Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Open Thread

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

Who's going to win, who has a better chance against McCain, or whatever else is on your mind.

Update: We have decided to stop allowing anonymous comments. Not because we don't like reading what people have to say but because Blogger has introduced a new "feature" that makes you go to a second page when the number of comments go over 200.

It's very easy to set up a Google account so that you can continue commenting.

Thanks!

901 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 901 Newer› Newest»

countjellybean said...: I hope this is a good place for this.

Here is my list of "Leaners", those superdelegates who have not openly committed to a candidate, but are identifed by the NY Times other source as supporting, or leaning towards, one of the candidates.

CLINTON [15]:
Bosley
Burke
Donatucci
Farrell
Holmes, Ivan
Johnson, Joe
Mafnas
Malone
Maroney
Martinez, Robert
Moss
Stapleton
Strauss, Bob
Taitano
Umemoto

OBAMA [8]:
Alari
Edwards, Al
Griffin
Johnson, Denise
Lipinksi
Ronen
Smith, Edward
Watkins; March 18, 2008 10:07 PM
countjellybean said...: Add Bob Brady and Mike Doyle to the Clinton list.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/murtha.clinton/index.html; March 19, 2008 9:37 AM
Amot said...: I decided to use Open Thread to explore a problem no one was paying attention until few days ago – results from multi-tier caucuses. Iowa was a nice example to prove that nothing should be taken for granted! Lets start the list (I will be glad to get your help and comments):
Alaska: we have State Convention scheduled for 24th of May. 8 district delegates are chosen there, reflecting the support for the presidential contenders among the delegates from each Legislative District. These delegates go clearly 6:2 for Obama. But there are 5 more pledged delegates to be allocated – 2 PLEO and 3 at-large. And here we have a trap set for HRC – she is supposed to has 104 delegates at the convention, Obama – 306. If those number stand at-large delegates will be split 2:1. What about PLEOs? Imagine 2 of the 104 not coming. Probably one of them will get an alternate from the Obama camp – and we have 307 vs. 102 – both PLEOs go Obama!!! Very, very probable scenario and Alaska goes Obama 10, Clinton 3. Net gain 2 for Obama!
Colorado: nothing much to say here. Prediction based on numbers was 35:20 with a minor chance for Obama to steal one more (actually his site still projects 36:19). But at county conventions that did not happen (actually he lost ground in some counties and got a little bit in others). So we may say being 99% sure the outcome is 35:20.
Democrats Abroad: I am a little confused here. 9 delegates with 4 ½ votes have already been elected. 5 more (each with half vote) – 3 at-large and 2 PLEOs have to be chosen at DA Global convention – 12th of April. Obama has 6 delegates so far, Clinton has 3 and I can’t figure out why most sources project he will get another four, while she will get one only. It is ‘proportion rulez’ isn’t it?
Idaho: (I wonder why none has spotted this so far). She got lucky here, really lucky, but not lucky enough. In both CDs of Idaho she managed to get a little bit over 15% - the threshold required delegates to be assigned. Remember, those 15% were required at CD level, if they were required at county level she would be doomed. She lost Ada county, both portions of it, and she lost bad… Idaho has 12 delegates given at CD level and 6 more chosen at the State Convention middle June. Because HRC did not ménage to get 15% in both parts of Ada and several other small counties, she will not be viable at the State Convention. Why? One needs 15% at county level to get delegates out of that county at the State Convention! She did not manage to achieve that in Ada and the few more; hence she will have about 13% of the delegates at the State Convention! And that counts as ‘non viable’! Idaho goes 16:2 Obama!
Nevada: Guess who the winner is! Bet on him or her! Probably bets were taken who will win Nevada. So far Clinton is winning the popular vote; Obama is winning the more delegates. And remember it is three tiers caucus, delegates actually assigned at the last tier – the State Convention 17th-18th of May. Based on the county conventions results Obama is winning the single delegate from CD2 – Rural counties and 2 out of 3 delegates from CD2 – Washoe. But there are 12 more delegates at stake in Clark county – 6 in CD1, 2 in CD2 and 4 in CD3. Unless miracle happens all these will be evenly split. But the Clark County Convention was disassembled 3 weeks ago – mostly due to poor organization. Though it will be held again on 12th of April there are signs that many things can change there. During the first attempt some delegates were not let in the convention hall; some regular delegates were pronounced alternates due to missing data, some ballot boxes were not handled with the security needed, and so on … If we consider that will not happen again and all the ~7400 delegates (alternates not included) will be properly seated the outcome stays unclear. If the first tier results repeat at county level Clinton will win handily with 54% to 44% for Obama. But Obama has shown strength in the other county conventions. He has improved his precinct results with almost 10%, mostly due to Edwards supporters (he is winning them all over the country). His aim in Clark county is losing with less than 5%, that will give him at least 1170 out of 2463 delegates going to the state convention. Overall he will have the most delegates at the convention (he has 512 delegates from the other counties compared to 388 for Clinton). That means one more PLEO for him (the State convention will assign 6 at-large and 3 pledged PLEO delegates). At the first attempt to conduct a county convention, Obama supporters managed to cut HRC’s 11% lead to less than 5%. How? I don’t know! Edwards had less than 2% delegates at county level, so it is not only due to them. Maybe some delegates shifted, maybe some Clinton delegates did not appear, maybe some tricks were used… No matter what happened – if at the re-do convention the same things happen, Obama will win one more from Nevada. And since his supporters are younger and motivated I predict Nevada will go 14: 11 Obama!
Texas: Good news for Clinton camp here! Current projection is not valid! It happened that it somehow favors Obama due to predominately leaning Obama precincts reporting. Don’t think it is a big mistake – it is a small one. According to math models based on what came out so far county by county and district by district, Obama gets 55,4%! He needs 55,95% to receive 38 delegates out of 67, he needs 54% to secure 37 and 53,57% to secure 36 delegates. Those are the milestones and it seems that he is getting at least 37 so far… But there are the southern regions and there is real chance he doesn’t get 15% threshold in most of them, especially the small counties, losing delegates that otherwise would be seated for him. That means he can be very close to get under 54% and even under 53,57%. That is exactly what Hillary wants and why she is complaining about the results here and there. If the caucus delegates split 35 Obama, 32 Clinton, guess who is winning Texas overall? Correct, she is! Well that scenario will not happen due to several reasons. First, Clinton failed to get some results ignored or changed. Second – Obama is constantly improving his results at tier II and tier III – check Iowa and Nevada! Third – he gave yesterday the race speech and it will help him with Latino delegates at the next levels. Still, he will not get more than 37 delegates and will win Texas only by 3!!!
Washington: Well changes here are not expected. I mention the state because there are two projections for the results 52:26 and 53:25. Both of them agree on CD delegates numbers. The debate is about the at-large delegates. Since there is no county, legislative district or congressional district with even the slightest possibility one of the candidates will be non viable there, we can assume that State convention delegates will split as the popular vote is or shift a little bit toward Obama. That means 68-69% Obama and 31-32% Clinton. Unless something odd happens and HRC gets 32,353% of the delegates, the state delegates will split 53:25 in favor of Obama. CD and State Convention delegates are chosen at tier II conventions so no miracle is expected to happen.
Finally, Iowa… At CD conventions something can change from the predictions only in CD5. Edwards has just 2 delegates over the 15% threshold required there and if 2 out of his 55 delegates don’t appear the rest have to either join another group or stay non viable. Clinton can benefit from that scenario because most probably some will join her group and CD5 delegates will be split 2:2. Two option for Obama here – either convince all Edwards’ group to join him and get 3:1 (not very likely) or send some people (if needed) to join Edwards’ group just to save this delegates from being stolen by Hillary. The last will be helpful if at the state convention Edwards’ stays non viable – he is just 0.5% over the threshold on state level. That will benefit Obama with two more delegates and Clinton with one more… unless Edwards’ join overwhelmingly Obama’s (85% or more of the group). That means tree more Obama, zero – Clinton! Many options here actually. In my consideration the best option is Obama helping at both CD5 and state level the Edward group – will improve his image a lot if he still needs that because the State Convention is June 14th.
Summary: Alaska +1 Obama; Colorado 35:20 (no change in prediction); DA – still can’t get why it is 5:2 instead of 4½:2½; Idaho +1 Obama; Nevada +1 Obama; Texas +1 Clinton; Washington 53:25; Iowa no change! So after all caucuses are over prediction is 1419 pledged delegates for Obama and 1250 for Clinton! Not counting superdelegates and coming primaries. Lead of 169 pledged delegates! If we add for supers the numbers DCW have today the result will be 1628 Obama vs. 1496 Clinton. My guess is that without future endorsements Obama will have ~1900 delegates on his side at the end of the season. I am looking forward to see if Obama’s speech of race will influence polls in the weeks to come.
Conclusion: Clinton must get 2/3 of the supers left. Not impossible to do! She only needs big scandal involving Obama to make a case that such a steal is necessary for the good of the party and the nation!; March 19, 2008 5:06 PM
countjellybean said...: Current List of Leaners:

Clinton [15]:
Bosley
Burke
Donatucci
Doyle, Mike
Farrell
Holmes, Ivan
Johnson, Joe
Mafnas
Malone
Martinez, Robert
Moss
Stapleton
Strauss, Bob
Taitano
Umemoto

Obama [7]:
Alari
Edwards, Al
Griffin
Johnson, Denise
Lipinski
Smith, Edward
Watkins

