "It's all over except the crying" part, and it's gotten tiresome since we cannot expect actual responses, just drive bys I return to one of the more relevant elements of this election that makes it a whole new ball game, that is, more on the the down ballot effect (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/gop_senate_massacre_of_08.html)

the Republican undercard is facing obliteration in the 2008 general elections for the Senate. Polling suggests that a massacre may be in the offing -- and one that's possibly even greater than the worst of previous GOP years: 1958, 1964, 1974, 1986 and 2006.
...
In all likelihood, the filibuster will still remain a theoretical Republican option, but, in practical terms, may be beyond reach, especially if Obama wins the White House.
...
Will the endangered Republicans recover? Most have prevailed, in the past, by lifting their personal ratings out of possible danger early in the race. But when long-term incumbents find themselves mired in the high 40s or low 50s in vote share, it indicates a massive voter desire for change that is not likely to abate.

In the House, the incredible three Democratic bi-election victories, combined with the retirements of so many Republican incumbents, indicates that the GOP may be facing disaster there as well.

This is not a good year to be a Republican.
How bad is it?
And then there are the endangered incumbents. Three GOP senators are actually behind their Democratic challengers. Alaska's Ted Stevens is behind Mark Begich by 47-45. Elizabeth Dole trails Kay Hagan in North Carolina by 48-47. And Jeanne Shaheen is well ahead of John Sununu in New Hampshire, 51-43. Stevens's legal problems and the likely huge black turnout in North Carolina make all three states lean Democratic at this point.
McCain is facing having to expend resources to defend seats like Ted Stevens, seats that they would normally be a sure thing. So it's not that Obama is going to turn Alaska blue, he doesn't have to, his grassroots organization in the state allows him to easily assist a campaign already doing well, forcing McCain to expend is more limited resources to defend his own backyard-facing this reality all his bluster about taking the challenge to blue strong holds will become unworkable as he has to allocate resources just to stop his own party's bleeding.

The only thing that could make it easier on him is if he faced a candidate locked into the old, democratic candidate losing strategy of +1/here be dragons campaigning.

oh wow. apparently the clinton position as articulated by harold ickes (who, incidentally, voted to strip mi and fl of their delegates along with a dozen other clinton supporters on the rules and bylaws committee last year) is that they want the 55 uncommitted delegates from mi to not be obama supporters.

oh wow. apparently the clinton position as articulated by harold ickes (who, incidentally, voted to strip mi and fl of their delegates along with a dozen other clinton supporters on the rules and bylaws committee last year) is that they want the 55 uncommitted delegates from mi to not be obama supporters.

If they were then the addition of the two states would not be enough of an advantage for Clinton and Obama would still clinch the nomination. The only way they can work the advantage is to disenfranchise the voters in that state that didn't vote for Clinton specifically.

oh wow. apparently the clinton position as articulated by harold ickes (who, incidentally, voted to strip mi and fl of their delegates along with a dozen other clinton supporters on the rules and bylaws committee last year) is that they want the 55 uncommitted delegates from mi to not be obama supporters.

She has openly claimed she will follow the will of the people in the state. She said this openly and explicitly. The road forward is easy for Obama. All he has to do is agree that he would also like to follow the will of the voters. See, unfortunately for Clinton, Obama is up on her in that state. See what a little name recognition will do.

If they were then the addition of the two states would not be enough of an advantage for Clinton and Obama would still clinch the nomination. The only way they can work the advantage is to disenfranchise the voters in that state that didn't vote for Clinton specifically.

Seriously, she wants to just keep altering the rules. Who is trying to cheat whom?

Several people have asked you this and you've ignored every one of them. You or Sal, please answer the question, how was she 'swift boated,' in what way was this election 'stolen' from her?
A slick talking lawyer from Illinois has you all believing that he is a "transformative" individual, who will lead Americans to the Holy Grail. Not only will he unite America, he will rid the world of terrorists, clamp down on nuclear proliferation, fight a war that the US "needs to win", "change" the way politics are done in the US, but he will also "change" the world.

Obama supporters looking upon Hillary with disdain, suggesting that she is a quasi Republican, yet embracing the idea that Republicans are attracted to their man. How twisted is that?

Obama came out attacking Bill Clinton's accomplishments, or at least trying to minimize them, and his supporters from the get go have called Hillary every dirty name under the sun.

Obama attacking Hillary for her vote regarding Iraq, and her method of doing business. Successfully getting supporters to buy into the "she was for it before she was against it" Kerry like kind of mentalty.

And we will never know what the "true" will of Democrats was in 2008, because Florida and Michigan don't count.

And we will never know what the "true" will of Democrats was in 2008, because Florida and Michigan don't count.

And whose fault would that be?



Oh, that's right, it would be the fault of the Florida and Michigan state democratic parties for ignoring the rules.

See, unfortunately for Clinton, Obama is up on her in that state. See what a little name recognition will do.
Do you have some numbers that will support your claim?

And whose fault would that be?



Oh, that's right, it would be the fault of the Florida and Michigan state democratic parties for ignoring the rules.

Not to mention Clinton supporters like Harold Ickes, who voted to strip them of their delegates and is NOW backtracking to get them reinstated, now that his candidate is losing.

A slick talking lawyer from Illinois has you all believing that he is a "transformative" individual, who will lead Americans to the Holy Grail. Not only will he unite America, he will rid the world of terrorists, clamp down on nuclear proliferation, fight a war that the US "needs to win", "change" the way politics are done in the US, but he will also "change" the world.

Obama supporters looking upon Hillary with disdain, suggesting that she is a quasi Republican, yet embracing the idea that Republicans are attracted to their man[/COLOR]. How twisted is that?[/COLOR]

Obama came out attacking Bill Clinton's accomplishments, or at least trying to minimize them, and his supporters from the get go have called Hillary every dirty name under the sun.

Obama attacking Hillary for her vote regarding Iraq, and her method of doing business. Successfully getting supporters to buy into the "she was for it before she was against it" Kerry like kind of mentalty.

