Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

What is McCain's latest "senior moment", what does Obama need to do to win in November or whatever else is on your mind.

And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil.

Thanks!

Previous Open Thread is here

9481 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 2401 – 2600 of 9481 Newer› Newest»

Mike in Maryland said...: Leah Texas4Obama said...
Hahahahaha!

FoxNews electoral vote map is RIDICULOUS!!!

And you have to click twice to get a state to turn blue - every other site clicks blue, then red.

Faux News shows its bias again (as if we didn't know they would) !!!

Mike; August 24, 2008 9:46 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Let's just be smart this time. I'm looking for smart.

Joe Biden; August 24, 2008 9:49 PM
Independent Voter said...: I love Bill Maher! I really wish he would run for political office! Could you imagine? I'm watching Larry King Live and he's on there.; August 24, 2008 9:55 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: heh, I just saw Bill Mahr, too, on LKL. His show starts up again next Friday! or so I hear ...; August 24, 2008 10:01 PM
Richard said...: Glad to see the MI and FL delegations will get full votes and that Hillary will release her delegates before the first vote. This should go a little way toward soothing bruised egos.; August 24, 2008 10:49 PM
apissedant said...: Mike in MD,
By that same clicking scenario, wouldn't all the other websites be biased in favor of Obama?; August 24, 2008 10:49 PM
apissedant said...: Virginia PPP (D) McCain 45, Obama 47 Obama +2; August 24, 2008 10:50 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Let's hope the public will watch enough of the convention to get a clear idea of the next POTUS. It's exciting to think that's what this site is for also. I hope I've been able to share the kind of info Matt and the others are researching so diligently. Thanks to all of them.

g'night America wherever we are; August 24, 2008 10:52 PM
apissedant said...: What is the Fox News threshold for a state to be a toss-up or in one candidate's favor? Wisconsin is 7.2% in favor of Obama in the poll of polls, and Indiana is 3.7% in favor of McCain. Indiana is red and Wisconsin is gray.... HAHA

I <3 FOX NEWS. =); August 24, 2008 10:53 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: "<3" fox news? is that you mooning them? what?

because it would be a juvenile, but somehow pleasing, thing to go moon the local affiliate.; August 24, 2008 11:13 PM
Beryl said...: I just returned from the Ed Shulz Democratic event at a Trail Dust Restaurant. It was PACKED and Ed was terrific.

A mother-daughter couple sat with us Mom was around 70ish and daughter was 40ish. Mom said that Barack Obama reminded her of FDR without the wealth.

It was a really good event.; August 24, 2008 11:16 PM
Beryl said...: CNN is blaming HRC supporters for Obama's slip in the polls. They are saying if Obama loses, it will be because of HRC supporters.

This is what I call cutting off your nose to spite your face. When they help elect McCain and lose all of their rights, money and sons and daughters to war, they only have themselves to blame.; August 24, 2008 11:18 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: Beryl, I hope you are having a blast. Wish I were there! My gf in Denver is stressed over the whole thing, I didn't want to be a houseguest this week and stress her out even more. she works downtown.; August 24, 2008 11:21 PM
Beryl said...: Thanks, Vicki
I'm still debating if I'm going on Thursday. Everyone is telling me that I'm nuts NOT to go. There is no parking so I'll have to take a cab down there. I don't know...; August 24, 2008 11:25 PM
Beryl said...: John McCain and the Economy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svmd6ps1BMc; August 24, 2008 11:32 PM
Independent Voter said...: beryl, why not just use public transportation? It would be a lot easier than getting a cab. Cabs are going to be scarce that night - when you think about 75,000 supporters that will be in attendance. I'm sure they will be putting extra buses on the route for the entire week.; August 24, 2008 11:49 PM
apissedant said...: beryl,
How did you get credentials?; August 24, 2008 11:50 PM
apissedant said...: HAHAHA Dave,
Public transportation... what country do you think you live in?; August 24, 2008 11:53 PM
Independent Voter said...: beryl,

I totally agree with your assessment as to their knife being introduced to the noses on their face (which will no longer be there) via spite.

All I can say is FU to those who are willing to jeopardize their rights, money and other people's family members (you KNOW they will NEVER allow their kids to be drafter - draft dodgers the sequel - take after their leaders, right?) And as far as I'm concerned they will have absolutely zero right to bitch about the state of the country as it goes to hell in a hand basket if they help elect McDouchebag.; August 24, 2008 11:53 PM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - DENVER has a great public transportation system. Every time I visit, I RARELY rent a car because they have nearly zero parking downtown, and that is where I normally visit.; August 24, 2008 11:55 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
I just went to their website. It looks like it is highly dependent on where you live. Most of the light rail lines are parallel almost the entire way. I haven't been to Denver in several years, and I've only ever been on my way to or from Copper Mountain.; August 24, 2008 11:59 PM
apissedant said...: All I know is after spending time in England, the Netherlands, and France, there is no way I can call any American public transportation system "great" except possibly New York. Of the few I've been to that is. I'm sure there are a few others, but not that many.; August 25, 2008 12:01 AM
apissedant said...: NYC is the only city I've been to where I chose to use public transportation instead of renting a car or bringing my own. I've tried in several other cities, but even in DC and Boston, I found it much easier to just drive and pay the ridiculous fees.; August 25, 2008 12:02 AM
apissedant said...: Although I have to admit a large part of that may be due to the fact I still enjoy the nightlife, and pretty much every public transportation system shuts down at midnight or earlier. Even European cities aren't much better about that, and most major cities have free parking on weekends and at night, at least in the US.; August 25, 2008 12:05 AM
Independent Voter said...: I hear ya p'd ant. But when there is a major event of 75,000 people expected to attend, you KNOW the city is working to get it taken care of. ;)

-------

On a brighter note - Madonna attacked McCain and likened him with Hitler. Too bad there's no video of it yet, but from what I've read, it's pretty great!; August 25, 2008 12:09 AM
Bob in Vancouver said...: I'm a Barak Obama supporter, but I can't vote since I don't reside in the US. I want to make a small comment on the day to day polls that are out there. All the news media want to hype the fact that nationally the polls are very tight. Daily tracking polls show a very small diffential. But, if you take a look at the Electoral College Graphs at www.electoral-vote.com(the second graph) in which only the states with greater than 5% differential in polling are plotted (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html) you will see that Barack Obama is doing extremely well at the moment.

The US Presidential Election is not a national election, it is 50 different elections all occurring simultaneously. From the graph you can clearly see that Obama has steadily increased his hold (even through the summer) on a total of 255-260 electoral votes (most of these of coures are blue states). Whereas McCain's hold on red states has either held steady or weakened. To me that is great news. It means that Obama is consolodating his strengths and locking up blue states such that they are very unlikely going to be swing states. To me that means shortly, more and more of the real battleground states and some of the red states are going to come into play. With Obama locking up 255-260 electoral votes, he only needs between 10 and 15 more electoral votes to secure the presidency.

Forget about the nation wide daily tracking polls. They don't mean a thing.; August 25, 2008 12:11 AM
apissedant said...: LOL Dave,
Oh, here in Hampton Roads, VA, we're finally looking into public transportation. They expect to eventually make a line throughout Hampton Roads' 7 cities, totaling about 2 million in population. It is going to be done in segments and will probably take a decade or more. I'm sure there will be plenty of battles over property too. It won't be pretty or cheap, if it ever happens.; August 25, 2008 12:18 AM
Beryl said...: Dave, I'm not feeling public transit. I may get dropped off though.