Too bad I can't edit my original list.; March 20, 2008 5:26 PM
Subodh said...: “Purple” states are those where, for example, the Presidential vote in 2004 was separated by about 6% or less. Those include Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and New Mexico which Hillary either already won or is leading. These are the states that the Democratic Party must win in November. It is critically important that the Democratic candidate be the one who draws most strongly in those key states. To believe that the candidate who did not attract a majority of Democratic voters in the primaries there, will somehow get not only most of those Democratic voters but also draw similar voters from outside the Democratic Party is naïve and dangerous if your ultimate goal is to not have a Republican in the White House this time next year. Upto now Hillary has 2064 delegates and Obama has 1394 delegates using the same method that is used in the General election. Assuming that Hillary wins PA, WV,Indiana and PR & Guam and Obama gets SD, NC , OR , MT , she will have 2439 delegates and Obama will have 1606 delegates. If Democrats ignore this and give top of the ticket to Obama, 25% of the Democrats will vote for Republicans and we can lose both the House & the Senate. This is exactly what happened when Anti War hero McGovern was nominated and we lost all states except Mass.; March 20, 2008 7:46 PM
Subodh said...: The color Purple. Much as we may crave it, we do not live in a democracy. If we did then each person would have one vote in every issue, and that vote would count as much as any other. But we don’t. If you participated in a caucus, your vote counted about ten times as much as someone who voted in a primary. In the general election, what ultimately matters is the votes in the Electoral College, not the popular vote, as we re-learned so painfully in 2000. So the question facing the uncommitted “super-delegates” is how do we run the best campaign with the highest probability of defeating John McCain in November, and win the majority of Electoral College votes. Cuurently Clinton has 267 electoral votes and Obama has 202 electoral votes using the same method as used in the GE. Assume that Hillary wins PA, WV, Indiana
and Obama gets SD, NC , OR , MT , Clinton will have 308 electoral votes and Obama will have 230 Electoral votes. You know who should be on top of the DREAM ticket.; March 20, 2008 7:47 PM
Fulcanelli said...: For those interested in opinion polling in the swing states (ie. hypothetical Republican v. Democrat races), see the table at http://quipu-knot.blogspot.com/2008/03/swing-state-opinion-polling-state-votes.html; March 20, 2008 9:46 PM
math 101 said...: well this is a long post
thanks to annette's post
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/superdelegates/index.html
weeks ago i asked for a list of supers who would hold there endorsement for a long time well i made my list it's defiantly not a perfect list but here it is my list of 22 supers who might stay quiet for a long time.
John M. Spratt, Representative, S.C.
He is "lying low," according to a spokesman.
Meredith Wood Smith, Party official, Ore.
"We don't have to make a choice right now. It's too early for that. There are still caucuses and primaries going on."
James Roosevelt, Party official, Mass.
"I would urge superdelegates who are undecided to wait and see to get a better gauge of electability of the candidates."
Harry Reid, Senator, Nev.
Says he is "not going to weigh in on this at all" until the states finish voting.
Jay Parmley, Party official, Okla.
"I guess if it's still undecided at the convention, I'll be free to make a decision one way or the other."
Cynthia Nunley, Party official, Wyo.
"It's too early in the process to be in the mode of one-candidate-take-all. There are a lot of voices to be heard yet and there are a lot of questions to be asked."
Leila Medley, Party official, Mo.
"I still haven't made a commitment, and I still don't know what to do."
Dennis McDonald, Party official, Mont.
"Out of respect for this process, our superdelegates will not take a position. Certainly not until after the June 3 primary."
Sophie Masloff, Party official, Pa.
"I am not committed, I never had been, so I was not anyone's to lose."
Rick Larsen, Representative, Wash.
"If I need to exercise my vote as a superdelegate in order to have a nominee this fall, then I will. I believe the grass roots of the party should select the candidate. The grass-roots process is not done. We should let it finish."
Nancy Larson, Party official, Minn.
"They never anticipated that we would have two superstars locked in a dead heat, so I think there is no playbook for this." She hopes a decision gets made "before we have to step in."
Wilber Lee Jeffcoat, Party official, S.C.
Has said he could stay unpledged until the convention and that he was concerned about "taking away what the people back home voted."
Ivan Holmes, Party official, Okla.
"My inclination at this point is to stay uncommitted to the end."
Tom Harkin, Senator, Iowa
"I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm still neutral in this race, and I intend to remain that way."
Jenny Greenleaf, Party official, Ore.
"Because I'm an officer of the state party, and we don't want the state party to be seen as providing more or better services to one candidate or another, I plan to stay neutral until Oregon's late primary in May."
Robert E. Cramer, Representative, Ala.
Has said that he would not been endorsing anyone in the nomination phase.
Gilda Cobb-Hunter, Party official, S.C.
"I'm undeclared because I think it's important for the process to play itself out. I don't see inserting myself into the process. I'm not interested in being wooed. I'm not important." "It seems to be making me a pretty popular kind of girl in some circles, at least with the media."
Ed Cote, Party official, Wash.
"I am still firmly uncommitted and I am going to stay uncommitted. I do not have to vote until the week of Aug. 25. This is only Feb. 11."
James E. Clyburn, Representative, S.C.
"I still remain studiously neutral. I think that the historical significance of so-called superdelegates — these are unpledged delegates — is very, very important for us to maintain. We are in place in order to either extend the wishes of the voters or to try to make corrections if they need to be made."
Bob Casey, Senator, Pa.
He said he wants to avoid creating divisions within the party by endorsing a candidate.
Christopher Carney, Representative, Pa.
His spokeswoman said he does not plan to endorse anyone.
Daniel K. Akaka, Senator, Hawaii
Mr. Akaka will not make an endorsement, but is willing to support whoever the Democratic nominee is, according to a spokesman. All the major candidates are qualified, Mr. Akaka said.; March 21, 2008 1:01 AM
Subodh said...: Obama still can't capture the female and white vote. That is a concern to Democrats. He doesn't want the votes counted in Florida and Michigan where the majority of voters are white. Obama is behind in the polls. These are all facts.Pennsylvania is just weeks away and he will have a difficult time convincing delegates to that he is a winner if he can not get the majority of women and white male voters. Unless his new politics is saying their vote doesn't count. which is what appears to be the message when Al Sharpton tries to sue Florida for counting the votes. The delegates are watching closely to see how it plays out in Pennsylvania. Obama has to re-register independence to vote for him. That is a hard work.
Obama's campaign time and again discard Obama's promises to the American voters as "just campaign rhetoric"! Now they are dismissing Pastor Wrights statements as "just campaign rhetoric". Come on now- "Let's be clear about this" ??? Obama you are a phoney. You do not write your own "inspirational" speeches, what you promise the voters you are going to do as president is "just rhetoric", you go to a church for 20 years that you dismiss as "an old uncle" yet you said he was your mentor and you gave him a campaign role, you claim you are the one to unite this country - yet the first time in many many years we have radical racism - from blacks - surfacing and dividing this country & the DNC. Obama - you are bad news, race baiting anything and everything as "racist" to inflame the black votes against any other nominee. Enough! Enough! We reject you and your scary agenda of hate and militant black racism. This country will turn its back on you and walk away.; March 21, 2008 12:26 PM
Subodh said...: THIS IS A MUST SEE VIDEO IF YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY & you want to Know WHO should BE NOMINATED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4

You can go to http://www.YouTube.com and type Obama Wright

into Search area and you will get this video.
VVV Beautifully done; March 21, 2008 1:01 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 22, 2008 11:47 PM
dwit said...: guys, its over. Why do you bother to gather here and debate? Hillary has no chance of taking the delegate count now.

She would have to win each and every contest from here on out by a 65% margin.

Super dels. aren't going to pull together for her; too politically risky. The Latino ace in the Clinton sleeve has just jumped to the Obama camp.

Its time to come together as a party and fight THE EMPIRE. The longer we drag this nonsense out, the better McCain looks. Trust me, that would be a HUGE step back for America.

That would mean no alternative energy plan, no health care for average Americans and perpetual crusade against Islam.

I think we can all agree that is not a path we want to continue down.

WRITE THE DNC AND TELL THEM TO END THIS NONSENSE!; March 22, 2008 11:49 PM
Subodh said...: Not so fast dwit.

One thing is for sure. There cannot be any conventon without the delegates from Florida & Michigan being seated. The fairest way is to give the uncommitted delegates in MI to Obama and let the results in Florida stand as they are because both Obama’s name and Clinton’s name was on the ballot. In fact Obama was even putting ads on CNN in the state.. This is the method 5 used on the following web site :

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/florida-and-michigan-by-numbers.html

Clinton will have then 1688 & Obama will have 1744 total delegates.

NOW LET US ASSUME THAT CLINTON GETS PA, WV , PR BY 20% AND IN & KY BY 10% EACH AND OR BY 5% AND OBAMA WINS SD & MT BY 25% , CLINTON WILL HAVE NET GAIN OF 45 IN THE REMAINING PRIMARIES.. This is possible because of the Wright affair, the support among whites has declined sharply for Obama. And population of blacks in all these great states is less than 5%. BY JUNE CLINTON WILL HAVE 1959 DELEGATES AND OBAMA WILL HAVE 1980 DELEGATES.

There will be 372 Uncommited Super delegates at that time. . Upto this time Clinton has obtained 10 % more Super delegates than Obama. If we assume the same, CLINTON WILL WIN THE NOMINATION BY 2164 TO 2147 TOTAL DELEGATES. THERE WILL BE A DREAM TICKET WITH CLINTON ON TOP AND OBAMA AS VP AND WE WILL BEAT THE SH*T OUT OF THE REPUBLICANS CAPTURING BOTH THE SENATE & THE HOUSE WITH VETO PROOF MAJORITIES..

Even if these numbers are off a little bit, because of the momentum shown by Hillary in the remaining Primaries and electibility of OBAMA in doubt because of the Wright affair, HILLARY WILL BE NOMINATED AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE . GOD BLESS AMERICA A MILLION TIMES !!!!!; March 23, 2008 11:57 AM
sunkissed said...: subodh,

Do you know, off hand, the population of "blacks" in Iowa?

Do you know how many delegates Obama picked up in Iowa after county conventions last Sat-in the midst of the Wright spin? Last count I know of is 10 (of 45) and now has over 55% of Iowa's delegates so you really can't say that Obama can only get delegates from "blacks."

Do you know how many United Churches of Christ there are in Iowa? I don't know. I don't know if it matters but there is one down the road in a town of 1600 and my uncle retired after 40 years of service from one...he's usually white.

And isn't it the educated that are voting for Obama? Maybe that's because they are smart enough they can see beyond the spin.

But you are right--we can't count Hillary out--I threw my kitchen sink last week and the landfill couldn't even take it...

Typical white person; March 23, 2008 8:42 PM
Dave in NC said...: subodh,

One thing we both agree on is that Clinton will be behind in pledged delegates after all the primaries are over.

Beyond that, the conclusion is obvious as most of the supers will ultimately back the pledged delegate leader.

BTW, how was that Koolaid?; March 23, 2008 8:49 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 23, 2008 11:19 PM
dwit said...: subodh said...

"Not so fast dwit.

One thing is for sure. There cannot be any convention without the delegates from Florida & Michigan being seated."

What are you talking about. The delegates in Florida and Michigan have been out for some time now. There is no Democratic party rule that says they MUST be seated. In fact the DNC is the one that unseated them.

Who needs Florida anyway? They are a REPUBLICAN state. They have proved they are getting even redder.