And we will never know what the "true" will of Democrats was in 2008, because Florida and Michigan don't count.

Wow, is ignorant shite like this that has made me stay away from this thread. You make sweeping generalizations that just make you look like a fool. See red above.

The green is where you could just change Illinois to Arkansas and be talking about Bill.

The blue is for you strawman. You might as well just Fing light that bullshit on fire. Stop projecting your feelings on ALL Obama supporters. Not only is it a bad generalization, it once again makes you just look like a crybaby.

The slate grey is where you say "how dare you not say glowing things about Bill Clinton. He was the greatest thing on Earth. Boo friggety hoo.

In yellow is where I say, "What the F is wrong with pointing out a difference between the two of them?" It's not an attack "swift boat style" unless it's untrue. The Swift boaters flat out lied. Are you going to tell me Hillary didn't vote to authorize the war? She may have thought "as a last resort," but that means she didn't bother to read the damn bill. Which is worse, her making a poor choice, or not even doing her homework?

Finally the pink is for "not this shit again." She agreed to the deal. Her campaign manager agreed. Terry McCaulif (sp because I don't care) agreed. Now she wants to go back on her word because it's good for her? F that ish.

You can pick up your #ss now, I've just handed it to you.

Now I'm out of here. CH's arguments have become worse than ever and it's not good for my blood pressure or intelligence to continue. Don't bother responding CH, you're not worth listening to at this time. Hillary lost, get over it!

Wow, is ignorant shite like this that has made me stay away from this thread. You make sweeping generalizations that just make you look like a fool. See red above.

The green is where you could just change Illinois to Arkansas and be talking about Bill.

The blue is for you strawman. You might as well just Fing light that bullshit on fire. Stop projecting your feelings on ALL Obama supporters. Not only is it a bad generalization, it once again makes you just look like a crybaby.

The slate grey is where you say "how dare you not say glowing things about Bill Clinton. He was the greatest thing on Earth. Boo friggety hoo.

In yellow is where I say, "What the F is wrong with pointing out a difference between the two of them?" It's not an attack "swift boat style" unless it's untrue. The Swift boaters flat out lied. Are you going to tell me Hillary didn't vote to authorize the war? She may have thought "as a last resort," but that means she didn't bother to read the damn bill. Which is worse, her making a poor choice, or not even doing her homework?

Finally the pink is for "not this shit again." She agreed to the deal. Her campaign manager agreed. Terry McCaulif (sp because I don't care) agreed. Now she wants to go back on her word because it's good for her? F that ish.

You can pick up your #ss now, I've just handed it to you.

I wonder. Would one call this a vivisection or a dressing down?

A slick talking lawyer from Illinois has you all believing that he is a "transformative" individual, who will lead Americans to the Holy Grail. Not only will he unite America, he will rid the world of terrorists, clamp down on nuclear proliferation, fight a war that the US "needs to win", "change" the way politics are done in the US, but he will also "change" the world.
Oh, you mean he campaigned? Crazy talk. Why didn't he just roll over and accept Clinton's 'inevitability.' The devil. This, as you are clearly aware, is not swift boating. It is campaigning. Clinton, also a lawyer, has also promised the moon. Moving on...

Obama supporters looking upon Hillary with disdain, suggesting that she is a quasi Republican, yet embracing the idea that Republicans are attracted to their man. How twisted is that?
You and your cohorts, plus the legion I've seen in comments sections are tossing stones out of a very shattered glass house with the tired "mean ol' Obama supporters' routine. It's cartoonishly thin.

And the fact is that they are two separate things.

Obama came out attacking Bill Clinton's accomplishments, or at least trying to minimize them, and his supporters from the get go have called Hillary every dirty name under the sun.
Clinton has run on her husbands record while all the while trying to portray herself as her own woman. While Clinton did have a lot of good things about his presidency, especially by comparison, he also set up and provided over the bitter division that the country struggles with today, the division that the Republicans used as a wedge to take all three branches of government. It's a legitimate point of discussion, not a left field character attack on questionable evidence. Again, this is not swift boating.

Obama attacking Hillary for her vote regarding Iraq, and her method of doing business. Successfully getting supporters to buy into the "she was for it before she was against it" Kerry like kind of mentalty.
This is one of the few distinctions between the two candidates. Bringing it up is not swift boating. Did she not vote for and support the war initially? Is she denying that she did? The Kerry "voted for it before I voted against it" was a distortion, he had voted for responsible funding before he voted against the blank check-what he was getting slammed for. This is not the same thing.

And we will never know what the "true" will of Democrats was in 2008, because Florida and Michigan don't count.
Oh for the love of jeff...


So, you don't know what swift boating is, then, do you?

my boss just asked me why I have a red hand print on my forehead

my boss just asked me why I have a red hand print on my forehead

"Rough" night last night? :p

"Rough" night last night? :p

I shoulda had a V8

I shoulda had a V8

Hehe.

"Rough" night last night? :p

Nah, the red print would be somewhere else... *Ahem*

I wrote a post where I analyzed EVERY state that RCP had polls for. I linked to each one and looked at which candidate is stronger.

I'm not doing that friggin' thing again. I'll give you the result. Hillary ends up ahead in EV that are available to her by about 5 EV if the election were held today and no one else were on the ballot. This considers states within the margin of error as "available to her". In other words, there is a weak electability argument. I actually did all that work for CH. Not to prove him wrong, since there is an electability argument to be made, but to show exactly how strong or weak it is. Anyone who checks it will find my result.

Regardless, here's what I discovered that was more important. Hillary had a LOT less states that were safely Dem and a lot less states that were solidly Republican (in other words, this balances out). So she had this huge group of states that would be battleground. She'd spend all her time just keeping the line.