I got community credentials. Volunteers get them.; August 25, 2008 12:18 AM
Bob in Vancouver said...: Can you imagine having Cindy McCain as first lady, representing the US around the world? A past druggy with a criminal record, numerous face lifts, a barrel of make-up,; August 25, 2008 12:19 AM
Independent Voter said...: Actually I was wrong, here is the "pirated" video someone must have taken at the concert.; August 25, 2008 12:19 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Bob in Vancouver,

I completely agree. The only reason I even glance at the national polls is to get some gauge on what the nation as a whole is thinking, then I immediately go to the latest of the state polls to see how each individual state is polling.

I also look at the internals when I can. Whenever I see a poll that says fewer African-Americans will vote this year than in 2004, and/or more than 10% of AAs are supporting McLame(brain), you have to wonder what kind of fantasy poll is being conducted.

Mike; August 25, 2008 12:22 AM
apissedant said...: If Virginia and Colorado fall to Barack Obama, he won't need Florida or Ohio. =)

There are several other red states from 2004 and 2000 that are in play in 2008. =) OBAMA/BIDEN '08; August 25, 2008 12:22 AM
apissedant said...: Only problem with state polls is that they don't get done very often, and become very difficult to gauge due to this. This was clearly seen in the Primaries, in Indiana, NH, SC, NC, Iowa, SD, and several other states, all having significantly different results than the polls indicated. =/

Now the national polls are good for one reason: The poll of polls nationally is almost always very close to the actual result, and a candidate who wins the popular vote almost always wins the EC. Also, when the national polls are showing SEVERAL points in Obama's favor, that computes to millions of votes, and winning by millions of votes and still losing the PV would be unprecedented.; August 25, 2008 12:27 AM
apissedant said...: McCain hasn't been ahead in the poll of polls since January of 2007. =); August 25, 2008 12:32 AM
apissedant said...: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/popular-vote-v-electoral-vote.html; August 25, 2008 12:36 AM
Independent Voter said...: beryl, I'm sorry, I'm such a horrible blog buddy.

How are you holding up with the tornadoes coming so close?; August 25, 2008 1:21 AM
Independent Voter said...: Bill Schneider from CNN says that "cell-phone only users" are "factored" into their polling methodology.

How can you figure in something that you don't know exactly how many people are "cell-phone only users"?; August 25, 2008 1:37 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: AP,

Just because it has never happened before doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. There are several ways a candidate could get millions more votes than their competitor, but lose the EV by a large margin, depending on how the vote splits in the various states. It is extremely unlikely to happen, but the probability is still there.

What I meant by interals:
In 2004, the AA vote in Virginia was about 20%, and Kerry got about 90% of the AA vote. In one or more recent Virginia poll, the AA turnout is projected to be 15%, and 12-14% are expected to vote for McLame(brain).

I don't think the AA vote in Virginia or any state will be suppressed from 2004 level, and I don't think that Senator Obama will get a smaller percent of that AA vote than Kerry did.

If such internals are what gives one candidate a 1% lead (McLame(brain) in this case), it is probably the other candidate (Obama) who most likely is at least 1-2% ahead, thus the state goes from Toss-up McLame(brain) to Toss-up Obama.

And then there are polls that make you scratch your head and ask 'what planet are these fools on?' For instance, an Insider Advantage poll from August 12 showed McLame(brain) getting 10% more of the 18-29 vote than Senator Obama, and Obama getting only 57% of the AA vote. On such 'polling', Insider Advantage figured McLame(brain) was ahead 43.1% to 42.6%, with 14% undecided.

Virginia is a toss-up this year, and probably toss-up blue, and pollsters know it. Some seem to be going way out of the way, though, to make the polls seem tighter than I think they actually are.

Mike; August 25, 2008 1:41 AM
Karen Anne said...: Over at The Page,

Teddy Kennedy may speak Monday night

Bill Clinton is being a drama queen about his speech and may screw everything up.

Thank God once this week is over no one needs to pay attention to the Clintons ever again.

Thank God Obama has an unflappable temperament, has anyone ever had to deal with this type of ongoing crap from his own party.; August 25, 2008 3:03 AM
apissedant said...: Mike,
Very good points. I admit that I rarely delve that deeply into the polls, but it definitely is a good idiot check on the polls if the demographics are completely boned.

Virginia very well may go blue, and for many reasons. Bad year for the Republicans, black vote in Richmond and Hampton Roads, and most importantly, the northern migration into NOVA.; August 25, 2008 3:16 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Rich

I'm sorry but this is a joke and not a funny one: Glad to see the MI and FL delegations will get full votes and that Hillary will release her delegates before the first vote. This should go a little way toward soothing bruised egos. AJ; August 25, 2008 3:20 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Karen Anne you must be living in lala land if you think the Clintons won't be heard from again. AJ; August 25, 2008 3:22 AM
apissedant said...: karen anne,
Correction, we'll never have to deal with BILL CLINTON again. Hillary still has power with her Senate seat, and still has a lot of supporters to keep her relevant. This isn't a problem, because she has clearly worked for the Democrats and Barack Obama since she lost the primary.
Bill has not, and has severely eroded what influence and power he once had. Apparently the man isn't used to hearing the word no, and reacts very badly on the rare occasion someone has the gull to tell him no.

As for cell phone users... that is becoming an increasingly larger factor in the polls, and I have no idea how they could account for it. In their favor however, is the fact that most of the cell phone only users are young, and the young have been historically bad at carrying out their civic duty.
I was sure Kerry would perform better than the polls said in 2004, and only due to cell phone voters. Neither myself nor any of my friends have home phones. We are all young, and the young are overwhelming for the Democrats. How could Kerry not get a boost of a few points?
WRONG! Apparently none of us felt the need to vote. OUTSTANDING! Not even Paris Hilton, despite going on the "Vote or Die" tour, decided it necessary to vote. FREAKING RIDICULOUS.
Now we have the added problem of the Ron Paul kids. These young voters apparently haven't opened their history books, and don't realize that everything Ron Paul suggested has not only been done before, but failed miserably before. This is a fairly large sector of the youths, and many of them refuse to vote for either McCain or Obama.
I have several friends who will not vote for anyone who voted for the FISA bill. They will not vote for anyone that authorized the Iraq war. They will not vote for anyone who will increases taxes on anyone.
UGH! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??! Basically they won't vote for anyone that does not agree with them on 100% of the issues. These aren't dumb kids either. They are very intelligent young adults that are ignorant and pigheaded. Don't know how to fix that. On the plus side, they're not voting for McCain!; August 25, 2008 3:26 AM
apissedant said...: AJ,
Bill will not be a big player for quite a while, if ever again. He screwed the pooch on this one. Hillary did well by her supporters, and my the Democratic party. Maybe not as well by the Democratic party or as soon as many of us would have liked, but enough so that this won't seriously hurt her credibility.

Again though, Bill has done himself nor his wife any favors. He has gotten nothing but negative media attention from everyone, because he keeps opening his mouth and letting garbage spew out.; August 25, 2008 3:29 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Beryl

please quit comparing Obama to presidents. He is who he is not someone else. People must be blind.AJ; August 25, 2008 3:30 AM
Bob in Vancouver said...: Mike in Maryland

"And then there are polls that make you scratch your head and ask 'what planet are these fools on?"

I agree completely. The MSM go for the polls that give them some excitement or controversey - a very tight race, gaining support, and narrowing the gap, sort of stuff. A poorly done poll with rediculous results makes for good TV, and yet gives the TV Station a credible source to quote.

They have drummed up more controversy surrounding the Clinton's at the Convention than warrented. Donna Brazil must be going crazy just sitting there listening to some of this stuff.

Bill Schneider from CNN is an expert at this BS with screwy poll numbers. He makes quite a careeer out of it along with a grand smile. And I notice that Bill Dobbs cites statistics and polls that shore up his slant on things.