Obama has already proved that much of the Midwest is in play, but Florida is a lost cause.

Its time to rally around the most plausible candidate. OBAMA

Let's hope Edwards comes out soon, now that Richardson has taken the plunge.; March 23, 2008 11:21 PM
ed iglehart said...: I have to admit being a bit disappointed with Obama's giving in to the obvious political need to distance himself from Dr Wright. He should have denounced the denouncers. Also, in his otherwise excellent speech he, yet again, panders to Israel:

"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."
http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/barack.html

I do recognise the toxic nature of ANY criticism of Israel, but integrity demands it.

The bulk of Jeremiah Wright's "chickens comin' home" sermon in context on video:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/wright-in-conte.html

It moves me today, and expresses my own feelings at the time to a remarkable extent, and I'm a white guy with slave-owning great grandparents.

More context and perspective on the trumped-up "troublesome priest" matter:
http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed; March 24, 2008 8:25 AM
ed iglehart said...: If you want to follow the smart "money", there is a political market at
http://predictions.wsj.com/

participation is free, and the 'odds' are illuminating:

Obama is favoured by better than 3 to 1 over Clinton, and the election gives Dem 3 to 2 over Rep. Also the betting for Dem control of Congress and Senate is very high.

Enjoy your WSJ$10,000!

xx
ed; March 24, 2008 8:47 AM
Subodh said...: The Primary election without Florida and Michigan has no legitimacy.Why not win in a fair manner?
If Obama is on top of the ticket,
25% of the democrats will vote for McCain & we lose the election.
Obama is unelectable, but you guys have done a great job of twisting it back to the math that HEAVILY favors Obama. Math that was done BEFORE the wright scandal. But it seems like you idiot democrats honestly want to stick this guy wiht no experience and a huge credibility problem forth as your nominee. I feel sad for the country that you would honestly want to elect a guy with the least amount of experience and judgement as possible. Have fun folks. Clinton supporter who is obviously voting for Mc Cain. I predict that Super delegates will see that Obama doesn't transcend the barriers he himself has errected by not distancing himself away from his pastpr's hate speech... Much of Obambi's support came from college kids who helped him in caucus states and Republicans that croosed over and voted for him. His "base" is the 10% of the US voting block that votes 91% in his favor, but that is only a total of 9.1% of the vote. The more Obama and McCain talk, the more support Hillary Clinton will generate and super delegates are hiding under their blankets right now, not making endorsements... Famous Obama quote of the day: "This is a historic race...You have the first woman, the first African American and then you have John(Edwards)" This was after weeks upon weeks of John Edwards and Obama playing good cop/bad cop with Hilary Clinton...kind of sanwiching her in with Edwards shooting down all of her arguments...and then Obama throws him under the bus. Is there any other reason that Edwards hasn't endorsed a candidate? What about Al Gore? Then you have John Kerry say " Obama can bring us all together BECAUSE HE"S BLACK!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GODDAM AMERICA!!! GODDAM AMERICA!!!- Jeremiah Wright; March 24, 2008 12:00 PM
Wolle said...: My Oppinion to Michigan&Florida is:

If the primaries dont't count:
->Obama will win the nomination
->Obama will loose Michigan and Florida in November
->it will be very difficult to become president without Michigan and Florida

If the primaries count (with uncommitted to Obama):
->it will be a duel until August
->whoever wins the nomination still has the chance to win both states in November
->better chances for a democrat to become the next president; March 24, 2008 1:08 PM
sunkissed said...: wolle,

What about all the FL/MI voters that will be disenfranchised if the current tally gets seated? I'm talking about those who didn't vote because they knew their votes would not count. We act like this is some kind of conspiracy as though voters weren't told until after they voted that their votes were for naught. Give the citizens of these states some credit--they are well aware who in their states is responsible for this mess and will vote them out if they want. The irony is that they should have moved their primaries back instead of up to get the attention of the candidates but who would have known? Just as who would have known the race would be this close. You take risks in any strategy game. There is always an outcome for a risk and it's not always how you want it to be-- that's why it's called a risk. So temper in, on your analysis, all the disenfranchised non-voters of MI/FL if you want current tallies to count-and then see where you come out. It's these citizens that have the right to cry "conpiracy" if the current tallies are seated...it's these people who will feel they were lied to and cheated of their voice in government.; March 24, 2008 2:59 PM
sunkissed said...: Futhermore, subodh, do your religous beliefs put country before God? Answer that...

Probably not unless, of course, your country is your god and that's pretty archaic.

So when your country does something (whether intentally or unintentally) against God's word, how do you react? or do you believe that your country has never done anything a little shady?

That's what the Rev was referring to. Do your country a favor and quit spreading the spin. Do yourself a favor and do some research.; March 24, 2008 3:17 PM
Wolle said...: @sunkissed:

1)i am not committed to Obama or Clinton and i live in Germany...it's my neutral point of view
2)i hope for a democratic president because i am against the war
3)i think both candidates are great and would be great presidents

but now back to topic:

4)most of the people in MI&FL voted normally...not everyone of the 600.000 in MI and the 1.700.000...but most of them
5)if these votes don't count, i'm absolutely sure, that McCain will win both states
6)these states are very important in November and i fear this argument will make McCain the next president; March 24, 2008 5:15 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 24, 2008 6:23 PM
dwit said...: Ed,

You are right on the money! Who, in their right mind, doesn't agree with Rev. Wright?

OF COURSE we created our own mess with terror, by our one-sided support of Despots in Israel and Saudi Arabia and every other country in the Middle East.

We went wrong with that region when we threw all ethics and morals out in the pursuit of OIL!

WE NEED TO GET THIS COUNTRY OFF OF FINITE FOSSIL FUELS FOREVER!

Obama is the candidate who will do this.

I am voting for Obama BECAUSE of his intelligence and instincts on foreign affairs.

He will not be making plays from the same old tired foreign policy playbook. We will have a fresh set of eyes that are not clouded by the excrement that has been swirling around Washington since the Kennedy Era.

Trust me, Florida is RED. Michigan will vote for Obama in the general, just like all democratic strongholds will.

The Clinton and Bush politics of fear have failed. They have cried wolf for too long and the public is on to it.

Let's get on with it and stop bleeding the party!

OBAMA/EDWARDS'08!; March 24, 2008 6:31 PM
ed iglehart said...: Subodh,
"Even if these numbers are off a little bit, because of the momentum shown by Hillary in the remaining Primaries and electibility of OBAMA in doubt because of the Wright affair, HILLARY WILL BE NOMINATED AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE ."

You wish! In your demented dreams....Do the maths - even with Fla and Mich, Obama wins, and that's without the 'momentum' in superdelegates, which, if you watch the lists, BHO is getting at least three for every two HRC picks up.

Dream on. It's harmless enough.

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed; March 24, 2008 9:36 PM
ed iglehart said...: Dwit,

As to VP, have a look at Jim Webb. Lots of military credibility to add weight to the ticket, and he made a cracking response to Shrub's 2007 State of the Union Address:
It's here

Peace
ed; March 24, 2008 9:44 PM
dwit said...: Ooh Ed...

I like it! Webb would be a great choice.; March 25, 2008 1:21 AM
sunkissed said...: wolle

I switched parties because I want to end this war. I will vote for either HC or BO to end this war. But I don't believe in breaking rules. I also think that seating the delegates as-is in these two states will not only hurt the party but end the party. The DNC tried to work with these states when they moved their primaries to dates that conflicted with the primary/caucus calendar...even offered $$ to Florida but they would have nothing to do with it. They thought they were above the law so to speak. If I heard my state's legislature was jeopardizing my voice, I'd be organizing my local party and marching on the steps of my State Capitol in protest.

With all this said, I do find it curious that nothing much was said in the media about FL/MI until that one night as all of us were updating our delegate spreadsheets, the realization was hitting that HC would not be able to catch up in pledged delegates unless, of course, the rules were changed.

I also think FL will go Republican and MI will go Democratic in November no matter who the candidates are or how close the race is.; March 25, 2008 1:49 AM
dwit said...: Well said Sun. Couldn't agree more. You and I have a very similar view on this. Couldn't have said it any better.

Its time for everyone to get real and get behind Obama.; March 25, 2008 1:54 AM
sunkissed said...: And you are hands down/right on agreeing with Ed's VP suggestion.

Thanks Ed for providing the response site. I don't need to read it to agree with your choice but I'm going to for kicks and giggles.; March 25, 2008 2:06 AM
math 101 said...: DCW team if you feel like editing the post of a few min. ago on the new thread feel free sorry for blogging in near sleep.; March 25, 2008 4:12 AM
Subodh said...: i have to blame the DNC for all this hate ....the primary system they have is a horror story ... all these months of campaigning ...and strippimg the the fourth and eighth largest states of their delagates.... .caucus's where 2 percent of voters pick the winner.....open primaries where outsiders can pick the winner.......super delagates where the winner is picked for political reasons...proportional distribution of delagates ....this set up is geared for no one to win 2025 delagates ....HRC wins 3 states obama wins one state and she only gains 7 delagates....what kind of genius came up with this math .....the more candidates are on the road the more they have to attack to try to separate themselves ...the more their electorate gets hateful and start saying things that are outrageous...15 months and still going ...they cant keep saying the same thing so they resort to throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.....DNC created this mess and deserve to be laughed at....maybe this should go to the convention and tear this dem party apart so it can be rebuilt with some sanity and common sense
The role of the “super-delegates”, to look beyond the immediacy of the moment, and make individual judgments of what ticket has the best chance of defeating the Republican candidate in the general election. And why should the “super-delegates” play that role? Not only because that’s the way the rules are, and we are being told constantly that everyone should play by the rules, but also because they are uniquely qualified to make that judgment. The vast majority have participated in dozens of elections (or hundreds); their own and others. They have a deeper and vastly more informed perspective on what it takes to win general elections than does the average voter. Their expertise is an invaluable aid to making sure a Democratic candidate actually gets to be President. They are mostly elected officials who will have to go back and face their constituents and explain in detail why they made the judgment they did. They, unlike any of the other delegates, are truly accountable for their votes to more than just their favorite candidate.; March 25, 2008 12:37 PM
ed iglehart said...: Anybody got any idea why the betting on Al Gore as veep has taken off on the Political "market" today?

Is he getting ready to come off the fence?

xx
ed; March 25, 2008 1:09 PM
dwit said...: Ed,

If the "political market" is anything like the financial markets there is a lot of irrational behaviour based on rumour or wishful thinking.