Obama has a lot of solidly Dem states and only a few states where he would be battling, some of which are normally Republican. This leaves a lot of time open for advancing the line, but instead of having to do it in the vulnerable states, he can hit anywhere. There would be no predictable attack. To anyone who has studying the strategies of battle, the advantages are obvious.

There is something more interesting though. Typically, the strategy of Dems AND Reps is that they protect their encumbants first, protect the states where they're strong first. Shore that up. Usually, this is just a very basic excercise. Next they fight for the contested areas. And, if they can, they hope to maybe take a tiny bit of new territory. Slowly advancing at best, slowly declining at worst, and, generally, just holding their ground. That's why the map generally looks the same regardless of who runs (unless a strong third party pops up, as CH pointed out).

Here's the thing though, when you have a candidate the excites, a candidate that puts the people to work getting him elected, you suddenly have a year where everything goes out the window. So, what's the response? Does the GOP forget about shoring up the encumbants to just stick to where they can win? You tell me? You think it's likely that the very encumbents who run the party are going to abandon themselves? So they always end up with the same strategy. And Obama has the exact counter to that strategy.

This isn't just the Dems year because people are unhappy with the status quo. They've got the right candidate for the right time. It's a perfect storm and the Republican leadership sees it coming and amusingly, seem to be excepting as inevitable rather than putting boards on the windows. *gleeful giggle*

Do you have some numbers that will support your claim?

Sure. From the very site you cited, actually. RCP.

Obama +0.6 Clinton -3.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/michigan.html)

Teehee. Teehee. This is the part where you backpedal and pretend like you don't like RCP even though you cited it as a source when it agreed with you.

Oh, and while we're talking about it. Your single poll that had Hillary up 12.

Polling average has Obama up by 12.2. Ouch. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html)

And in against McCain?

Obama is up 4.5 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)

Clinton up by 1.1. Since that's far less than the MoE, that's a statistical dead heat. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html)

Strong candidate? Only if pretend not to notice the Republicans scramble for shelter from the Obama storm. Do I think McCain's got a chance? I ABSOLUTELY do. I think it's small, but it's certainly possible for him to win. What isn't possible is that the Republicans are going to stay the hand of the grassroots organization Obama has fostered. They don't have the money. They don't have the support. And all the "but he's black and his pastor is crazy and he once got money from this radical" shrieking is going to stop something that powerful. Each and every one of them is just hoping something happens to protect their seats. The good news is that a strong conservative candidate HELPS them in that regard. They need someone that the far right will rally behind to get more voters out that are on the right. They may not win the Presidency but they might keep a few more seats that they would otherwise lose.

NY Gov: Clinton should stop Mich, Fla effort

May 22, 6:42 PM (ET)

By MICHAEL GORMLEY

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - New York Gov. David Paterson, a superdelegate who supports Hillary Rodham Clinton, said she's showing "a little desperation" and should give up her effort to count votes from renegade primaries in Michigan and Florida.

Paterson said Thursday that Clinton shouldn't derail the process by which the national Democratic Party stripped Michigan and Florida of their national convention delegates because they moved their primaries up to January in violation of party rules. The rules were agreed to by all the candidates, including Clinton, before she won the two January contests. Because of the violations, no candidates campaigned in either state and her rival Barack Obama took his name off Michigan's ballot.

"I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of a woman I still support and will support until she makes a different determination," Paterson told WAMC-FM radio. "Candidates have to be cautious in their zeal to win that they don't trample on the process."

Paterson said he doubted his home-state senator would get the edge over Obama, even if the two states' votes were counted.

Seating both groups in the way most favorable to Clinton would still leave her trailing Obama in the delegate count, because his lead is now almost 200 delegates.

A Clinton spokesman declined comment.

Paterson said he wouldn't agree with Clinton supporters who say her effort to capture the Michigan and Florida votes is akin to a civil rights fight. No candidates objected to the decision by party leaders to penalize the states, Paterson noted.

Paterson played a prominent role in Clinton's campaign before he replaced Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned after being identified in a prostitution investigation. Now New York's first black governor, Paterson continues to appeal on Clinton's behalf to black voters who are drawn to Obama, who could become the nation's first black president.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080522/D90QVF9G0.html

When your superdelegates tell you you're hurting yourself, maybe you should listen?

As desperation starts to set in (you can see it in the more hysterical and outragious claims the Clinton supporters are making...I mean, seriously, swift boating? C'mon...) patience is starting to wear thin (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4905785&page=1) on the party inside that has given Clinton such a large amount of benefit of doubt (lets face it, if the numbers where reversed, do you really think anyone would be tolerating Obama trying to change the rules?)

Hillary Clinton has vowed to stay in the game, but some critics contend she is looking to change the rules.
...
Critics contend that Clinton's push to get the committee to overturn its decision is an attempt to change the rules midgame and a last-ditch effort to save her campaign in the face of mounting support for Obama.
Oh no, she says-
"Some say that counting Florida and Michigan would be changing the rules," she told supporters in Boca Raton, Fla., Wednesday. "I say that not counting Michigan and Florida is changing a central governing rule of this country."
...
"Now is not the time for our party to have a dialogue about which states should count," she said in Florida.
That last line is so comical it almost makes one want to cry. But it gets worse when you take into consideration not only her constant hedging about which states matter (i.e. the ones she wins and not the ones she loses), but this-
Clinton did not always feel so strongly. In the early days of the campaign she said Michigan would not count.

"It's clear," Clinton told New Hampshire Public Radio in the fall, "this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot."
Except, you know, if I run a gambit where the only way I can win this nomination is if we reinstate this primary with only my name as a front runner on it...

Of course, it might be sound and fury...

ABC News has crunched the numbers and even with Michigan and Florida included Obama has a significant lead in delegates.
...
Obama needs just 23 percent of all the remaining delegates to hit 2,026. With the current rules for delegate math against her, Clinton has pushed to increase the overall delegate total needed to win up to 2,210, or to instead consider using the popular vote as a metric.
But the party indulges her-
The Democratic Party would not be convening a meeting to resolve the issue if not for Clinton, said ABC News consultant Matthew Dowd.