Incidently, Dobbs is no way a unbiased or independant thinker. He's a conservative through and through. He's no idiot but very dishonest in his reporting.; August 25, 2008 3:32 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Ap

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you about Bill Clinton either. He's still a big deal.Maybe not in your eyes or all the others on this forem but in my eyes he still THE MAN. I'm not saying that he hasn't made dumb mistakes.[Who hasn't] Please Please don't say it even if you are thinking it because you know it's not true!AJ; August 25, 2008 3:36 AM
Joshua said...: Aunt Jean, the video at the home page of this site is exactly you. Irrational, angry, racist, non-democrats backing Hillary.; August 25, 2008 3:36 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Hey Mike go eat a cow pattie if you don't know what it is I will be glad to tell you. Of course you might not have enough brain cells to understand it since you are a devil in reality. You are very evil minded.You wouldn't know what a democrat is if one slapped you in the face because you are not even a voter you don't have the mental ability to vote. Be off with you troll. AJ

This will probable get deleted but I don't care.; August 25, 2008 3:45 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike
by the way you should really tell what you do instead of lying about being a physician. You are probable a trash collector.Atrash collector troll. LOL LOL AJ; August 25, 2008 3:54 AM
Karen Anne said...: Mike,

Great clip. But you have to listen to 6 minutes of Hillary crap to get to the fact that the woman is not a Democrat :-)

My eyes rolled particularly at the part where Obama's rushed slip calling one reporter sweetie (which is what I imagine he's used to calling his all female household :-) becomes calling all women sweetie and a crucial reason why he isn't fit to be President. She doesn't turn a hair at McSame calling his wife a c*nt apparently.

These women give all women a bad name.; August 25, 2008 3:58 AM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 25, 2008 4:05 AM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 25, 2008 4:09 AM
Karen Anne said...: Also still waiting to hear why Roberta McCain calling a reporter hon is not a capital crime.; August 25, 2008 4:13 AM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 25, 2008 4:13 AM
apissedant said...: Why are we letting trolls stir up a mess again? Even the Canadian knew better than to respond, and he's not even a regular here! Please people, don't let outsiders tear our party apart.; August 25, 2008 4:43 AM
Karen Anne said...: ap,

I don't think Bill Clinton is posting here.; August 25, 2008 7:24 AM
apissedant said...: No, but "Mike" is, and he is just a much a troll today as he was last month.

Here is a simple list to help:

Mike in Md-Good

Mike-Bad; August 25, 2008 8:04 AM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 25, 2008 10:30 AM
jean said...: Interesting article.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08252008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/all_about_hillary_125970.htm
jean; August 25, 2008 10:33 AM
Independent Voter said...: AJ,

Karen Anne was referring to the video. I watched the entire video and it didn't come out until the very end of it that the woman finally disclosed that she wasn't a Democrat. That is all Karen Anne was saying.

Most of the crap that she was spewing in the video wasn't about Hillary at all, it was just negatives about Obama. She stated that he was sexist. AJ, do you believe Obama is a sexist, because he called a reporter sweety? I sure don't. I call many of my friends (straight, gay, male, female or otherwise - this would include transgender of both sexes) sweetie or hun. I guess in that woman's mind, I'm sexist against everyone.

The woman said that Obama was a racist, which he is not. The interviewer said that the woman in the video was being irrational because she is promoting a TRUE sexist (McCain) by not supporting the Democratic nominee (I don't think I need to explain the difference between McCain and Obama on women's issues - but I will if necessary) and she returned fire using the sexist charge. She had no argument to back up the charge. But it seems that anyone calling a woman irrational is sexist. I have MANY irrational friends of both sexes, if that makes me an equal opportunity sexist, then so be it.; August 25, 2008 10:53 AM
Doc Pickles said...: Well so much for all those Edwards - Sebelius 08 buttons I made in January :-)

Hey best of luck to O and Joe! Let's unify behind these candidates and find a responsible way to get those hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq back into the U.S. economy. Universal health care would be a much better place to spend those dollars.

Everybody stay positive and keep looking to the future.

And be nice to the Clintons. Nobody ran a better domestic economy since Dwight D. Eisenhower.; August 25, 2008 11:06 AM
Beryl said...: "Beryl
please quit comparing Obama to presidents. He is who he is not someone else. People must be blind.AJ"

AJ
Many people are comparing Obama with other presidents. I have not yet personally compared him. I have shared comparisons made by other people.

1. I mentioned a 70ish (Jewish, I think) person who compared Obama to FDR without the wealth. You got bent out of shape and told ME to not compare him to a president.

2. I mentioned French and German ambassadors who compared Obama to JFK. You said you want to scream when I compare him to JFK. I then told you to scream at Caroline and Edward who also made the comparison and you had nothing to say.

Why does it bother you (and no one else on this blog) when Obama is compared to other presidents?

Please don't get it twisted. I will continue to share what I want whether you like it or not. I do not have an argumentative style and like to give others the last word. That still does not change me or my actions.; August 25, 2008 11:23 AM
Independent Voter said...: beryl, I would add a little to that. In most campaigns, every candidate is almost always compared to former presidents. McCain is being compared to George Bush. Actually McCain is being linked at hip to George Bush.; August 25, 2008 11:32 AM
Independent Voter said...: There is rumor that they (Bush and McCain) are going in for surgery this week to be officially joined at the hip I think Barack Obama and Joe Biden are going to be the surgeons.; August 25, 2008 11:35 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: Beryl, that was politely stated, and AJ, I believe she has a point. Personally, I don't agree with everything here, but that doesn't mean I have to ask others to not say something when they are sincere about it (or quoting someone else). The choice to respond or not is always mine; as is the choice to hear someone out or not. Many times, I read something and I say to myself, "huh, I don't see it that way", but I recognize that one of the beauties of the party is the ability to allow this sort of expression.

sometimes, I think to myself, "huh, never looked at it like that", like the FDR/Obama comparison. I wasn't alive for FDR, so it's not the first comparison that comes to mind.

re: the whole comparison thing: one of the best exercises in HS that I ever got, was the "compare and contrast" exercise. Or maybe it was in college, in the Chaucer/Spenser/Shakespeare class. At any rate, it is a common exercise, to COMPARE (how things are like) and to CONTRAST (how they differ). We could easily be making the "contrast" part of the equation.

For example, how does Obama DIFFER from JFK? from FDR? This would also be an interesting exercise.

but bottom line: O and Joe in O-Eight!; August 25, 2008 11:35 AM
Independent Voter said...: On a lighter note, I got this joke about 5 surgeons from my brother in an e-mail. I hope you all like it:

The first surgeon, from New York , says, "I like to see accountants on my operating table, because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered."

The second surgeon, from Chicago , responds, "Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded."

The third surgeon, from Dallas , says, "No, I really think librarians are the best, everything inside them is in alphabetical order."

The fourth surgeon, from Los Angeles chimes in: "You know, I like construction workers...those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over."

But the fifth surgeon, from Washington , DC shut them all up when he observed: "You're all wrong Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There's no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine, and the head and the butt are interchangeable."; August 25, 2008 11:38 AM
Doc Pickles said...: I think the comparison between Obama and JFK has more to do with the 1960 electorate and the 2008 electorate, not the actual candidate. There’s a palpable sense of hope that hasn’t been there for a long time.

BHO hasn’t been shy about pointing out the symbolic parallels between himself and Abe Lincoln. Nobody can deny the uncanny resemblance between 2008 loser John McCain and 1996 loser Bob Dole!; August 25, 2008 11:38 AM
jean said...: Good one Indy; August 25, 2008 11:47 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: indy is gonna make me haul out my engineer jokes, collected and carefully preserved from my days as an engineer.; August 25, 2008 11:51 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: yes, let's compare and contrast McCain and DOLE! good one, Canada!; August 25, 2008 11:55 AM
Beryl said...: "F" Fox News!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoDsQ2VNArI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynTwlLHZd6Q

Go Denver! Tell them how we really feel. lol!; August 25, 2008 12:23 PM
Doc Pickles said...: Best thing that could happen is for McCain to be McCain, just wind him up and let him go. That's essentially the advice McCain was giving to Dole in 1996, and I hope McCain follows his own advice to the letter.