I haven't heard anything to that affect and I don't think it would be a good idea. I have to say I respect the "civilian" Al Gore, but frankly I don't think he'd be much of an asset because he is also a Washington insider.

Its time for new political blood. That is how Obama has gained so much traction. People are tired of insiders.

In other words, I hope he doesn't get in the mix. I do like the idea
of Jim Webb, but I have to say he did come from a "purple" state and barely won that race. I think he can do much more in the senate. We can't afford to lose that state to the bible thumpers again.; March 25, 2008 3:22 PM
dwit said...: I get a kick out of this "Hillary in Bosnia" story. She actually claimed that she was under sniper fire when she visited as first lady, yet the video shows her totally relaxed and greeting people with her daughter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxVsdS887HA

If she was so worried, why would she take her daughter?

This is just another case of Clinton deceit. And she hasn't even apologized for her "fish tale"

At least when Obama gets caught up in something he addresses it head on. I want to see a little humility in the White House.

I think we are all tired of George Bush and his "swagger".

What kills me about this, is how little press it has gotten compared to the Wright video. I mean, this was an outright LIE.

The press has always treated Hillary with kid gloves.; March 25, 2008 3:38 PM
ed iglehart said...: Dwit,

To be fair, she's made the
BBC main news bulletins today, and if you check youtube, the evidence debunking her embellishment has been viewed well over a million times already....

And, I agree about Gore as not the most desirable veep, but I'm just curious what rumors (endorsement, HRC embarrassment, etc.) might have sparked the rally. I still reckon Webb's the best. It would be too chancy to go with Richardson - two mixed-blood is more than America could take right now (sadly). I'm sure both bill and Barack recognise this.

Salaam/Shalom, etc.
ed; March 25, 2008 3:50 PM
ed iglehart said...: Rated "four Pinochios"

Enjoy!; March 25, 2008 4:04 PM
dwit said...: Ed,

Trust me, over here the Wright thing is getting play on FOX and CNN and he is still taking a hammering on it.

FOX is playing it up because they want to see Hillary face McCain. They know she is the weaker candidate and as I am sure you are aware, Limbaugh and Co. are encouraging their listeners to switch for Hillary in open primary states.; March 25, 2008 4:04 PM
dwit said...: Ed,

Way better choice than my vid. That is hilarious!

http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y&feature=related; March 25, 2008 4:08 PM
dwit said...: Hey Ed,

Thanks for your input on my blog. I answered your comment, which is enlightening to me.

I checked out your site too. You are a lucky man! That is some beautiful real estate! Reminds me a lot of Northwestern Washington State where I went to uni. (Bellingham).; March 25, 2008 4:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Question about pledged delegates:

I've been hearing a lot of talk lately about the HRC campaign attempting to "poach" pledged delegates. I know that pledged delegates are not "bound" to any particular candidate, but it seems they must somehow be vetted and expected to vote the way they are pledged.

Can anyone explain how pledged delegates are selected? How likely is it that they can be successfully "poached" or wooed from one candidate to another?

Have there been any of the pledged candidates who have publically switched allegance?; March 26, 2008 5:11 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: To Hillary - It is not Senator Obama's fault that MI and FL broke the rules after they knew what they were. If they are now given a voice then we will have the same problem in 2012. Rules are rules - ya break em ya lose.

To America - Once the media starts reporting on Hillary's current church/cult (The Fellowshipe/The Family) and the Peter Paul vs. Clintons lawsuit currently in the California court system the Clintons will be toast and unelectable even for a seat in the Senate.

Senator Obama has the integrity, courage, stamina, intelligence, and wisdom to be our next President of the UNITED States of America - get used to it!; March 26, 2008 5:33 PM
dwit said...: Yeah Leah! TOTALLY!; March 26, 2008 11:34 PM
Subodh said...: When B. Hussein Obama was exposed as a unpatriotic , pathological liar, his defenders said that everybody is a unpatriotic, pathological liar.

And now, when B. Hussein Obama is caught in a 20-year relationship with a raving racist, his defenders scream that everybody is a racist wack-job.

In the Obama speech on race that B. Hussein Obama defended Wright's anti-American statements.

So in the speech , B. Hussein Obama casually informed us that even blacks who seem to like white people actually hate our guts.

First of all: Watch out the next time you get your hair cut by a black barber over the age of 50.

Second, Rev. Wright's world wasn't segregated.

And third, what about Wright's wanton anti-Semitism? All the liberals (including essence-besplattered Chris Matthews) have accepted Obama's defense of Wright and want us to understand Wright's "legitimate" rage over his painful youth in segregated America.

But the anti-Semitic tone of Wright's sermons is as clear as his rage against the United States. Rev. Wright calls Israel a "dirty word" and a "racist country." He denounces Zionism and calls for divestment from Israel.

In addition to videos of Rev. Wright's sermons, Obama's church also offers for sale sermons by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whom Rev. Wright joined on a visit to Moammar Gadhafi in Libya in 1984. Just last year, Obama's church awarded Farrakhan the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness."

What, pray tell, is the legitimate source of Wright's anti-Semitism? I believe Brother Obama passed over that issue entirely in his "conversation," even as he made the obligatory bow to Israel's status as one of our "stalwart allies." Why does crazy "uncle" Wright dislike Jews?

Will liberals contend that these remarks were "taken out of context"? Maybe Wright's church was trying to say that Farrakhan isn't great when it said he "epitomized greatness."; March 27, 2008 1:33 AM
MKSinSA said...: Hey countjellybean,

Accounting (sorta) question here: is there a possible scenario in which neither candidate reaches the magic number of 2024 due to, say vacanc(y/ies) in Pledged or non-participating supers? If so, what happens (if you know)? One of those nightmare "what-if" scenarios that only true spreadsheet junkies dare contemplate! Thanks in advance; March 27, 2008 3:00 AM
dwit said...: MKS,

Is it even possible for either of them to reach the magic number without super dels? I haven't even been paying much attention to the delegate count, because it will come down to people who will have to go for the one with the most pledged delegates, if they care about their future political career and the party itself. Do you really think pledged delegates may actually switch?; March 27, 2008 3:26 AM
Subodh said...: WINNER TAKE ALL is the method that was used by Republicans for their primary elections.
That has been the method used by the Democrats in the past. That is the method used in the General Elections since 1776 and is blessed by our forefathers when they wrote the constitution. The current method used by Democrats where proportionate method is being used in a micky mouse fashion is totally illogical and results in infighting and is weakening our party. In addition the Caucus approach causes 2% of the eligible voters (inexperienced voters plus independents + Cross voting by Republicans) to select a winner in a state. For example in Texas, Hillary won by 100000 votes yet Obama got 6 more delegates than Hillary. This kind of approach has never been used in any country throughout history. THUS WE ARE USING A METHOD WORSE THAN ANY BANANA REPUBLIC. The whole world is laughing at us specially the Al Quida and the Iranians who see B. Hussein Obama leading in an
Illegitimate fashion using the results from a faulty election process where Florida & Michigan results will not even be counted. If we had used the WINNER TAKE ALL method , Hillary would have been declared Democrat nominee by now. Let us see whether it is true.
USING THIS METHOD HILLARY WILL HAVE 1427 PLEDGED DELEGATES AND Obama will have 1260 pledged delegates. Hillary has 246 super delegates and Obama has 210 super delegates resulting in 1673 total delegates for Hillary & 1470 for B. Hussein.
Now let us assume that Hillary wins, PA, WV, IN, KY, PR and Obama gets NC, SD, MT and may be OR, and also assume the remaining superdelegates are split in the same manner as upto now, Hillary will have 2234 delegates and B. Hussein will have 1828 total delegates. NOW YOU GUYS & GALS TELL ME WHO SHOULD BE ON TOP OF THE TICKET? Mind you I did not include FL & MI in this calculation otherwise Hillary will be leading B. Hussein by 2501 to 1914.
DNC members and both pledged and super delegates , you can still change your vote based upon the momentum and electability of the candidate . Using any criteria, Hillary should be the nominee and we should have the DREAM TICKET. GOD BLESS AMERICA not a MILLION TIMES BUT HUNDRED BILLION TIMES; March 27, 2008 3:36 AM
dwit said...: "Winner-take-all" is silly too. How about 1 person = 1 vote. Remember, Al Gore lost because of the electoral college or "winner-take-all".

The electoral college is the real sham!; March 27, 2008 3:49 AM
ed iglehart said...: Subodh,

If you're so worried about 'liberals', what're you doing consorting with Democrats?

I want some of whatever you're smoking!; March 27, 2008 7:48 AM
Subodh said...: THIS IS ONLY FAIR
Cuurently Clinton has 267 electoral votes and Obama has 202 electoral votes using the same method as used in the General Election . Assume that Hillary wins PA, WV, Indiana, KY
and Obama gets SD, NC , OR , MT , Clinton will have 318 electoral votes and Obama will have 220 Electoral votes. Let us not include MI & FL for Clinton. Even then Hillary beats B. Hussein by 274 to 220--- winning by 25% of the total electoral votes. Do not blame me. Electoral vote method has been used since 1776. It is in the constitution and was designed to eliminate strife at the end of the election. Thus again Hillary will be the winner. Obama thinks by winning 28 small states mostly caucus states , he needs to brag at every rally that he is the presumptive winner because of winning so many states most of which will be won by Republicans in the General Election and ignoring the wishes of people of FL & MI. These phony victories have gone to his head and he has started imagining himself to be the PRESIDENT of this great nation.
LET US WAKE HIM UP IN THE NEXT TWO MONTHS TO SHOW HIM WHO SHOULD BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE USA.; March 27, 2008 8:07 AM
ed iglehart said...: Subodh,

"Electoral vote method has been used since 1776. It is in the constitution and was designed to eliminate strife at the end of the election."

It was designed at a time when data needed to travel by HORSE.; March 27, 2008 8:39 AM
countjellybean said...: MKS,
From what I gather from comments by Matt and Oreo, the number of delegates needed to win fluctuates according to the number of delegates. So if all of the delegates vote for either Obama or Clinton, there will be a winner. The only scenario that could prevent that is delegates voting for someone else, like Edwards.; March 27, 2008 10:25 AM
countjellybean said...: Or there could be a tie. There are 535 electoral votes, so there cannot be a tie in the electoral college, but there could be an even number of delegates at the convention. All I know is that they would keep on balloting.