"The DNC [Democratic National Committee] is considering changing the rules, and they wouldn't be changing the rules unless she wanted them to meet and discuss it. She obviously wants to see the rules changed. Her staff should have set up a campaign that worked within the confines of the current rules," he said. "It is as if Barack Obama is on the 99-yard line and in the final moments of the game Clinton wants the football field extended from 100 to 120 yards."
She's fighting those mean ol' men on this inside...except-
Many of Clinton's advisers are former party insiders, including Terry McAuliffe, her campaign's chairman and former party chairman, who helped make the rule in the first place.

"What is amazing to me is that she has got a camp filled with DNC operatives. These are the people who essentially created the rules," Dowd said. "She has been in the game a long time. It's not as if she's new to this and didn't know better. Her campaign is run by the insiders who have been running the party for the past 16 years."
And because of her insider status, to spite the costume she's trying to wear, Obama has to walk on eggshells despite playing by the rules and, quite frankly, running a better campaign-
For his part, Obama has tried to strike a conciliatory tone, careful not to prematurely declare victory or alienate Clinton's key supporters -- women and working-class whites.
Despite all the rhetoric and-lets call it what it is-whining in the Clinton camp about how mean everyone is to them, Obama has been about as generous as he can be so as not to ruffle the the poor downtrodden Clinton supporters...

But, much like she squandered a big lead and her inevidability, she has squandered her status in the party (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/May/22/analysis__party_insider_clinton_now_on_the_outs.html)

After more than a decade as the ultimate Democratic Party insider, Hillary Rodham Clinton finds herself in a strange place: on the outside looking in, beseeching party leaders to help keep her White House bid alive.
...
In years past, the Clintons didn't have to ask the DNC for anything; they just told the committee what to do.

Her husband, after all, was the president. She worked in the White House. Her current campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, is an old Clinton friend and fundraiser who once ran the DNC.
Again, it her very campaign people that set up these rules and weren't able to read the tea leaves. If they didn't like them, they shouldn't have made them the way they did...

You can feel the desperation.

With every step Obama takes closer to the nomination, Clinton fades a little farther from the spotlight.

Seeking to reverse that, she has embraced the rhetoric of an outsider, calling for Florida and Michigan delegates to be counted, not for her sake she says, but for democracy. Her spokesman Howard Wolfson claimed Thursday that what's at stake is the "bedrock principle" of free government.

Clinton repeatedly compared the current situation of unseated delegates to the 2000 recount in Florida which was ended by the Supreme Court, giving George W. Bush the presidency.

But people close to that fight aren't buying it-
"I just don't get it. There's no analogy whatsoever here, zero," Daley said. "I think when you start making extreme statements like that, one's credibility isn't enhanced, it's lessened."
And what of her and her party insider campaign trying to pretend they're outsiders?
Daley said every politician likes to assume the role of the outsider, but in Clinton's case, it just doesn't fit well.

Bill and Hillary Clinton "have been the paramount force within the Democratic Party, and most of the people that voted for (punishing Florida and Michigan) were Clinton people, because there wasn't such a thing as Obama people in the establishment then."

Not even her supporters are buying some of her nonsense-
One very prominent Clinton supporter, New York Gov. David Paterson, said he doesn't agree with her comparisons between civil rights fights and Clinton's attempt to count Michigan and Florida votes, and hopes she ends that effort.

"I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of a woman I still support and will support until she makes a different determination," Paterson told WAMC-FM in Albany, N.Y. "Candidates have to be cautious in their zeal to win that they don't trample on the process."
But desperation doesn't take sensible's advice-
Florida congresswoman Corrine Brown introduced Clinton to the Florida crowds by demanding that DNC Chairman Howard Dean and "the party bosses" seat the delegates.

"In 2000 we had a coup d'etat, you know, the Republicans stole our votes," Brown said. "Now this is 2008, Howard Dean and the Democratic leaders, count our votes in Florida!"

She even urged the crowd to take buses to Washington for the May 31 meeting of the DNC's rules committee, where is expected to reach a decision about the two state delegations.

Clinton voters seemed receptive to the call. At the Miami rally, one held a sign declaring: "Not counting votes: It's a Republican thing, not a Democratic thing."

DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton said they expect hundreds of people to show up at the Washington area hotel for the committee meeting, but said she had no specific knowledge of planned protests or demonstrations.

"We're expecting there will be a significant interest and public attendance," said Paxton.

Not that she saw this coming-
Demanding more consideration from party bosses is a far cry from where the Clintons expected to be at this stage of the race. Last year, the former first lady seemed almost certain to capture the nomination.

I had called the win in Pennsylvania the pin pull moment, the moment where she was trapped by her own narrative, that she had more or less painted herself into a corner where she has to pull down the cathedral because she hadn't left herself an out. And here we are. Clinton supporters are pulling accusations out of whole cloth now, invoking all manner of Democratic boogey men from the Swift Boat veterans to the 2000 election. Only time will tell if when the bell tolls she'll be able to live up to her promise to work for the nominee. I think she has made it as hard on herself as humanly possible.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080522/D90QVF9G0.html

When your superdelegates tell you you're hurting yourself, maybe you should listen?

pfff, anyone can be short and to the point...but yeah, essentially this.

Strong candidate? Only if pretend not to notice the Republicans scramble for shelter from the Obama storm. Do I think McCain's got a chance? I ABSOLUTELY do. I think it's small, but it's certainly possible for him to win. What isn't possible is that the Republicans are going to stay the hand of the grassroots organization Obama has fostered. They don't have the money. They don't have the support. And all the "but he's black and his pastor is crazy and he once got money from this radical" shrieking isn't going to stop something that powerful. Each and every one of them is just hoping something happens to protect their seats. The good news is that a strong conservative candidate HELPS them in that regard. They need someone that the far right will rally behind to get more voters out that are on the right. They may not win the Presidency but they might keep a few more seats that they would otherwise lose.