Here's a good beckgrounder from the June 23/08 Newsweek discussing McCain's role in the stunningly unsuccessful Dole campaign called "Aiming to Avoid the Dole-Drums"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/141506; August 25, 2008 12:28 PM
Doc Pickles said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 25, 2008 12:31 PM
Doc Pickles said...: (removed double post)

Ha ha Beryl that's gold! The poor hapless correspondent.

"Excuse me, masked protester, do you believe in freedom?"

What a FOXy interview!; August 25, 2008 12:32 PM
Richard said...: You know, Obama reminds me of Bill Clinton in '92. He's a young, charismatic and inspiring leader who truly cares about people and who has an agenda for change. And best of all he doesn't have Clinton's negatives. He's the Bill Clinton Bill Clinton should have been. And he can keep it in his pants!

Obama is the new Bill Clinton. Pass it on!; August 25, 2008 1:00 PM
Richard said...: Does anyone else think McCain's camp is seriously considering choosing a woman for his VP nominee? It seems that McCain's people think they can win Hillary voters and are hitching their hopes to that.; August 25, 2008 1:51 PM
Independent Voter said...: rich, I honestly don't think he will. The only woman I can see McDouchebag naming would be Fiorina (sp?). In a way, I really hope he does pick her. All of her former employees that were screwed will come out against her in all sorts of ads about her being a failure as CEO of HP.; August 25, 2008 2:09 PM
Karen Anne said...: I hadn't thought of the FDR comparison either (I'm not quite that old :-)

But it had occurred to me awhile back that maybe Obama would do Fireside Chats a la FDR. Wouldn't it be nice to have a President who explains issues in rational detail?

As to Fiorina, I worked for a company that got bought by Compaq that got bought by HP. Screwed is too mild a word. Fiorina is the embodiment of everything that's wrong with most CEOs today.

Not just a failure, but tossing out employees, outsourcing to India, which does a terrible job, cutting health benefits, doing away with a lot of the retiree medical benefits, and walking away with millions in her pocket.

I hear she has tons of private security. The CEO of my original company, Ken Olsen, a decent and honorable man, was legendary for stuff like people meeting him in the supermarket where he was doing his family's grocery shopping.; August 25, 2008 2:22 PM
Doc Pickles said...: Not a bad strategy, but Senator Clinton is a good Democrat and I don't think she would accept the nomination if offered. :-); August 25, 2008 2:24 PM
Independent Voter said...: Karen Anne - I just think it would be awesome for him to pick her. This way the Obama campaign could really lay in and go after her like McCain is going to do with Obama and Biden.; August 25, 2008 2:25 PM
Independent Voter said...: Oh Canada, I don't think that rich was suggesting putting Hillary on McCain's ticket. I think he was saying that McCain could put a woman as his running mate just to try to get more of Hillary's voters.; August 25, 2008 2:27 PM
Doc Pickles said...: I know, I was just being a smart alek.; August 25, 2008 2:46 PM
Independent Voter said...: Oh Canada, sorry. I thought about that after I posted my previous entry.; August 25, 2008 2:58 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: My laptop hard drive crashed last night and I am on a crappy back-up computer today, so I probably won't be posting much until I can get onto another laptop.; August 25, 2008 3:20 PM
Karen Anne said...: A photo to drive racists nuts -

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/35767/original.jpg

Also, very interesting article about the campaigns innards -

http://www.politico.com/relentless/; August 25, 2008 4:03 PM
Richard said...: The thing is, I think McCain's camp is unsubtle enough to think that just by picking a woman -- any woman -- he will get Hillary voters. I'm not saying it will work, only that I think he's that dumb.; August 25, 2008 4:21 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Aunt Jean,

If you take offense at the term "Hon", then do not come to Baltimore.

One of the greetings of customers (male or female) of many, many women restaurant workers is "Hon".

There is an eatery called 'Cafe Hon'.

And in the middle of June each year, there is:
http://www.honfest.net

Oh, and one of the signs at the city line on a major highway entering the city in the past has stated "Welcome to Baltimore, Hon".

Mike; August 25, 2008 4:32 PM
Independent Voter said...: MinM, I'm not sure if AJ considered that to be sexist. The woman in the video apparently believes that a woman being called hon or sweetie is a sexist remark.; August 25, 2008 4:51 PM
jean said...: mike in maryland,
The eatery situation and using the word hon is not comparable to the situation that is referenced.

Professionaly and unless I know the person very well, noone calls me hon,babe,sweetheart,sugar, baby doll etc.
If it is done it is a mistake that should be admitted and moved on.
Familiar phrases of that sort are for between people who know eachother well that have an established relationship.
It is simple protocal in a professional setting.
If I am in a meeting and someone says "Hon, pass that file." it will not go well.
It is business.
I am not at a barbeque with family in the backyard.
jean; August 25, 2008 5:19 PM
Independent Voter said...: jean,

Ok "hon", got it! LOL

Dave; August 25, 2008 5:45 PM
jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 25, 2008 5:49 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: jean said...
Interesting article.
http://www.nypost.com . . .

Jean,

All I had to read was the first paragraph of this op-ed trash (it is NOT an article by a reporter) to figure out it was a hit piece on Senator Obama.

The key word in that first paragraph was 'usurp', which is defined as "to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right".

The author of that op-ed hit piece, by using the word usurp, shows his opinion that Senator Obama didn't win the nomination except by hook and by crook.

If he didn't realize what the word 'usurp' means, then the editors should have told him to change it, or should have changed it themselves. Since the editors didn't have it changed one way or the other, it shows the political leanings of the editors, and since the op-ed was printed in the New York Post, I already knew the political leanings of that fishwrap.

Another hint about the bias of the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll poll cited: NO DATE is given for the poll, just 'the latest . . . poll'.

The date of the op-ed hit piece is August 25. Doing a search for a poll from WSJ/NBC shows an August 24, 2008 poll which reads, in part, "70% of Hillary Clinton supporters “back Obama -- the highest level since she suspended her campaign in June.” That poll was released almost 24 hours prior to the op-ed hit piece, an eternity in today's media market.

Just because it's in print does not make it totally true. You must look to the source, and then look at the 'facts' they present to figure out how accurate the information might be. In this case, the information is definitely NOT current, nor is it factual.

Mike; August 25, 2008 6:24 PM
Beryl said...: My goodness - did any of you see that CRAZY PUMA lady talking to Chris Matthews?

She was spouting off all kinds of accusations and lies against Obama and her "proof" was a 17 pager from some other crazy person. Chris then interviewed others in the crowd and made a comment about how the public can discern reason from insanity.; August 25, 2008 6:25 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: This paragraph:
Another hint about the bias of the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll poll cited: NO DATE is given for the poll, just 'the latest . . . poll'.

should have read:

"Another hint about the bias of the op-ed hit piece was the information on the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll poll cited: NO DATE is given for the poll, just 'the latest . . . poll'."

Sorry about that.

Mike; August 25, 2008 6:28 PM
jean said...: mike in maryland,
When that was posted that was this morning and I just went back to it for reference and it was gone.
Sorry, no fight here.

jean; August 25, 2008 6:51 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Beryl- I saw that woman! MSNBC and CNN is giving way too much attention to the PUMAs and other anti-Obama groups. The media is stirring the pot!

I am so mad at MSNBC!
CNN and Fox showed the opening of the convention with Dean and the singing of the American anthem -- whereas MSNBC's Chris was just babbling and they didn't show the beginning of the convention.