Also, here is my updated List of Leaners.

Clinton [15]:
Bosley
Burke
Donatucci
Doyle, Mike
Farrell
Holmes, Ivan
Johnson, Joe
Mafnas
Malone
Martinez, Robert
Moss
Stapleton
Strauss, Bob
Taitano
Umemoto

Obama [6]:
Alari
Edwards, Al
Griffin
Johnson, Denise
Smith, Edward
Watkins; March 27, 2008 10:32 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I have just read some very ridiculous statements on this open thread today!

1) Electoral votes DO NOT whatsoever have anything at all to do with the democratic primary. This is one more fantasy that the Clinton camp is spinning with the help of the media. The FACTS show that Clinton is behind in ALL numbers that count: states won, popular votes, pledged delegates, and in the national polls. The only number she can claim as a temporary prize is the SD #.

2) Senator Obama IS VERY patriotic. HE IS A U.S. SENATOR FOR GOD'S SAKE! Americans should show him the respect he deserves. I would say that any American that does not show our U.S. Senators are they themselves not patriotic!

3) The rule for when the NATIONAL ANTHEM is played is to STAND UP and TAKE OFF YOUR HAT! It was the national anthem that was playing when that photo was taken NOT the pledge of allegiance - when are people going to get that one right! Senator Obama has MANY times LED the pledge in the Senate with his hand over his heart - stop the lies!

4) Wearing a flag pin does not mean that a person is truly patriotic. A person's actions are what count.; March 27, 2008 11:42 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: 5) This is America. We have a constitution that protects our freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

6) People that have not watched the FULL sermons of Rev. Wright just plain don't know what the heck they are talking about. Here's a link with FULL sermons: http://youtube.com/user/ronptech

If people would research the facts before spreading mistruths before they speak the world would be a much better place. All the hate and mistruths I read all over the web just goes to show that the education in America is in need of major improvement. Our schools need to get back into the business of teaching the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, civic, government, and history.; March 27, 2008 11:55 AM
DaxDiamond said...: There are 538 electoral votes- not 535 - so a 269-269 tie is possible. In 2004, OH, IO, and WI were all decided by less than 2%. Had each gone the other way, the EV would have been a tie.; March 27, 2008 12:16 PM
Subodh said...: Federal Reserve has spent 800 Billion to rescue bumbling banks and investment banks since August last year and they are giving them money at 2.25%. Spend at least $200 billion for homeowners to refinance their homes at 4% fixed for 10 years both for personal homes and rental properties upto 4 units. No exceptions for poor credit. The credit scores of people has gone down because they are behind payments or they cannot refinace because banks still will not loan them money.With a leverage of 10% down, it will mean we will have actually invested $2 trillion into the housing market The housing problem will be solved in no time as the property values will reflate upwards.The worst danger is deflation and any other solution will have no effect like pushing on a string.They should not worry about the falling dollar as our exports will increase and dollar in 5 years will come roaring back.
It is OK to let the stock market crash a little bit so that money from the stock market comes running back to housing. Increase margins for commodities and stocks to 100% down. All the speculative money going into oil futures and gold and copper futures will go into housing and oil price will crash below $60
WAKE UP FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, HILLARY & OBAMA Have the guts to propose something which will work rather than putting 5 million homes into foreclosure in the next one year

Reducing interest rates for banks is not helping home owners as they are not passing on these reduced rates to the general public.; March 27, 2008 1:39 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: subodh-

Senator Obama addressed the economy and homeowners issues in New York this morning. You can read the whole speech here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBNsq

or go to MSNBC and watch the video under Video/Politics

Bloomberg introduced him this morning but has not yet given an endorsement but I am sure one will be coming in the near future.; March 27, 2008 1:49 PM
Subodh said...: Leah,
B. Hussein is stealing the nomination.Include Florida & MI and Hillary wins in popular vote, delegates and superdelegates. Play fairly to win otherwise he will lose.
GOD IS WATCHING THIS SICK MAN !!!; March 27, 2008 1:52 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 27, 2008 2:05 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: subodh-

You are actually incorrect.
The popular vote in ALL the CAUCUS states that Senator Obama won is not included in the total. So you must include those popular votes also to have a true popular vote total. Those caucus states did not submit popular vote totals so unless you have those totals you can not state a fact.

You can not count popular votes of MI and FL because those states do not count. The people in those states where told the primary would NOT count. People in those states mainly went to the polls to vote on other issues on the ballot. If it had been a TRUE primary then you would have seen much different totals for Senator Obama. You can not tell the public that votes won't count and then when voters don't go and vote turn around and try use those numbers and say they are facts when they are not.

I am sorry that you are upset that your candidate is losing and that you can't seem to come to grips with the situation, but that is not a good reason to bad-mouther the other candidate that is winning.

Also, I will no longer reply to any of your posts since you insist on using Senator Obama's name in a way that is disrespectful to him and to any Senator Obama supporters on this open thread. Have a good day.; March 27, 2008 2:15 PM
dwit said...: Leah,

In case you haven't noticed, this Republican "subdoh" has many aliases.She operates on other threads as "anon ny democrat" and "time for change".

don't even waste your time. If you want to talk policy try Ed and me.; March 27, 2008 4:51 PM
dwit said...: Leah said...

"People that have not watched the FULL sermons of Rev. Wright just plain don't know what the heck they are talking about."

BINGO! If people watched the entire sermon they would find that he is dead on about our predicament in the ME today.

He was saying what I have said for years. If you support despots like Suharto, Marcos, Olmert, Somoza-Garcia, Saddam Hussein , etc.. YOU WILL GET TERRORISM ON YOUR DOORSTEP.

Its pretty easy to figure out. look at it this way; if you are the bully on the playground, you are going to make a lot of enemies and eventually you will get an ass-whoopin'.

I don't know why Obama has distanced himself from Wright.; March 27, 2008 5:24 PM
MKSinSA said...: Hey folks, I've been reading subodh's postings and ask for some patience and leniency for him on what I'm presuming is a cultural differences.

Based on his handle and stated positions, I believe he is either an Indian national or fairly new to our way of doing politics. In what I'm presuming is either his current or recently former country, politics, religion and intolerance of other opinions are commonly combined.

"One of the most notable features of Indian politics, particularly since the 1960s, has been the steady growth of militant ideologies that see in only one religious tradition the way toward salvation and demand that public institutions conform to their interpretations of scripture."
IndiaChild.com

P.S. The name means "sound advice, easily understood" from the same site.; March 27, 2008 6:01 PM
Subodh said...: Leah & Dwit,
Obama's name is B. Hussein Obama . If he does not like it , he should state it to the whole world before 2008 Primary Season so that we can define him. I will keep on referring him by this name and millions of other people will do the same. I am not showing any disrespect. I am merely calling a spade a spade. If you cannot stand the heat you should get out of the kitchen.; March 27, 2008 6:01 PM
dwit said...: MKSinSA

If you are correct in your assumption, which I very much doubt, its time she learned how to communicate in AMERICA.

If you look at other threads, you will notice "subodh" communicates in much the same way as other Clinton operatives that most of us have learned to ignore.; March 27, 2008 6:06 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 27, 2008 6:14 PM
Subodh said...: ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS
The principles of love and peace, Ahimsa (Non-Violence), forgiveness and sacrifice are needed among leaders of all countries especially from leaders of the most powerful nation on earth not hate mongering.
Ahimsa (Non-violence) has not merely the negative and restrictive meaning of 'Non killing' or Non violence', but the positive and comprehensive meaning of 'Love embracing of all creation' with purity of heart, mind and speech. Lord Buddha was one of the greatest teachers of non-violence.
Jesus Christ was the Prince of Peace. As a Jew, he crossed religious boundaries. He repeatedly reached out and embraced Roman conquerors, other Gentiles, and even the more despised Samaritans. When they crucified Him, He prayed for His tormentors, saying, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
Gandhi sacrificed his own life so that Hindus & Muslims could live in harmony and peace. Speaking on Mahatma's death Einstein had said, "Tomorrow, the world may not even believe that such a man ever existed."
What greater sacrifice than those of Anwar Sadat and Yitzak Rabin who gave their lives for the cause of peace in the Middle East. What greater sacrifice than that of Dr. Martin Luther King who believed in making change, even radical change, without violence. On the steps of Lincoln Memorial, Dr. King said: "I have a dream that on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood."
In South Africa the story of Mandela & de Klerk- - one was the oppressed and the other was oppressor- is inspiring indeed. After having been imprisoned for 28 years, rather than choosing violence , he chose reconciliation and forgiveness ,,, in a spirit of give and take. Needless to say , both sides had to sacrifice and a new more prosperous South Africa was born.

All great leaders sacrifice all their lives not by mere words but by their actions before they are coronated leaders. Clintons spent their whole life helping the blacks . In fact Bill Clinton is known as the first Black President.

Some of our second generation has not seen the assassination of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King and Freedom marches.

What was Obama doing then? He was into drugs – heroin and Alcohol and crack cocaine. He did not march in any of the freedom marches. Blacks were discriminated against. Not anymore. An Indian is Governor of Lousiana and we have black Governors in Mass and New York and a Latino is Governor of New Mexico.. So what is the purpose of spreading hatred against whites again?
For Obama "Spiritual advisor and mentor" has become "my former pastor". It isn't Rev. Wright who is the problem it is Senator Obama and that is a shame. What makes it worse is that once again the cable news shows , are calling those of us who question Obama as racists and "knuckleheads". They are dead wrong. We are strong liberal Democrats - not Reagan Democrats - who are appalled that he would stay a close associate of Wright, who would not speak out until caught red-handed. We had hope for him and now we don't. We dread McCain and will end up voting for him even though we swore we would never vote Republican. We are sickened by the morons in the Klan (all five hundred of them) and we are sickened by the morons who "lynched" the Duke Lacrosse Team. We are sickened by the neglect of Katrina victims, and we are sickened by the beating of a white kid in Jena who had nothing to do with the noose in the tree. We are sickened by Mark Furman and we are sickened by the OJ Simpson verdict and the reaction to it. If your spiritual mentor is a nut then find another who isn't. If you can stand by someone who doesn't understand that hundreds of thousands of white (and many black) soldiers were killed or wounded fighting slavery then you have problems. If you stand by someone who remembers Hiroshima and forgets Pearl Harbor then you have problems. If your spiritual advisor forgets that two of the three freedom riders killed in Philadelphia, Mississippi were white then you have a problem. If you won't wear a flag pin because it is phony patriotism (it is), but give a speech on race in front of eight large American flags then you are phony.
Senator you are making Republicans of your friends. We are the ones who praise Dr. King, Andrew Young, Nelson Mandela….We are the ones who want to move forward.