Quoted for truth...

...and McCain is hardly a candidate that the far-right will rally behind.

Quoted for truth...

...and McCain is hardly a candidate that the far-right will rally behind.

You noticed? Also, Kat Heigel is hawt. And... beards. All guys should have beards. (I figure these arguments are as likely to get replies as the 80% of the arguments that have been mostly ignored.)

You noticed? Also, Kat Heigel is hawt. And... beards. All guys should have beards. (I figure these arguments are as likely to get replies as the 80% of the arguments that have been mostly ignored.)

My beard is so awesome it bested three razors this morning.

True story.

My beard is so awesome it bested three razors this morning.

True story.

That's why you're hot.

On a side note. My goatee itches and no one, and I mean no one, finds it hot anymore. Time to shave. Sorry, Kiryu, you're the only one who actually wants to lick it.

Also, someone actually read my long posts. Keep in mind that the post you didn't see had the poll results for EVERY state. And it was lost. Fucking Jolt. That's right. I swore. Fuck you, Pope whatever your name is.

Also, someone actually read my long posts. Keep in mind that the post you didn't see had the poll results for EVERY state. And it was lost. Fucking Jolt. That's right. I swore. Fuck you, Pope whatever your name is.

Personally I've created a little program that translates all your posts into 'You're wrong asshole' - I found that it pretty much covered what you're saying :)

Personally I've created a little program that translates all your posts into 'You're wrong asshole' - I found that it pretty much covered what you're saying :)

Sounds like a very accurate program. You looking for a job. I've decided to expand my employee pool.

That's why you're hot.

On a side note. My goatee itches and no one, and I mean no one, finds it hot anymore. Time to shave. Sorry, Kiryu, you're the only one who actually wants to lick it.

Also, someone actually read my long posts. Keep in mind that the post you didn't see had the poll results for EVERY state. And it was lost. Fucking Jolt. That's right. I swore. Fuck you, Pope whatever your name is.

When people doubt your goatee, that's when it's on its way to magnificence.

I took to copying my longer posts just in case Jolt eats them.

Sounds like a very accurate program. You looking for a job. I've decided to expand my employee pool.

I doubt that once I've completed hacking into your business account and siphoning off the money that you'll be able to afford me.

I doubt that once I've completed hacking into your business account and siphoning off the money that you'll be able to afford me.

Heh. You'll be siphoning off debt. IBM owes my half a million. Check my credit records if you think I'm joking.

Oddly, we can afford me and I cost $120/hr on a generous day.

Heh. You'll be siphoning off debt. IBM owes my half a million. Check my credit records if you think I'm joking.

I ran a company before and I found it's the large companies that spend the greatest time in paying - small companies are extremely efficient in payment, I suppose they deal with smaller accounts and also worry about their reputation more but large companies can, and I don't know if intentionally, hang you by your balls because you feel you can't afford to get angry and possibly lose a customer and therefore accept excuses like a dog.

It used to irritate me because start-ups really depend on cash-flow and I think it can cause a lot of issues, it can also feel like the little guy is being stomped on.

Good luck.

I ran a company before and I found it's the large companies that spend the greatest time in paying - small companies are extremely efficient in payment, I suppose they deal with smaller accounts and also worry about their reputation more but large companies can, and I don't know if intentionally, hang you by your balls because you feel you can't afford to get angry and possibly lose a customer and therefore accept excuses like a dog.

It used to irritate me because start-ups really depend on cash-flow and I think it can cause a lot of issues, it can also feel like the little guy is being stomped on.

Good luck.

All joking aside, the cool thing about being a small company is all it took was a sacrifice by me and we were able to survive. I simply chose to keep my income low and we managed to not only suvive, but we've tripled in size in 18 months. I'm double the size of the company that helped me break in to the business just six years ago. (I left them six years agol.)

It's all about priorities. Now it's time for a change. You join us, sacrifice YOUR testicles and I go out wasting money like an idiot and making really shallow women fall in love with me. Ready?

All joking aside, the cool thing about being a small company is all it took was a sacrifice by me and we were able to survive. I simply chose to keep my income low and we managed to not only suvive, but we've tripled in size in 18 months. I'm double the size of the company that helped me break in to the business just six years ago. (I left them six years agol.)

It's all about priorities. Now it's time for a change. You join us, sacrifice YOUR testicles and I go out wasting money like an idiot and making really shallow women fall in love with me. Ready?

Like Hillary Clinton, I'm ready from day one :)

Like Hillary Clinton, I'm ready from day one :)

Which means as long as you don't start counting until the 90th day?

To wander back on topic...

Supporters might be what is needed to finally get Clinton to read the tea leaves (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/friends_may_seal_clintons_fate.html), since the party is too scared to do it-
The heat of Clinton's rhetoric threatens to end an informal cease-fire she and Obama have observed in recent weeks, and some Democrats fear it presages a fight to the convention. It may thus fall to Clinton's own supporters on the rules committee to force her to accept a settlement. By picking this fight, Clinton may guarantee that her defeat is sealed not by her enemies, but by her friends.

Here's what she's hanging her hopes on (aside from the new firewall of Puerto Rico-interested in hearing how a territory's vote is vital to a general election campaign...)
Obama currently leads Clinton by roughly 185 delegates. According to the Clinton campaign, her challenge in the two states would net her 111 delegates if Michigan's uncommitted delegates continued to be counted as uncommitted. If the uncommitted delegates were allocated to Obama, that would cut her gain to 56. In the Michigan primary, Obama supporters urged a vote for the uncommitted slate.

The Obama campaign would like to split both delegations evenly between the candidates, but is ready to accept a version of the half-vote compromise. This could net Clinton 17 delegates, perhaps a few more.
Note that none of this would give her the lead, even if the asshole option was utilized. She would still need the Super Delegates to overturn the primary results-presumably because of the phantasmal 'popular vote' lead, which she continues to trumpet-
Clinton also wants to validate the use of Michigan and Florida in popular vote counts. Without Michigan's numbers, she trails Obama in popular votes cast in the primaries so far.