Now I am clicking around between C-Span (which is actually showing all the speeches being made at the podium), CNN, and MSNBC.; August 25, 2008 7:09 PM
Beryl said...: Yeah, I missed all of the beginning of the convention fooling around with the cable news stations.

I'm on CSPAN now so I'll get the real deal.

Hopefully, they will replay overnight.; August 25, 2008 7:23 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: and why is CNN using REPUBLICAN strategists in interviews of the DEMOCRATIC convention??

honest to pete, I think they are against Democrats winning this year! asshats.; August 25, 2008 7:55 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: I can NOT believe that the talking heads on CNN talked OVER Nancy Pelosi.

do they not know, that she is 3rd in line? seriously?; August 25, 2008 8:27 PM
Beryl said...: I switched to CSPAN. The cable news stations are messed up.

Do you honestly think they will have Democratic strategists on during the Repugnican Convention?; August 25, 2008 8:32 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: no, and I think we should have protesters saying to all of them (CNN, MSNBC, etc) all go and shout at them "F*** CNN! F*** MSNBC!!)

etc

can you arrange that Beryl?

because we are also watching C-SPAN. the rest of them, insofar as I can tell, are farked up.; August 25, 2008 8:39 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: C-SPAN is the BEST.
They are showing ALL of it!

CNN and MSNBC isn`t showing hardly anything!!!

C-SPAN C-SPAN C-SPAN C-SPAN

O and Joe

p.s. Obama`s sister Maya`s speech was great!!!; August 25, 2008 8:59 PM
Beryl said...: Right, Leah!

It feels like you are there if you have going on a large screen TV.

Did I just see Spike Lee?; August 25, 2008 9:02 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Karen Anne

I owe you an apology for my 4:09 am post. I totally misread your post. Today I read it again then I understood what you were saying. So I'm very sorry. AJ; August 25, 2008 9:06 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: groovin' to Santana!; August 25, 2008 9:15 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave

you sexist dog you. You haven't called me sweety. LMAO LOL No I don't think Obama is a sexist just because he called someone sweety. Like someone else said on a post in his household he probable calls all the females sweety. That's almost funny. AJ; August 25, 2008 9:16 PM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 25, 2008 9:19 PM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 25, 2008 9:20 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Karen Anne one more thing please overlook the rest of those post in that time span..I usual don't agree with some of the things you say.That I guess is why I took it the wrong way sorry. AJ; August 25, 2008 9:23 PM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 25, 2008 9:23 PM
Beryl said...: Time to get the Kleenex! Ted Kennedy is a legend.; August 25, 2008 9:26 PM
Richard said...: Go Teddy!; August 25, 2008 9:38 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Hey everyone did you see where it told at the bottom of the screen that 6% of delegates wanted Obama to pick Biden but 28% wanted him to pick Hillary. That's awesome. AJ; August 25, 2008 9:43 PM
Independent Voter said...: LOL AJ.....er.....I mean sweetie! LOL!; August 25, 2008 9:46 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Vicki

I'm sorry I have no respect for Nancy Pelosi. She has been useless in the office that she holds. I hope they throw her out. AJ; August 25, 2008 9:48 PM
Beryl said...: Did you hear the "Breaking News" that Clinton is going to cut off the roll call at the beginning?

Whoa! That will be powerful!; August 25, 2008 9:49 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave you are crazy[but in a good way] LOL LOL AJ; August 25, 2008 9:49 PM
suzihussein22 said...: aunt jean-I had a few sweet peas with my supper tonight. ;)

Not to open up a can of worms, but Mike wonders if anybody has any idea why WJC would be causing problems about how he wants his speech this week?; August 25, 2008 9:50 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: still, AJ .. third in line ... they should show some respect!; August 25, 2008 9:50 PM
Independent Voter said...: beryl, what do you mean she is going to cut off the roll call at the beginning?

I'm not so sure that is a good idea at this point.; August 25, 2008 9:58 PM
Independent Voter said...: suzi, the only problem that I have with WJC is that he doesn't want to be told what to speak about. (That's what I have heard/read).; August 25, 2008 9:59 PM
Richard said...: Beryl, I haven't heard that she's going to cut off the roll call. What I heard is that she may be the one to move that the nomination be made unanimous once Obama has the majority.; August 25, 2008 10:04 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Rich

Obama has a lot to live up to if he wants to be as good in office as Bill Clinton. Not that I think he can't. AJ; August 25, 2008 10:06 PM
Beryl said...: Keith O. just read the news that the campaigns (Obama & Clinton) got together ad planned how the roll call will go. They will start off the roll call with both getting votes and Clinton will cut it off and everyone will be reconciled -- Obama will be the nominee with no more voting.; August 25, 2008 10:07 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Vicki the only thing she has done is cause discord and not her job so why should she deserve respect. She hasn't done anything. AJ; August 25, 2008 10:08 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Siz

I don't like sweet peas but I do like sweet pickles. LOL AJ [hi suz] AJ; August 25, 2008 10:10 PM
Beryl said...: Shultz just confirmed it on MSNBC. They will both be put into nomination but the roll call will not finish.

It all makes sense. We don't want to see people sadden Clinton coming up short now that all of the votes from Florida & Michigan will count. We don't need the drama.

We need to whoop McSame's butt!; August 25, 2008 10:18 PM
apissedant said...: Rachel is doing GREAT on MSNBC. I have too much to do to catch up on this blog, and I was in class so I missed most of the convention. =(

I would like to point out that my American History teacher is a life long Republican voting for Obama. He is definitely a Republican, and I argued with him half a dozen times on the first day of class... but he's still voting for Obama!

He tried to say that it didn't matter whether we elected McCain or Obama, they're both rich elitist politicians in the pocket of lobbyists, and that if you wanted real change you should vote for Ron Paul.

I asked him, "Isn't it true that Obama just finished paying off his student loans in the last few years, and that he only made millions of dollars in the past few years due to the book sales on his two books?"

He said, "Well I don't know anything about that, I just know that he went to Harvard and that he's worth 4.5 million dollars."

"Yes, but he just made that money in the last few years, because the book sales on his two books went through the roof with his presidential candidacy, and he paid for Harvard with student loans and scholarships. Isn't it also true that in between Columbia and Harvard he worked in a...."

He interrupted, "Are you an Obama supporter?"

I proudly responded, "Yes I am."

"Well so am I, but the difference is I'm unbiased."

He is my teacher, and he grades my reports, so at that point I let it go.

Anyone who claims to be unbiased his full of crap. Our experiences shape who we are, and how we view things. No two people had the same experiences, and no two people view an event the same way. This shapes the way we not only see an event, but how we report an event, and this by definition, is our bias. A wise person recognizes their own bias, and an honorable person admits this bias.; August 25, 2008 10:24 PM
Richard said...: Nancy Pelosi has been a strong and pragmatic leader in the house. It's not her fault that she has a fractured majority and a President who vetoes her most important work. Pelosi has done her best and accomplished a lot, especially behind the scenes for Barack Obama. She will be a great ally for Pres. Obama in the house, and she will get his health care and energy plans passed into law.; August 25, 2008 10:27 PM
apissedant said...: BTW... I love you guys... you help keep me informed on the TRUTH. ;)

That goes to you too Mike in MD. ;)

Oh, also, a truly admirable person also tries to understand and view things through the bias of others. This is called empathy, and it is one of the truest and most beautiful abilities of all animals.

I was going to say humans, but anyone that has a pet knows that they are quite empathetic, and always come up to comfort their owner when they're down. =); August 25, 2008 10:28 PM
jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 25, 2008 10:30 PM
apissedant said...: rich,
I completely agree. I dislike the hatred aimed at Pelosi, and I find it unwarranted. We may not agree on all of her decisions, but I think it is quite clear that she is intelligent, and doing the best she can for her country. This should be respected. You can disagree with her policies, and you can vote for someone else who you feel has a better plan or better abilities, but please don't disparage her efforts or her intentions.; August 25, 2008 10:30 PM
suzihussein22 said...: peevish-What do you think an independent's bias is?; August 25, 2008 10:31 PM
apissedant said...: Nope, I'm in a good mood. I like the first day of school. I argue with professors and tell stupid jokes all day, what's to be sad about?