Mr. Obama is arrogant and lacks the judgment and character to be POTUS.
Obama's many speeches, books, and online posts reference and in many ocassions duplicate sermons, words, or books by the Rev. Wright.

Rev. Wright specifically endorses black theology and regularly quotes and/or references persons who are historical figures in black theology (this includes, James Cone).

As Rev. Wright has said on many ocassions, you should read James Cone. That is what Obama believes in (black theology). In Cone's words, he believes that the only God that should be worshiped is the one who will empower the AA community and *destroy* the white community. If you think I am making this up, go read for yourself.

As a Democrat I''m totally dismayed that such a weak and flawed candidate like Obama is leading for the Democrat nomination; if he gets it we''ve got another Kerry on our hands who will lose. Obama has never really accomplished anything that would justify moving him up to the WH; every large city in the US has people who have done more. And now here he is, after listening to this racist preacher for 20 years, saying he didn''t know his real political view. That''s just plain unbelievable. Obama chose this church, he chose this "minister." Think what the Republicans can do with this in the fall; he wants to be president but for 20 years he did not figure out that his "minister" was a racist who hated America; put that with Obama''s refusal to wear a flag lapel pin and his wife''s apparently hating American until Obama appeared to be getting the nomination...the Republican ad makers will have a field day as they put McCain in the White House

Obama has STILL not explained why he was a member of such a hate-filled church and WHY he had this loony pastor on his advisory board?? He has NOT explained how he tolerated such horrible, hateful rhetoric for so long (unless he secretly agrees with it) and how he called this man a close, personal friend. A man who preached that the U.S. invented the AIDS virus to infect and murder black people!! Who calls the USA the USKKKA to imply we are no better than the KKK. A man who encourages his flock to say God #$%@ America instead of God Bless America. He still has not explained why he stayed in such a hateful church for 20 years!! Instead he gives a lame speech about race relations and side-tracks the whole issue. I think he''s a con man and a hypocrite
I found this speech devisive on so many leves. First, let us not compare Ferraro''s statement with Wright''s. Wright has made numerous anti-white and anti -country statements while Ferraro simply stated what everyone including Obama knows and that is his race has garnered him votes..it has..and it certainly isn''t racist to say it. 90% of the blacks vote for him . If this is not racism , what is? Second, he says the past is not dead and buried...while we should never forget what happened to black in America it is time to move past it and create an atmosphere of acceptance for all. As outraged as blacks would be if this was said at a primarily white congregation is as outraged as everyone including black Americans should be over the rantings of Wright. I am sorry but he is not the unifier that everyone thought he was. Finally, now he admits..yeah I was there when he made some of those remarks..well then he lied two days ago when he said he was not. He knew that with 8000 members in the church someone was going to say he was there so he was forced into telling the truth...I am sorry but the speech leaves me to believe that he would have gone on with Wright as his mentor if the sermons had not hit the media.
Last week, Obama said he was not aware of Rev. Wright''s comments until his presidential campaign. Then, today, he said he was aware of Rev. Wright''s comments. So, he lied. And, since he was aware of Rev. Wright''s comments, what does it say about his "judgement" that he allowed his children to be exposed to such hateful comments? I know Obama is a real smooth talker, but there are still some very serious questions about this guy. Preaching hate of America in the name of religion is wrong! To sit in a pew for 20 yrs and take your family to that church is wrong even if the hate language was only occasional. Religion should be about healing, love, peace and forgiveness, not hate. Look at what has happened in America, to America and by America as a result of hate in religion.
Obama Practices and preaches one thing until he is caught and then changes gears and redirects attention away from his involvment on the issue by broadening the issue so it appeals to the masses. This guy is a true politician, and has very good spin control analysts in his war room.This is the 3rd time those spin doctors have taken something Obama was caught red handed in and turned it around so the message appeals to the masses or he just down right dismisses it by saying that is nothing more than "old Washington politics." I guess someone is qualified to speak about race in America if his mother who is white, marries a black man and brings his family to worship at a church led by a racist.

Obama and family go to church with ear plugs because "I''ve never heard him speak that way" but in the next sentence says "He''s been part of my life..." News flash people - the hatred this minister holds did not happen overnight, it''s deep seated just as Obama says - but I guess it was the ear plugs that prevented Obama from hearing it all these years?He''s qualified to lead this country because he can''t afford a house so he has a rich friend (now on trial) buy the lot next to them a list price so they get the home at a discount. Most Americans would just keep looking but not Mr. Obama he takes the offer and is a proud owner of a luxurious house in Chicago - Oh until he is caught. When asked about this - "It''s just old Washinton politics."You''re right Mr. Obama, you are old Washington politics - another fraud - just shined up to appear new.
Senator Obama stated that Wright (I am not sure of his credentials to be a Reverend or Pastor; ie, what seminary he attended), harbored mis-trust and animosity built up from years of racial injustices that had been thrust upon Blacks in America. I am para-phrasing but this appeared to be the rationale Senator Obama was hiding Wright under. It seems to me that someone, anyone, in that church should have pointed that out to Wright and the fact that to continue to spew hatred in the direction of others (whites) would be an injustice to the children who attend the church and now have the opportunities of nearly 3 generations of assurances for racial equality - such as the fair housing act and affirmative action. Just the fact that Obama has come so far in his candidacy for his parties Presidential nomination attest to this.To continue to re-live the past, especially in front of the children of the church, on makes the past, the present. It never allows the past - to pass.
These many omissions by Obama spotlight why he is "not ready" to be President or to lead this nation. I have no doubt of his ambitions to do so; however, his mistakes and worse, his excuses show a lack of preparation and a lack of judgement that is necessary for a President.There is a strong will among many of the voters for him to be President, but it is better for him to run when he can succeed than to run now when he will undoubtedly continue to stumble and worse, fail.His experience has been on a local level where everyone he has worked with has had the interest of south Chicago or the interest of Illinois in common. He has never worked with leaders of foreign governments whose only interest is their own and could not care less about the agenda of the U.S. Obama has confused his abilities on local levels to achieve common goals with like minded people with an ability to bring together persons who have no concern in the best interest of Americans.
GOD BLESS AMERICA A BILLION TIMES !!!; March 27, 2008 6:16 PM
dwit said...: MKSinSA

The difference between progressives like most of us here and conservatives like "subodh" is that we don't rely on innuendo like Rove to bolster our positions.

Feeble minds like this have no place in our discussion. These are the hillbillys that support Bush and McCain. I think we can all see where that has taken our country.

We can't afford leniency for douche bags like this. They have destroyed this country!; March 27, 2008 6:17 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 27, 2008 6:23 PM
dwit said...: Oh great...now "subdoh" thinks she has some legitimacy with this "Indian culture" business.

Now this thread has deteriorated into a bombastfest. Scrolling past these stupidly long posts sure is a pain in the arse.; March 27, 2008 6:24 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 27, 2008 6:43 PM
MKSinSA said...: dwit, my humble apologies.

And my Indian friend, you wrote "Ahimsa (Non-violence) has ... the positive and comprehensive meaning of 'Love embracing of all creation' with purity of heart, mind and speech"

It is much more. "The vow of Ahimsa is broken even by showing contempt towards another man, by entertaining unreasonable dislike for or prejudice towards anybody, by frowning at another man, by hating another man, by abusing another man, by speaking ill of others, by backbiting or vilifying, by harbouring thoughts of hatred, by uttering lies, or by ruining another man in any way whatsoever."

Your posts:
"When B. Hussein Obama was exposed as a unpatriotic, pathological liar"
"GOD IS WATCHING THIS SICK MAN"

And most importantly for my discussion:
"Obama [or other appropriate name] you are a phoney."; March 27, 2008 6:58 PM
countjellybean said...: Sry, my ooopsie on the electoral college count.; March 27, 2008 7:21 PM
dwit said...: MKSinSA

You must have seen the other threads of "anon ny dem..." and "time for change". I'm sure this "subodh" is just another alias for this Bush/McCain op.

I have learned to keep on scrollin' until I see debate based on research.; March 27, 2008 7:33 PM
dwit said...: I should add "legitimate research"; March 27, 2008 7:35 PM
MKSinSA said...: So folks, what if the super Ds en bloc issued a "No Vote" at the convention? They have said they don't want to decide this thing, so wouldn't it be kinda cool, regardless the outcome from here to June, regardless the decision on FL or MI, if they just said "Do this without us"?

Just wondering what your thoughts are on this incredibly unlikely scenario.

(In other words, do you think they'd forego the chance to be king- or queen- makers?); March 27, 2008 7:39 PM
hank said...: I don't see that happening, but if they decided to leave it as is, I'd be game. It would be a little pansy ass, but it might get them out of a tough spot.; March 27, 2008 9:18 PM
dwit said...: MKSinSA

What is the latest word from the DNC on this issue? I'm sure many would jump at the chance to get out of this without destroying their OWN chances next election cycle.

My guess is that some are chomping at the bit for this fight, however. It could reshape the entire party elite.; March 27, 2008 10:18 PM
Matt said...: MKSinSA - if a superdelegate doesn't vote, the number of votes to win doesn't change, so it's as if they're voting for a 3rd party, and it could drive the nomination to a 2nd ballot.

See http://www.time.com/time/politics/article
/0,8599,1725678,00.html

It would just take 100-150 supers to give us a truly brokered convention.; March 27, 2008 11:27 PM
MKSinSA said...: Dang you, Matt,

Here I had this idyllic vision of a SuperD-free zone and you just go and ruin it with fact! How do you sleep at night? :)

No longer singing, "We are the world, we are the people"

MKSinSA; March 28, 2008 1:33 AM
MKSinSA said...: P.S. Nice sneak of Mr. Super on the blog. Introductions, please? I posted my thoughts over on his blog earlier re: FL doofuses Myth. Welcome aboard.; March 28, 2008 1:39 AM
Roadkill Books said...: subodh -

Your above post is a direct copy paste from an Ann Coulter blog and you didn't even credit her! I guess you are just out to troll around and do exactly what the Rush Lim right wants..create fake infighting w/ the democrats.; March 28, 2008 3:10 AM
Roadkill Books said...: subodh -

Your above post is a direct copy paste from an Ann Coulter blog and you didn't even credit her! I guess you are just out to troll around and do exactly what the Rush Lim right wants..create fake infighting w/ the democrats.; March 28, 2008 3:10 AM
dwit said...: Yeah roadkill!