The popular vote understates the weight of states that held caucuses and has no formal role in the nomination process. But Clinton is leaving no incendiary metaphor behind in tying her personal interests to an argument for democracy.

In Florida on Wednesday, she linked the controversy both to the battle for democracy in Zimbabwe and to the disputed election of George Bush that still enrages many Democrats.
Seriously? Zimbabwe?

Incidentally it's her own rhetoric that might push her supporters to force her to compromise-
Clinton's chances of winning are slim, partly because some of her own supporters believe the contest is over. They see the clash over Michigan and Florida as futile for Clinton and destructive to the party.

As a result, officials close to the controversy say that even if the 13 members of the rules committee who support Clinton stick with her, they would likely be outvoted by the eight members loyal to Obama who would join the seven neutral members in favoring a compromise.

The most likely deal would seat the full Michigan and Florida delegations but give each delegate half a vote. This would be in line with party rules, and with how Republicans dealt with the two contested states.

"If we do this right," said Alice Germond, secretary to the party -- she will be calling the roll at the Denver convention in August -- "everyone will be a little happy, even if no one will get everything they want." Germond, a rules committee member, said it is inconceivable the party will not find a way to seat delegations from both states. "I can't stand up there and say, 'Michigan! -- oops, only kidding.'"

Germond added that if the rules committee fails to resolve the issue at its May 31 meeting here, "it does not bode well for our convention, or our unity."

Because of this, Clinton could see some of her own supporters defect on a rules vote rather than risk a party split. In an interview, Don Fowler, a South Carolina committee member who supports Clinton, stated his own view very carefully: "I'm inclined to support the Clinton position, but that's not a carte blanche." Without endorsing rules committee efforts to split the differences, Fowler noted "an inclination to reach a compromise."
I don't know what the polls are in the last three contests, but it really does seem like it's all over but the crying.

That last line is so comical it almost makes one want to cry. But it gets worse when you take into consideration not only her constant hedging about which states matter (i.e. the ones she wins and not the ones she loses), but this-

Clinton did not always feel so strongly. In the early days of the campaign she said Michigan would not count.

"It's clear," Clinton told New Hampshire Public Radio in the fall, "this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot."
Way to take her out of context. Try this (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188859):

In an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall, Clinton explained why she was the only candidate who did not agree to New Hampshire's request that she take her name off the ballot in Michigan.

"It's clear: This election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot," she said.

But with New Hampshire in her rear view mirror, Clinton decided Michigan's election should count and so should Florida's. Before the Democratic National Committee sanctioned them, the two states had a combined 366 delegates. Clinton, who won a majority in both state contests, now wants them to count.

The day before the Florida, primary she told her supporters, "I want the voters in Florida to know that I hear them."

"Hundreds of thousands of Floridians have already voted, so clearly they are taking this seriously, and they believe their voices are going to be heard and should be counted, and I agree with them," she said.


Except, you know, if I run a gambit where the only way I can win this nomination is if we reinstate this primary with only my name as a front runner on it...
The rest of the article underscores the underlying problem, which persists and is huge and will cost the Dems dearly:

This is potentially a huge problem for the Democratic Party, says Tad Devine, a veteran Democratic delegate counter who spoke on NPR's Diane Rehm Show.

"If the margin in these two states represents the difference in who the nominee is, it is going to be hard fought, and it could be fought all the way to the convention," Devine said.

The battle is already getting heated. Civil rights activist Al Sharpton, who says he is neutral in the Democratic race, said on MSNBC that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be counted.

Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, thinks it is a civil rights violation not to seat them.

Bond says that the process in the two states was inherently unfair because in Michigan, for example, only Clinton's name was on the ballot. He wants the Democratic National Committee to arrange a do-over, so the voters in those states can vote again, but that is unlikely.

Other solutions include spitting the delegates evenly between Obama and Clinton, or dividing them according to the candidates' proportion of the national popular vote. According to Mark Brewer, chairman of the Michigan Democratic State Party, talks are under way with the DNC to resolve the issue.

Devine says if the problem is not solved properly, it will be costly to whoever ends up as the nominee.

So far, there no solution in sight. And if either Obama or Clinton begins to pull ahead by big enough margins in the delegate count, a Michigan and Florida solution may not be necessary. But, if the race stays this tight, the search for a solution will be unavoidable.
Yet no viable solution was found, and the problem persists. It is and will remain a huge problem for the Dems.

Way to take her out of context. Try this (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188859):

I'm dying to know how you think that makes her look better.



The rest of the article underscores the underlying problem, which persists and is huge and will cost the Dems dearly:


Yet no viable solution was found, and the problem persists. It is and will remain a huge problem for the Dems.

Nothing like re-introducing the subject of conversation for the last couple of weeks like not only is it news, but it somehow makes your point.

Yes, it is a problem. I'll get you a cookie. You should ask "ready on day one" Clinton who supported it back in September and her campaign made up of some of the people who decided to remove Michigan's delegates why they didn't see it coming or have a solution.

I'm dying to know how you think that makes her look better.
I didn't suggest that it makes her look better.

Nothing like re-introducing the subject of conversation for the last couple of weeks like not only is it news, but it somehow makes your point.

Yes, it is a problem. I'll get you a cookie. You should ask "ready on day one" Clinton who supported it back in September and her campaign made up of some of the people who decided to remove Michigan's delegates why they didn't see it coming or have a solution.
I guess that it is quite obvious that the Clinton camp honestly believed that they would be able to win the nomination without those votes. Now it appears that she can't win the nomination without those votes.

I realize that it doesn't look good on Clinton, but when your back is to the wall, you do whatever you can to fight back.

To her credit, Hillary did state that the votes in Florida should count before the polls opened.

The problem is that the can of worms has been opened.