I still miss my wife, but these active and productive days make it much more palatable.

Boredom is the devil's best friend. ;); August 25, 2008 10:33 PM
apissedant said...: soft,
A bias varies from issue to issue. A bias is not merely Republican or Democrat. There are racial biases, economic biases, educational biases, sexual biases.... you name it there is a bias.

A bias just means that you prejudge without having all of the information. Do we not instantly judge someone the moment we see them? What do we judge them off of? If we see a black kid in LA sporting all red colors, what do we assume?

Some biases are good, and some are bad. The most important factor is preventing your bias from preventing new information or new friends. I shouldn't call the police on him, or start accusing him of stealing my TV that was lifted from my apartment the other day, but it would probably also be a mistake to walk up to him and his buddies in a dark alley.

Doing either of these actions would be ignorant, don't you think?; August 25, 2008 10:38 PM
jean said...: ap,
I deleted the comment but I could of sworn I was correct;)

On a light note, the daughter is taking Human Anatomy,Jr. in High School, and has to dissect a cat.
Gotta go on a light note because I do not think this will go very well.
Kennedy was fantastic with his speech:)
jean; August 25, 2008 10:39 PM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - I have to disagree with your statement - but anyone that has a pet knows that they are quite empathetic, and always come up to comfort their owner when they're down.

We have 2 cats, one is totally empathetic (who is schizophrenic), and the other, well lets just say, she could be considered a 24/7/365 female dog in heat, well you get the point.; August 25, 2008 10:43 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
LOL, ok, yes, not all pets are empathetic, but not all humans are either. The point is that animals too have the ability.; August 25, 2008 10:51 PM
jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 25, 2008 11:00 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Rich

you can believe what you want about Pelosi but there are a lot of people that would totally disagree with you. Even a few on here.AJ; August 25, 2008 11:00 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave Bill Clinton shouldn't be told what to talk about. AJ; August 25, 2008 11:02 PM
Beryl said...: Wow! Michelle was fabulous! The kids were cute too. Isn't this what we want in the WH?

Can't you see the Obama kids playing with Biden's grandkids?; August 25, 2008 11:04 PM
apissedant said...: Ok ladies and germs... with no Daily Show, it looks like I'm going to bed early. Have a good night!; August 25, 2008 11:18 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Hey everyone lets see if anyone was paying attn.

What year was the first AA delegate seated?? No fair looking it up. AJ; August 25, 2008 11:22 PM
Aunt Jean said...: AP not yet!!! but if you do goodnight. AJ; August 25, 2008 11:23 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: I took human anatomy with dissection on actual cadavers. if she can handle dissecting cats, well, she might be ready for the real thing.

JMHO.; August 25, 2008 11:26 PM
Aunt Jean said...: I think it was great that they compared Michele Obama to Hillary in a good way. AJ; August 25, 2008 11:57 PM
Beryl said...: Good night, all. This was a terrific night for the Dems. Michelle was BEAUTIFUL! I love the comment Barack made about how he tenaciously pursued her.

Talk to y'all later.; August 25, 2008 11:59 PM
Aunt Jean said...: The answer to the question to my 11:22 post is: 1936. AJ; August 26, 2008 12:00 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: AP,

I found that some of the best history classes I had in college, the ones I usually learned the most from, and in which I got some of the better grades, were the ones in which I had several 'discussions' with the prof during and after class.

Most good profs will take this view: as long as the student has facts and/or reasoned analysis to back up their end of the discussion, and will listen to rebuttal and/or refutation, and as long as the student is willing consider an alternate view (if also presented with facts or analysis to back it up), they are learning and deserve a better grade.

Just be careful that if you are wrong on something (and you will be from time to time) that you acknowledge the inaccuracy. Sometimes it's better to acknowledge it right away, and sometimes it has more effect if the acknowledgment comes a day or two later - depends on the prof, the type of inaccuracy, how and when you became aware of the inaccuracy, how important it might have been to your 'end of the discussion', and how correcting the inaccuracy might affect the conclusion you were advocating in the discussion (the greater the affect, the more you need to acknowledge the inaccuracy). It's a balancing act that you have to do by feel a lot of times.

Sometimes a simple "OOOOPS!" is all that is needed to acknowledge the error. In those cases, the class will usually laugh with you, not at you.

Mike; August 26, 2008 12:01 AM
Independent Voter said...: Gnight p'd ant if you haven't already gone to bed.; August 26, 2008 12:13 AM
Independent Voter said...: AJ, you wrote: Dave Bill Clinton shouldn't be told what to talk about. AJ

Sorry AJ, what I posted earlier probably didn't come across the way it was meant, therefore I will try to rephrase it here.

Every night of the week has a different theme. And the night that Bill Clinton is speaking on also has its own theme. Bill Clinton did not want to follow the theme for that night. That is what the dust-up is all about. He wanted to talk about "me" (meaning him) as opposed to Barack - the Democratic Party's nominee. That's all I was saying.

From what I have heard and read he wants to compare and contrast his and GWB's records and policies as opposed to lifting up the Democratic nominee. In that aspect is what I disagree with. If he is going to compare and contrast anyone's policies, it should be Obama's and McDouchebag's.; August 26, 2008 12:18 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave oh ok I would have to agree with you on that then. AJ; August 26, 2008 12:30 AM
Independent Voter said...: Ok, I'm about to bring up a topic that has been weighing heavily on my mind. And trust me, this is something that I have up until now refused to post because I hate to think of the worst case scenario.

Hypothetically speaking of course but still a REAL threat, I have a couple of questions. IF Obama were to be assassinated (THIS IS WHY I HAVE NOT POSTED UNTIL NOW - I just saw an article on HuffPo, can be found HERE) and he won the general election, would Joe Biden be inaugurated in January? Second question is if it took place before November 4th who would the nominee be? Joe Biden or the TRUE runner-up, Hillary Clinton?

Like I said, this is something I try not to think about, I'm assuming the answer to the first question would be Joe Biden, but the second question I don't think is as clear.; August 26, 2008 12:32 AM
Independent Voter said...: Thanks AJ, like I said, I just phrased it very poorly in my initial post. Sorry for the confusion. Also like I said, everything from what I had heard and read, either explicitly or implicitly suggested that was the scenario. I could have heard it wrong or took it the wrong way, but either way, I do believe he should be lifting up the nominee.; August 26, 2008 12:34 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: I'm fairly certain that what Dave is discussing is what was posted in a Politico.com article from Monday.

I think the headline (Tensions boil between Obama-Clinton camps) is a bit overblown, but the main point is in these two paragraphs:

One flashpoint is the assigned speech topic for former president Bill Clinton, who is scheduled to speak Wednesday night, when the convention theme is “Securing America’s Future.” The night’s speakers will argue that Obama would be a more effective commander in chief than his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

The former president is disappointed, associates said, because he is eager to speak about the economy and more broadly about Democratic ideas — emphasizing the contrast between the Bush years and his own record in the 1990s.

The Politico article is at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12782.html

As I see it, this convention is about nominating a candidate to run against John McLame(brain), then backing that candidate to such an extent that the Democratic candidate wins the election. This convention should recognize the past achievements of Democratic administrations, but the emphasis should be on the upcoming race, and especially when the Repig candidate is not the incumbent sitting in the White House. This race is NOT Bill Clinton vs. George Bush, but Barack Obama vs. John McLame(brain). Bill Clinton should make the contrast between the two, and how Senator Obama is better suited to the job, as the focus of his speech.