I thought that looked familiar. Of course, I knew all along she was a Republican zombie, by her inbred hillbilly logic. Thats their character. Did I say CHARACTER? Whoops! That's a bit of an oxymoron.

But, then again, McCain needs all the help he can get. Thats the problem with the right, they can't win on the merits of their positions...never have been able to.; March 28, 2008 3:40 AM
ed iglehart said...: Thanks Roadkill! Ola!

Your name reminds me of a friend:
Read on...

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
-ed; March 28, 2008 7:00 AM
Subodh said...: Yesterday, a Pennsylvania editorial board asked Sen. Clinton how she would have "responded if [her] pastor had said some of the things that Rev. Wright said?" In response, she said Rev. Wright would not have been her pastor, an honest view shared by many Americans.The Obama campaign's response? Attack Sen. Clinton and accuse her of trying to divert attention from the Bosnia trip story and her record of foreign policy experience. Sen. Clinton’s response was sincere. The Obama attack was disingenuous.We are happy to discuss Sen. Clinton’s foreign policy experience and her record overall. Unfortunately, the Obama campaign doesn’t want to discuss its candidate’s record and prefers personal attacks instead. Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he’d get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it. He’d have to deal with the fallout from this week’s Washington Post report on his gross exaggeration of his role on immigration reform and housing policy. Sen. Obama would have to explain why the New York Times reported that he claims credit for passing nuclear leak legislation that never got out of committee. He’d have to confront reports from FactCheck.org and other independent organizations that say his claims of providing a universal health care plan are based on selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers. He’d have to discuss the LA Times story that reported on how his fellow organizers say he took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. He’d have to explain why he regularly claims he was a law professor when in fact he held no such title.Sen. Obama seems to think disingenuous attacks on Sen. Clinton will address the concerns voters have about his record and readiness to be the Commander-in-Chief and the steward of our economy. They won’t. In the end, Sen. Obama’s words cannot erase Hillary's 35-year record of action because when all is said and done, words aren’t action. They are just words.; March 28, 2008 11:33 AM
Subodh said...: Countless Americans, without specific number, don't believe Sen. Obama has any intention of renegotiating the free trade agreements (NAFTA) as indicated by the follow-up to the debate in Ohio. After he had told the American people that he would renegoiate NAFTA, he tried to placate Canadian fears by allowing one of his advisors to tell Canadian officials that it was just "political posturing." And you expect to win Ohio in the general elction!
Fellow Americans, we face an enemy that has repeatedly attacked us and remains committed to killing Americans and the destruction of our most cherished values. This election is about who is best prepared to lead and defend our nation and its international allies as Commander-in-Chief from day one. This election is about MAKING SURE we have the experienced leadership to guide us to victory in this war, protect the nation against future terrorist attacks, and support our troops and first responders who are on the frontlines of the war.
We ALL like Sen. Obama, BUT we have the United States of America to govern in a very difficult time of Islamic jihad, the economy, health care, housing crisis, Iraq, nuclear weapons and our image abroad; the OVERWHELMING challenges confronting us in the 21st century. The stakes in this election are so very high, and it will take a leader with Hillary Clinton's strength, will, resolve, determination and experience to tackle the challenges we face.If Hillary should succeed, America and the world would be changed forever and for the better, FOREVER.
Not only is she the best qualified candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton will win in November, take back the White House, and deliver real tangible and VALID results for America and globally by creating a strong, secure, prosperous and globally respected America, AGAIN.
About Sen. Obama: I am saying, DON'T WE ALREADY have ENOUGH WARNING SIGNS?
Fellow Americans, there will be a clear choice November 2008, and I strongly believe that Hillary Clinton's life has prepared her to lead our country, the country we love so very much in the transcendent challenge of the 21st century. God bless Hillary Clinton, OUR NEXT President for a secure, strong, prosperous and globally respected America. God Bless America.
THIS IS A MUST SEE VIDEO IF YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY & you want to Know WHO should BE NOMINATED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4

You can go to http://www.YouTube.com and type Obama Wright

into Search area and you will get this video.
V V V Beautifully done; March 28, 2008 11:38 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hillary Clinton scandals:

- The disappearance of the Rose law firm billing records, their later discovery in the White House and Hillary Clinton’s inability to explain how they got there.

- Her huge and inexplicable winnings in a cattle futures operation

- Her role in the Whitewater development which was - although the media refuses to admit it - simply a land resort scam and one that was particularly aimed at seniors.

- Her role in the despicable White House travel office firings apparently aimed at favoring the travel firm that bankrolled Bill Clinton’s campaign by delayed billing.

- Her role in the use of FBI files on political opponents and the open question of what information from these files she still possesses.

- A case, still in court, involving the alleged failure to report over a million dollars in campaign contributions. Clinton’s Senate campaign has already been fined by the FEC for failing to accurately report $700,000 in contributions. Do a google search for the Clintons and Peter Paul.

- Her relationship with such indisputably dubious persons such as Johnny Chung, John Huang, Ng Lap Seng, Mochtar Riady, the McDougalds, Craig Livingstone, Webster Hubbell and Jorge Cabrera

- Her current lawsuit Paul v. Clinton regarding campaign fraud: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&q=Hillary+scandal&total=213&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

The Clinton Chronicles
www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6470450895164255089

Here's an update on the Peter Paul vs. Clintons lawsuit:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868

DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. Go to www.lasuperiorcourt.org (Los Angeles Superior Court) and look in the CIVIL Column, then Click on CASE SUMMARIES then enter these numbers in the box BC304174.

2007 scandals: NAFTA-gate. Bosnia-gate.; March 28, 2008 11:55 AM
ed iglehart said...: Subodh,

I'll watch your video if you'll watch mine. (either one or the other)
A white minister:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVfkrGnn9Tw
And Dr Wright:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

Let us know when you've paid attention to him, and then MAYBE we'll payt some attention to you

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed; March 28, 2008 12:02 PM
countjellybean said...: My revised List of Leaners, using only the NY Times as my source.

Clinton [12]:
Bosley
Burke
Donatucci
Farrell
Mafnas
Malone
Martinez, Robert
Moss
Stapleton
Strauss, Bob
Taitano
Umemoto

Obama [12]:
Alari
Edwards, Al
Griffin
Johnson, Denise
Johnson, Joe
Smith, Edward
Watkins; March 28, 2008 12:15 PM
Subodh said...: It is amazing how Various polling organization are giving out results that mostly agree with each other except PEW .
See results :
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Obama Clinton Spread
RCP Average 03/18 - 03/27 - 45.2 42.4 Obama +2.8
Rasmussen Tracking 03/24 - 03/27 900 LV 46 44 Obama +2.0
Gallup Tracking 03/24 - 03/26 1236 V 48 44 Obama +4.0
NBC/WSJ 03/24 - 03/25 RV 45 45 Tie
Pew Research 03/19 - 03/22 618 RV 49 39 Obama +10.0
FOX News 03/18 - 03/19 388 RV 38 40 Clinton +2.0

Looks like PEW Research has been bought by somebody. All it takes is a million dollars. Otherwise how do you explain that all other polls indicate that the race is too close to call. As always , the biased media like CNN and CNBC is making a big deal about it.
Any intelligent person will realize that B. Hussein Obama is damaged goods now because of the Wright Affair and no matter how many times he goes to various talk shows , he has lost all credibility for the common man in this country.
GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!; March 28, 2008 12:37 PM
countjellybean said...: Politico.com has Paul Kirk for Obama.

Obama [8]:
Alari
Edwards, Al
Griffin
Johnson, Denise
Johnson, Joe
Kirk
Smith, Edward
Watkins; March 28, 2008 1:30 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Gallup Tracking
03/25 - 03/27
Obama 50%
Clinton 42%
Obama +8.0%

Looks like Gallup has caught up to PEW :); March 28, 2008 2:36 PM
hank said...: Yes, Leah. Thank you for exposing the seedy underbelly of the Clintons.

I've already pointed out the Clinton Foundation question. Are they illegally funneling money to her campaign? Here is an article with a list of SOME of the donors.

http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources
/2007/10/11/clinton/

At first, I hesitated to do this, but as I research more it is pretty clear to me that the Clintons are REPUBLICANS!

That's why I won't vote for them or McCain.; March 28, 2008 4:46 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Here's an article that everyone should read:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hillarys_list_of_lies.html

I found the article interesting because some of the stuff on there I had never heard of before. The media should be talking more about 'these' then maybe she would rethink about dropping out now before more damage is done.; March 28, 2008 4:52 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Comparison of totals of PLEDGED delegates received from primaries and caucuses:

Demconwatch
Obama 1406 Clinton 1249

BarackObama.com
Obama 1418 Clinton 1251

CNN
Obama 1414 Clinton 1243

RCP
Obama 1414 Clinton 1248; March 28, 2008 4:59 PM
Subodh said...: PLEASE SHOW ME SENATOR OBAMA'S JUDGEMENT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA: SINCERELY, SEN. OBAMA WILL BE READY IN EIGHT (8) YEARS:

Senator Obama as Chairman of an oversight committee with responsibility to fight Al Qeada in Afghanistan:
Senator Barack Obama says he has the judgment to be president, repeatedly criticizing Clinton for supporting the Iraq war. I can't just figure out the fix, right here:
As chairman of an oversight committee charged with the force of fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Senator Barack Obama was too busy running for president to hold even one hearing. Senator Barack Obama, admitted: "I became chairman of this committee, at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007, so it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." Is this the right judgement that will make America safe. We support Clinton because she is ready to secure America, with nothing held back. In fact, Clinton will NEVER be too busy to defend our national security-bringing our troops home from Iraq and pursing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
No wonder former admirals, generals, and senior defense officials, not long ago, gave their reasons for supporting Senator Clinton to be our next Commander-in-Chief. In a conference call with reporters, some of the nation's most distinguished flag officers testified to Senator Clinton's qualifications, experience, and strength of character.
Distinquished Generals and Flag Officers, have endorsed and continue to endorse Hillary Clinton to be the Nation's next President. Senator Clinton has received five endorsements in recent days, including those of General Henry Hugh Shelton, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Owens, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba. Overall she has the endorsement of two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, five admirals and generals at the four-star rank. Remember, they are in addition to over 2,000 veterans and military retirees who are members of Senator Clinton's national and state veterans' steering committees.
These include, but are not limited to the following: General Wesley Clark
Admiral William Owens, General Johnnie E. Wilson, Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy, Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak, Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath, Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr., Major General Paul D. Eaton, Rear Admiral Stuart Platt, Rear Admiral David Stone Major General Antonio M. Taguba, Brigadier General Michael Dunn Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote, Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr., Brigadier General Jack Yeager, Former Secretary of the Army and Veterans Affairs Togo West, Former Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton; March 29, 2008 1:39 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: You are spewing misstatements.