I realize that it doesn't look good on Clinton, but when your back is to the wall, you do whatever you can to fight back.

Were that the case it would be admirable. The simple fact is it's not. It's not a back to the wall and try to fight your way out thing, it's a she's already lost and stamping her feet like a spoiled child thing. That takes it from admirable to pitiable.

I didn't suggest that it makes her look better.


I guess that it is quite obvious that the Clinton camp honestly believed that they would be able to win the nomination without those votes. Now it appears that she can't win the nomination without those votes.

I realize that it doesn't look good on Clinton, but when your back is to the wall, you do whatever you can to fight back.

To her credit, Hillary did state that the votes in Florida should count before the polls opened.

The problem is that the can of worms has been opened.

You do? That's odd. I don't. I don't bitch and moan about the rules because I'm friends with all the refs, hoping they'll change them in a way that makes me a winner even though I really lost. Worse, it was her friends who made the rules. Not Obama's. Yet she's telling both states that Obama is the reason they have a problem. In fact, it's the Clinton camp's fault. Most of them voted to strip all the votes.

As far as claiming you weren't trying to make her look better, why did you claim he took her out of context? The context was that she knew the election didn't count so having your name on the ballot or NOT having your name on the ballot didn't matter. Those are her words and the context doesn't change their meaning.

We all know the DNC handled it badly, but making them count in some ludicrous way only compounds the problem.

I guess that it is quite obvious that the Clinton camp honestly believed that they would be able to win the nomination without those votes. Now it appears that she can't win the nomination with those votes.

fixed!

I'd love for a Super delegate to come out and say she selected Obama because Obama leads the popular vote. Clinton is suggesting they vote based on the popular vote lead and Obama holds it.

I don't know what the polls are in the last three contests, but it really does seem like it's all over but the crying.

It's been all over for a long time. It's just starting to sink in. She's had basically the best outcomes she could hope for since PA and still she's not even in it.

I didn't suggest that it makes her look better.


I guess that it is quite obvious that the Clinton camp honestly believed that they would be able to win the nomination without those votes. Now it appears that she can't win the nomination without those votes.

I realize that it doesn't look good on Clinton, but when your back is to the wall, you do whatever you can to fight back.

To her credit, Hillary did state that the votes in Florida should count before the polls opened.

The problem is that the can of worms has been opened.

Ah, good. You actually are making reasoned arguments here. This I can handle. The can of worms has been opened and you can't stuff them back in. All candidates agreed to the rules so you can't change them half way. It'd be like playing monopoly and three quesrters of the way through the game you suddenly change the objective to going broke instead of becoming rich. It just won't work, and may results in a thimble being shoved up for ass.

Ah, good. You actually are making reasoned arguments here. This I can handle. The can of worms has been opened and you can't stuff them back in. All candidates agreed to the rules so you can't change them half way. It'd be like playing monopoly and three quesrters of the way through the game you suddenly change the objective to going broke instead of becoming rich. It just won't work, and may results in a thimble being shoved up for ass.

It's fine to change the rules so long as it doesn't alter the outcome. The sorry thing is that at one point Clinton almost certainly could have muscled her way into a VP slot, but she's losing so much credibility that NOW she's not got the first chance. Even her supporters won't do that to Obama.

oh wow. apparently the clinton position as articulated by harold ickes (who, incidentally, voted to strip mi and fl of their delegates along with a dozen other clinton supporters on the rules and bylaws committee last year) is that they want the 55 uncommitted delegates from mi to not be obama supporters.

She has openly claimed she will follow the will of the people in the state. She said this openly and explicitly. The road forward is easy for Obama. All he has to do is agree that he would also like to follow the will of the voters. See, unfortunately for Clinton, Obama is up on her in that state. See what a little name recognition will do.

Do you have some numbers that will support your claim?

Sure. From the very site you cited, actually. RCP.

Obama +0.6 Clinton -3.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/michigan.html)

Teehee. Teehee. This is the part where you backpedal and pretend like you don't like RCP even though you cited it as a source when it agreed with you.

Unfortunately, that poll does not support your argument in regards to Democratic supporters in Michigan.

It also shows, by RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_mccain_vs_obama-553.html#polls), that overall, Obama is actually slipping in Michigan.

Edit: BTW, I don't like RCP. It sucks big time. Although, some of the articles are interesting.

I'd love for a Super delegate to come out and say she selected Obama because Obama leads the popular vote. Clinton is suggesting they vote based on the popular vote lead and Obama holds it.

That was AFTER she began pseudo-winning on them by not counting the fact that OBAMA'S NAME WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT IN MICHIGAN. Before, she just said the supers should, yes, ignore the popular vote.

So, yeah, she seems to be under the impression that the nomination is her birthright.

The sorry thing is that at one point Clinton almost certainly could have muscled her way into a VP slot, but she's losing so much credibility that NOW she's not got the first chance. Even her supporters won't do that to Obama.
Interesting that you should speculate on that:

If Clinton Wants VP, Obama Can't Stop Her (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/if_clinton_wants_to_be_vp_obam.html)

Does Hillary Clinton want to be the Democrats vice presidential candidate? Probably. Could she get on the ticket by dropping out before the last states vote on June 3rd? Definitely not. Does Barack Obama want her on the ticket? Absolutely not. Can he stop her if she wants it? Probably not. Why not? Super delegates are why not.
I love it. Great article.

Interesting that you should speculate on that:

If Clinton Wants VP, Obama Can't Stop Her (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/if_clinton_wants_to_be_vp_obam.html)


I love it. Great article.

I read the article. It was written before she started whining about the two states her supporters decided to punish in that spoiled-little-girl way of hers.

Unfortunately, that poll does not support your argument in regards to Democratic supporters in Michigan.

It also shows, by RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_mccain_vs_obama-553.html#polls), that overall, Obama is actually slipping in Michigan.

Edit: BTW, I don't like RCP. It sucks big time. Although, some of the articles are interesting.