Mike; August 26, 2008 12:39 AM
Independent Voter said...: Mike - that is exactly what I was referring to. Thanks for locating the article, I couldn't remember where I had read it.; August 26, 2008 12:52 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Dave,

The Presidential succession in those circumstances appears to be quite muddied.

I found a FindLaw article (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20020906.html) that discusses solutions, but doesn't really go in to a discussion of what the procedure would be if it happened now, before legislation settled the question. See especially the paragraphs titled "Pre-Inaugural Death: A Problem in Need of A Solution" and "Election Eve/Election Day Tragedies".

Mike; August 26, 2008 12:55 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: My favorite parts of Day 1

The Nancy Pelosi anti-McCain Chant

Maya's speech (I had tears!)

Ted Kennedy's speech

Michelle's speech and then afterwords with the girls and Barack.; August 26, 2008 1:07 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave you would think that it would go to Hillary.If it happened now before he was elected predisent. AJ; August 26, 2008 1:09 AM
Independent Voter said...: Thanks Mike! It looks like you found that pretty quick, and I apologize for posting the initial question. I've been looking for something like that article but until you found that I kept coming up empty. Again, thank you.; August 26, 2008 1:12 AM
Independent Voter said...: AJ, I think you would be absolutely correct if it took place before the end of the convention (since she is the only other viable candidate at this point), but I'm not sure what would happen if Obama had already accepted the party's nomination (Thursday night). If it happened afterward, I'm not sure if the Democratic Party's Rules have a worse case scenario explicitly stated.; August 26, 2008 1:15 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Seems to me that in that case Biden would become president if Obama/Biden wins the election - because the PEOPLE would have voted. I didn't read the reference posted above, but common sense would point in that direction.

And I DO NOT think Hillary would even be in the question because she is not going to be on the ballot in the general election.; August 26, 2008 1:18 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: All of that is too morbid to even be talking about!

Obama will be our next president :)

O and Joe '08; August 26, 2008 1:21 AM
Independent Voter said...: Leah, according to the article Mike posted, there is no explicit after the general election but before the electoral college votes. Before the general takes place, I would think it is up to the party, again I'm not sure. After the electoral college (the article seemed to state that it would be Biden.); August 26, 2008 1:22 AM
Independent Voter said...: Leah, I understand and agree with your feelings on the topic, and I don't want to be a downer by any means, but it is a VERY real possibility. It is the realist in me. And YES I AGREE THAT OBAMA WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT!; August 26, 2008 1:24 AM
tmess2 said...: A good book on the issue of the death of a presidential candidate after election day was written by Jeff Greenfield (the lawyer/tv commentator) called the "People's Choice."

The key legal fact is that under the U.S. Constitution the 538 electors are always free agents (like the delegates to the convention). Many states do have laws attempting to bind electors to vote for the winner of the state, but the validity of those laws have never been challenged in court.

That leaves three key dates in terms of elections. The first is entirely a matter of state law, and the other two are matters of federal law.

The first date is the deadline to replace a dead candidate with another candidate (which we have seen in two different senate races in the past 8 years when candidates died just before the election. In some states, this deadline is early and the party would be left with the original candidate on the ballot. In others, this deadline is just before the election.

Assuming that a presidential candidate died between the convention and the deadline for replacing that candidate, you would get into a nasty issue of whether the national party (acting through its national committee) could force all of the state parties to put the new national candidate on the ballot.

The second key date of course is the nationally mandated general election day. On that day, the 538 electors are elected. If a candidate were to die between the first and the second date in most of the states, it would be difficult for that party to win the election.

The third day is the date when the electors meet. While the votes are not counted until later, those votes are presumably valid when cast and the person with the majority of the electoral votes would be president.

The "People's Choice" deals with whether the party could force electors to vote for the parties choice if the presumptive president died after the general election but before the electors met.

After the votes are counted by Congress in early January, the winning candidate is the president-elect and the winner of the vice-presidential election is vice-president elect. The Constitution clearly provides that the vice-president elect moves up if the president-elect dies. The Constitution however is silent about whether votes cast for a candidate who is dead are valid but it also is silent as to what happens when only one candidate is alive but received votes from less than half of the electors. My hunch is that Congress would treat votes for a candidate who died after the electors voted as valid.; August 26, 2008 1:26 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Indy - My comment was regarding 'after' the general election. I have no opinion on what would happen 'before' the election.
---

Now we are probably going to see the media start to SCARE voters into not voting for Obama

Dark Clouds: Obama Assassination Threats Weigh On Voters

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/25/dark-clouds-obama-assassi_n_121327.html

Grrrr...; August 26, 2008 1:26 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah the only thing wrong with that reasoning is Obama is not president yet. So it would seem to reason that the next in line would be Hillary. Now if it was after the election and Obama was already president it would be Bidon. AJ; August 26, 2008 1:33 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave

I don't see how that could be possible because they wouldn't be President and Vice President yet just trying to get to that. AJ; August 26, 2008 1:38 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Independent Voter said...
Thanks Mike! It looks like you found that pretty quick. . .

Dave,

It was a lucky guess at a good search term on Google (Presidential succession candidate assassinated). The FindLaw article was the fourth one on the page. Since it was FindLaw, I figured it should be quite authoritative and accurate.

To be fair, the scenario of the President-elect being assassinated almost happened in 1933 in Miami, so the question shouldn't be an academic discussion, but one to try to find a solution to a potentially disastrous reality. Do a Google search for "Roosevelt Cermak Zangara" for the details.

After FDR gave a short speech, Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak was shaking FDR's hand when Zangara shot five times. Zangara's bullets missed FDR by inches, instead killing Cermak and wounding four others.

Mike; August 26, 2008 1:39 AM
tmess2 said...: Ater the convention and before the electors meet, there simply is not a next in line.

At that point, it's a whole new campaign to a very limited audience of potential voters. There is an argument for the VP nominee, there is an argument for anyone who ran in the primaries, and there is also an argument for other leaders of the party. Which one a particular "voter" (understanding that voting is limited to the DNC, the State Committees and/or the electors depending on the timing)acceots as valid is entirely up to that voter.; August 26, 2008 1:39 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: AJ -

The first part of the original question was about 'after the election' but 'before the inauguration'. So, in that case, like I said, I do not believe Hillary would be consided - and the new president would be Biden.; August 26, 2008 1:39 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah
I agree with you on that but he also said before so in that case I would think it would be Clinton. AJ; August 26, 2008 1:43 AM
tmess2 said...: Leah, it depends what you mean by after the election. If you mean after Congress has counted the votes of the 538 electors, the Constitution is clear that Biden would succeed Obama and Romney would succeed McCain.

If by after the election, you mean after people vote in November but before Congress counts the votes of the electors, the rules are anything but clear.; August 26, 2008 1:46 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Michelle looked really beautiful tonight. Her hair was different and it made her face look thinner.

Jill Biden was wearing 'white' again tonight like at the Springfield rally. She needs to wear something with some color in it.

Pretty neat that Michelle talked about the 88th anniversary of women's right to vote (tomorrow) and she also mentioned HRC and her 18 million voters helped to 'break the glass ceiling'... now it won't stand out so much when HRC says it tomorrow. Bravo for Michelle tonight - she was awesome :); August 26, 2008 1:47 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: tmess2- when does the Congress count the vote? :); August 26, 2008 1:49 AM
Aunt Jean said...: tmess2

I understand why Biden would be considered and of course Hillary but Not anyone else that wouldn't make sense.I doubt if anyone else would be considered even by some slim chance because it would make the democrats angry if they tried to put someone in there that they didn't vote for.