Where did I say "democratic" supporters? Seriously, sometimes you just make things up whole cloth.

As far as "slipping", he's winning. And that was what I said.

And I know you don't like RCP. You don't like any site when it doesn't agree with you and like it when it agrees. Unfortunately for you, that's precisely the way to lose a debate. As I say, selective evidence. RCP was good enough for you to cite several times selectively, but not good enough to, you know, treat as an equal source ALL the time. Much like SurveyUSA and the various other polling sites that you like to cherrypick.

Interesting that you should speculate on that:

If Clinton Wants VP, Obama Can't Stop Her (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/if_clinton_wants_to_be_vp_obam.html)


I love it. Great article.

I know. I read it some time ago. And at the time, it was right. However, she's not gonna get it now. There is no one that is going to force that poison on him. And her negatives just keep increasing. She doesn't bring anything to the ticket that he can't get from someone else that doesn't have her baggage.

I loved this article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

So glad someone else is saying it. There is nothing TOUGH about what Clinton is doing. If she were truly as strong as she claims, she'd suck it up and eat crow.

Could you forward, link, or whatever, them to me?

You could probably sign up for them. The main one is Current Events. And they send out weekly Ann Coulter tirades in addition to their normal stuff.

Clinton donor trying to pay off supers with a 1 million dollar "donation." Now that is sleazy back door politics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/19/superdelegates-turned-dow_n_102450.html

I loved this article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

So glad someone else is saying it. There is nothing TOUGH about what Clinton is doing. If she were truly as strong as she claims, she'd suck it up and eat crow.

Oh, they'll say, the WOMAN that wrote this is a misogynist! She doesn't like women!

I know. I read it some time ago. And at the time, it was right. However, she's not gonna get it now. There is no one that is going to force that poison on him. And her negatives just keep increasing. She doesn't bring anything to the ticket that he can't get from someone else that doesn't have her baggage.

Clinton is a horrible choice for VP. My suggestions: Jim Webb, Bill Richardson, or Kathleen Sebelius. See, sexism is not an issue for me?

Clinton donor trying to pay off supers with a 1 million dollar "donation." Now that is sleazy back door politics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/19/superdelegates-turned-dow_n_102450.html

Read the last paragraph it says Obama gave to superdelegates too. 34 of them, totaling $288,000 Apparently he buys 'em on the cheap.

Where did I say "democratic" supporters? Seriously, sometimes you just make things up whole cloth.
I thought that is what you were suggesting. Sorry if I misunderstood.

As far as "slipping", he's winning. And that was what I said.
The most recent poll (from RCP) shows that he is losing:

Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 45 44 McCain +1.0
EPIC-MRA 04/03 - 04/08 600 LV 41 43 Obama +2.0
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 643 RV 45 46 Obama +1.0

This is where averaging is made of fail!!

And Clinton fares better by recent polling:

Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 44 44 Tie
EPIC-MRA 04/03 - 04/08 600 LV 46 37 McCain +9.0
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 644 RV 44 44 Tie

And I know you don't like RCP. You don't like any site when it doesn't agree with you and like it when it agrees. Unfortunately for you, that's precisely the way to lose a debate. As I say, selective evidence. RCP was good enough for you to cite several times selectively, but not good enough to, you know, treat as an equal source ALL the time. Much like SurveyUSA and the various other polling sites that you like to cherrypick.
There has been a lot of cherrypicking going on here at NSG by everyone. I don't like any one particular polling firm. It appears that there are too many inconsistencies amongst the lot of them.

I know. I read it some time ago. And at the time, it was right. However, she's not gonna get it now. There is no one that is going to force that poison on him. And her negatives just keep increasing. She doesn't bring anything to the ticket that he can't get from someone else that doesn't have her baggage.
Clinton on his ticket, is the only chance for him to win.

Clinton is a horrible choice for VP. My suggestions: Jim Webb, Bill Richardson, or Kathleen Sebelius. See, sexism is not an issue for me?

Bill Richardson could get Hispanics in Florida and New Mexico, and maybe in others.

Jim Webb would help with Virginia.

Ted Strickland would help with Ohio.

Sebelius would be useful in dispelling the sexism charges Clinton produced due to Obama's gaffe of, y'know, running against a candidate with a vagina (assuming Clinton has one).

Richardson might help in a few, Webb and Strickland WOULD help in ONE and Sebelius would help a little in all and maybe, just maybe, help in the State that Didn't Evolve.

Clinton on his ticket, is the only chance for him to win.

That's one of the more patently absurd things I've read today. Or this week. Perhaps the entire month.

Clinton donor trying to pay off supers with a 1 million dollar "donation." Now that is sleazy back door politics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/19/superdelegates-turned-dow_n_102450.html

Read the last paragraph it says Obama gave to superdelegates too. 34 of them, totaling $288,000 Apparently he buys 'em on the cheap.
I guess that means that Obama is guilty of cheap "sleazy back door politics"? :)

Bill Richardson could get Hispanics in Florida and New Mexico, and maybe in others.

Jim Webb would help with Virginia.

Ted Strickland would help with Ohio.

Sebelius would be useful in dispelling the sexism charges Clinton produced due to Obama's gaffe of, y'know, running against a candidate with a vagina (assuming Clinton has one).

Richardson might help in a few, Webb and Strickland WOULD help in ONE and Sebelius would help a little in all and maybe, just maybe, help in the State that Didn't Evolve.

I think Richardson would cost more votes than he'd bring. No whitey on the ticket would make a lot of rednecks nervous. Jim Webb would I think be a solid choice, I don't know enough about Sebelius' politics.

Clinton on his ticket, is the only chance for him to win.

No, it isn't. The people that supported her wouldn't support Obama due to him and the people that supported Obama wouldn't support Obama due to her.

That's one of the more patently absurd things I've read today. Or this week. Perhaps the entire month.
I believe that it is the only way to unite the party and heal the wounds.