I realize that the people didn't vote for Biden but Obama picked so that would be different. AJ; August 26, 2008 1:49 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah

yes Michelle talked about the glass ceiling but no one says it like Hillary. AJ; August 26, 2008 1:52 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: AJ -

Well, like Hillary has said 'words in speeches are just words' - so according to her it doesn't matter who says em'.

Sorry I had to say that ;); August 26, 2008 1:54 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 26, 2008 1:55 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah but Hillary is so great at speaking now you have to admit that.Oh by the way I liked Micheles hair also it did make it look softer. AJ; August 26, 2008 1:56 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Obama-Biden '08; August 26, 2008 1:56 AM
tmess2 said...: Leah, the constitution (20th Amendment) says January 3rd, but allows Congress to choose a different day (e.g. if the 3rd was a saturday or Sunday).

Aunt Jean, I can only tell you what I would consider in filling the vacancy in Missouri. The fact that someone finished second in the primary or was Obama's pick would have some weight with me but, if I thought that there was a stronger candidate who could carry Missouri, my obligation would be to pick that candidate.

If I were an elector (which I am not this time), my obligation would be to vote for the best possible President and let Congress break the deadlock.; August 26, 2008 1:56 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Aunt Jean,

This is a case where you have an opinion, I have an opinion, and everybody else has an opinion, and it is very likely that there are as many different opinions as there are people who have an opinion. What one or more people wouldn't think as fair, others might think would be utterly fair and the correct solution.

There is no answer to the question until Congress passes a law, or it is determined that the question needs to be solved by Constitutional Amendment, and then an Amendment is duly ratified.

In the end, IF someone takes the time to try to solve the problem, it will probably end up something like The Great Compromise at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, where an entirely different solution than what was expected was arrived at on how the states were to be represented in Congress. No one came in advocating a bicameral legislature, but to get out of the big-state/small-state stalemate, the solution was two chambers, with one chamber (the Senate) having equal representation (the small state position), and the House being apportioned by population (the big state position).

Mike; August 26, 2008 1:58 AM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 26, 2008 1:59 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah how's this:

OBAMA/BIDEN, OBAMA/BIDEN, OBAMA/BIDEN, OBAMA/BIDEN,
OBAMA/BIDEN, OBAMA/BIDEN,
OBAMA/BIDEN, OBAMA/BIDEN

08; August 26, 2008 2:02 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 26, 2008 2:02 AM
Aunt Jean said...: tmess2

well considering Hillary and Obama got the same amount of votes more or less. So that tells me if you would be willing to vote for someone that has never been voted for you would be taking a chance that he/ she could even get votes.Now that wouldn't make sense to me. AJ; August 26, 2008 2:07 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Reposting this because the first time it had too many typos ;)
----

Of course they will have to play by the rules.

But in my opinion (if it were after the general election) the person on the winning ticket in the 'general election' trumps the person that comes in second in the 'primaries'.

Anyway, I am not talking about that subject anymore - it ain't gonna happen!

Obama-Biden '08; August 26, 2008 2:07 AM
tmess2 said...: The death of the presumptive president before the electors vote is probably the one thing that would cause an amendment abolishing the electoral college (or at least major change). It is almost certain that the period between the death of the candidate and the meeting of the electors would be pure chaos and the new President would not be known until January, disrupting the transition and undoubtedly causing uncertainty in foreign relations.

It is unlikely (though mathematically possible) that a candidate will win the popular vote by a large margin while losing the electoral vote. We have already seen that a narrow popular vote win while losing the electoral vote will not generate constitutionally significant opposition to the electoral college (as long as such outcomes are rare).; August 26, 2008 2:08 AM
Independent Voter said...: WOW! Thanks tmess, I will have to read that book. I didn't mean to cause such a ruckus, but has definitely been a good discussion.

Leah, you just had to get that dig in there didn't you. LOL!

Yes, Michelle did a great job tonight. I was really glad to see her recognition of HRC as well. She definitely brought a few tears to our eyes (yes we are both saps like that LOL.); August 26, 2008 2:12 AM
tmess2 said...: Aunt Jean, that's because my experience has shown that votes in primaries do not predict the general election results.

With a choice between Hillary and Obama, I voted for Hillary but I would vote for whichever one got the nomination in the general (or for most other democrats if they had somehow become the nominee), so my vote for Hillary in the primary was not an "exclusive" vote for only Hillary.

I would also want to know the answer to an important legal question under federal law -- would Biden be able to use all the money raised for the Obama-Biden ticket? What about other potential candidates? If only Biden, then I would have a tough time voting for a different candidate to head the ticket.; August 26, 2008 2:13 AM
Independent Voter said...: I'm just now getting around to watching Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow go at it. Rachel keeps rolling her eyes after Buchanan says something because he is being so ridiculous. It is so funny.; August 26, 2008 2:17 AM
Aunt Jean said...: tmess2

I understand where you are coming from. AJ; August 26, 2008 2:17 AM
Independent Voter said...: tmess, that too is a good question (the financial issue.) Another good question, would Biden be bound to the agreement of not taking public financing if he became the nominee?; August 26, 2008 2:19 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Leah,

Let's hope it doesn't happen, but wishing it away doesn't mean it won't happen.

There have been too many attempts (one successful, many, many not) at Presidents and candidates in the last 50 years:

JFK in December, 1960, (while President-elect)
JFK in 1963
RFK in 1968
Richard Nixon in 1972
George Wallace in 1972
Richard Nixon in 1974
Gerald Ford (twice) in 1975
(possibly) Jimmy Carter in 1979
Ronnie Ray-gun in 1981
Bill Clinton in 1994
George W. Bush in 2001
George W. Bush in 2005

There are most likely many more attempts that we never heard about. Thus the question needs to be answered. If not, we'll end up in a situation with no legal means to solve without possibly tearing the country apart - and that would most likely be the intent of such an attempt on a candidate, especially if the attempt were by a foreign government, or by a terrorist organization whether foreign or domestic.

Mike; August 26, 2008 2:22 AM
Richard said...: [B]ut Hillary is so great at speaking now you have to admit that.

I know this was not directed at me, but I want to respond. I do not believe that Hillary is a great speaker. In fact, I find her wooden and strident and her modulation generally fails to reflect any real emotion. Generally I cannot stand to listen to her speak. Bill Clinton is great at speaking. Obama is great at speaking. Hillary is at best mediocre.

On the topic of succession:

I'm not sure what the real issue would be post-election. We do not vote for presidential candidates, we vote for electors. Even though electors names no longer appear on the ballots in most states, if a candidate receives a majority of votes in a state his chosen electors would be the ones to vote in December whether he were alive or dead. How they would vote would be entirely up to them, though since they are usually party loyalists chosen for their loyalty I imagine most would vote for whomever the party chose.

The only sticky issue I can see is the case of a candidate's death after the conventions but before the election. How that would play out would depend on how far before the election the candidate died or became ineligible:

1) Between the convention and the deadlines for submitting changes to the ballots (which vary from state to state) I think that succession would be determined by the DNC, who would, I imagine, make the Biden the candidate. There is an argument for a new vote of the delegates, but the logistics of holding a new convention would be prohibitive. I imagine that there would be a court case challenging any decision by the party, and that the Supreme Court would ultimately decide in the party's favor.

2) After the deadlines, there is very little which could be done. The party would be in the position of having to choose a replacement candidate, announcing said candidate, and encouraging voters to vote for a dead man whose electors would then, presumably, elect the party's new nominee.; August 26, 2008 2:30 AM
Richard said...: The financial question is an interesting one. There are two issues: 1) Could Biden use the money raised by the Obama campaign? and 2) If not, could Biden accept public financing after Obama has already spent non-public monies on their campaign. I don't know the answers to these questions, but I know someone who probably would or who could find the answers. I will ask him tomorrow.; August 26, 2008 2:35 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 2401 – 2600 of 9481 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

9481 comments:

Tags