Senator Obama chairs the SUB-committee. SUB SUB SUB-committee.

There has not been a need for him to hold a meeting because the MAIN committee is doing everything that needs to be done.

Please get your facts straight before accusing people of doing wrong deeds.; March 29, 2008 3:01 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Recently NINE former GENERALS and ADMIRALS endorsed Senator Obama on national TV at a press conference. It got bumped off the news cycle a bit that day because of the Spitzer scandal.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/barack.obama.chicago.2.675636.html; March 29, 2008 3:10 AM
MKSinSA said...: Hello, my Indian friend,

It's nice to see you've toned it down a bit. Thank you.

An interesting study to answer your question about judgement, speaks not to Obama or Clinton, but to the voters. Its author, an Indian researcher at the U of Minn, looked at voter loyalty during the Clinton impeachment. Here is an analysis of the study:

"Even when Clinton admitted and apologized for lying about an affair with the White House intern, his supporters’ loyalty
was unshaken. However, to accommodate that loyalty, they often needed to change their stated perceptions of what matters
in a president.

"For instance, if in the past they had said morality and honesty were important, they decided such characteristics were less crucial in a political leader after Clinton’s admission and apology. They then rated traits such as intelligence and ability as more important.

“'It was interesting that these very strong supporters were willing to change the structure of their evaluation of the presidency and what is important in a
president, rather than change their evaluation of Clinton,'
Ahluwalia says.

The constant negative publicity also produced what Ahluwalia calls a 'halo effect' in Clinton’s strongest supporters.

“The supporters could isolate other factors—such as
intelligence—and actually improved their ratings of him in
those areas,” she says.

Also, I'd be very careful bringing up the issue of judgement between the candidates if you're including this period of time in the "experience" factor, as some of us weren't so willing to suspend our beliefs in either of the Clintons, then or now.; March 29, 2008 1:32 PM
Unknown said...: First thing - This site is AMAZING. I check it many times a day and have referred many to it. Spectacular work, we all owe you tremendously.

A suggestion (for all your spare time I'm sure) - I would love to see a table for the caucus states on the number of delegates elected and projected to be elected to the national convention as of the local/legislative caucus, county caucus, and state (and dates of each event).

The change in Iowa at the county level was interesting, and I've been struggling today to see what is happening in Texas. I imagine looking at these trends would be fascinating, and something in previous elections wouldn't be worthwhile since we didn't really have 2+ candidates at the time of the second caucus.

Thanks for everything!; March 30, 2008 12:36 PM
Bill UK said...: Gallup have Obama +10 in todays tracking poll and breaking the 50% barrier!

Obama 52%, Clinton 42%; March 30, 2008 2:11 PM
ChagoFuentes said...: If anyone is wondering about the results of the senatorial district and county conventions in Texas yesterday, you can track the delegate selection process at http://www.burntorangereport.com/. Right now, with about 80% of the statewide delegates reported, Obama has roughly 56% of the delegates to the state convention.; March 30, 2008 2:13 PM
Subodh said...: Republicans have won the elections in 2000 & 2004 by running their Primaries in a SANE and INTELLIGENT fashion not in a completely undemocratic and divisive fashion. The same is happening now in 2008. Why don’t the Democratic party learn that the least divisive way is to use WINNER TAKE ALL Method which is used in the GE and NOT A MICKY MOUSE method where a non electible person can win the nomination.
It is mathematically impossible for Sen. Obama to secure the delegate votes needed for the nomination without a large number of super delegates. This is why, despite publicly attempting to discount the role of super delegates, the Obama campaign is aggressively courting - and pressuring - them behind the scenes
These are elected officials from across the country and they're supposed to exercise their judgment as to what would be best for the party. And as they look at this, they need to decide who would be the strongest candidate for the party.
THIS VIEW IS ECHOED BY OTHER PROMINENT DEMOCRATIC LEADERS, INCLUDING HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP JAMES CLYBURN AND DNC CHAIRMAN HOWARD DEAN,SPEAKER WRIGHT & FOLEY,SEN. BOXER,SEN FEINSTEIN, , SEN. NELSON,SEN INOUYE, SEN. BAYH,SEN. MENENDEZ, SEN, SCHUMER , SEN CANTWELL,SEN. STABENOW SEN MURRAY, SEN. MIKULSKI, SEN WHITEHOUSE,GOV.TOGIOLO,GOV. MEEBE, GOV. MINNER, GOV. O’MALLEY, GOV. GRANHOLM, GOV. CORZINE, GOV. PATERSON,GOV STRICKLAND, GOV. KULONGOSKI, GOV. RENDELL, VP MONDALE who have said of super delegates, "Their role is to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party."
FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN SHOULD COUNT, BOTH IN THE INTEREST OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND HONORING THE SPIRIT OF THE DEMOCRATS' 50-STATE STRATEGY., OTHERWISW WE SHOULD TAKE THIS FIGHT ALL THE WAY TO THE CONVENTION AS HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST
The voices of 600,000 Michigan primary voters and 1.75 million Florida primary voters should be heard at the Democratic convention. In the 2004 presidential race, the turnout in Michigan was only a quarter of what it was this year - and the 2004 turnout in Florida was less than half of what it was this year. With such dramatically increased turnout, Hillary won those two states and she did it with all candidates on an equal footing. In Florida, all presidential candidates were on the primary ballot and all followed the rules (except for Sen. Obama who broke the rules by running television ads in violation of his pledge to the early states and to the other presidential candidates). In Michigan, Sen. Obama voluntarily withdrew his name from the primary ballot to curry favor with Iowa. He was under no obligation to do so. However, his supporters organized a substantial vote for 'uncommitted' on the ballot, thus he is represented in the delegation. Hillary Clinton obeyed all the rules in Florida and Michigan and came out ahead. She had no intrinsic advantage over her opponents other than the will of the voters. The voters of Florida and Michigan should be heard and the delegates from Florida and Michigan should count.
Most importantly, she has won key swing general election states such as Ohio, New Mexico and Florida, which when added to the states John Kerry won in 2004, would permit our nominee to win 270 electoral votes and thus the White House. Conversely, Senator Obama's big wins have come in many states that have not voted for a Democrat in the general election since 1964, such as Alaska, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming.
Because the race is so close, the Democratic party should take into considearion electibility of the candidate and nominate a person who will get the most electoral votes.
Cuurently Clinton has 267 electoral votes and Obama has 202 electoral votes using the same method as used in the General Election . Assume that Hillary wins PA, WV, Indiana, KY
and Obama gets SD, NC , OR , MT , Clinton will have 318 electoral votes and Obama will have 220 Electoral votes. Thus we can win only if Clinton is on top of the ticket.

Imagine B. Hussein being the Commander in Chief...!!! He wil sell Israel & Iraq to Al Queda & the Muslim Terrorists around the world and we will lose all the gains we have made in the last 30 years. In his own words in his book show that at the least he has had long term association with people that have extreme antiamerican views, we cannot afford someone in the oval office who in his own words sought out marxist professors in college,who chose as his church a denomiation that is anti Israel and pro Hamas,and chose for an individual pastor and church one that preaches black liberation theolgy.

Well, if lefties (Kerry & Co.) succeed in hijacking the Democratic Party leadership, I can see that a lot of Hillary supporters would vote for McCain. Obama's candidacy has been artificially blown out of all proportion. Does he really believe that he stands a chance to win the General Election?
Everyone I know would vote Republican this time if Hillary is not going to be the nominee... Obamatics forget that the majority of the US are not lefties. Bill Clinton knew this very well. That's why he was able to build a centrist oriented coalition & won both elections.
Also, it was in Obama?s interest for Florida & Michigan not to rerun their primaries. Do not forget the majority of the voters in both of these states voted for Hillary. That?s why lefties are not interested in finding a solution. He knew full well he would lose both of them. So, how he is going to win without Florida & Michigan? What a sad joke!!! The whole point is supporting a winner in November.
I can't see that happening if the Democratic Party goes for Obama... A good portion of white Americans center-left, center & center-right either will vote for McCain, or will not vote at all; same with Latinos & Asians.. 66% of the Latinos and 75% of the Asians voted against B. Hussein in Primaries.
He will lose Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. He will have a weak showing in New York, New Jersey, Los Angeles. He will lose most of the so-called red states that gave him their votes to just convincingly defeat him this Fall...
The rhetoric about Hope & Change is just propaganda, without being backed by substance. His voting records are disturbing. His pullout-the-troops plan without having a real plan is disastrous. Most of his wins are in states with large black populations where he got 90% of the black votes . 68% of the USA population is White, 15% latinos , 5% Asians and only 12% are Black. And overall, when McCain will win the November Elections, there is a great likelihood that majority of whites, Latinos and Asians will vote against the Democrats in November and we will lose our majorities in the House & Senate..WAKE UP
DEMOCRATS !!! Vote for HILLARY so that we can win back the Presidency otherwise we will all cry like we did in 2000 and 2004. McCain is Centrist and 100 times more electable than Bush and not extreme leftist like B. Hussein Obama.. The only way we can beat him is with a Dream Ticket with Hillary on top and anybody else out of all the Democratic Governors.; March 30, 2008 6:06 PM
ed iglehart said...: Subodh,

Hang on in there!

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
-ed; March 30, 2008 8:32 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Well, today Texas is so happy that finally Hillary Saddam Clinton can no longer say that she won Texas - the whole world now knows that Senator OBAMA won Texas on March 4th and the people of Texas have confirmed again today that he won Texas and she can't take that away from him :)

Now, Bill Clinton said if she did not win Texas and Ohio that she would lose and quit. Okay Hillary it is time for you to GO HOME!; March 30, 2008 9:33 PM
MKSinSA said...: What great news about Texas (where I live). I could only hope that our Democratic citizens, and my Indian foreign friend, subodh,should relish this salient fact.

My dear Indian friend should learn the lessons of American democracy rather than plagiarize the writings of the literate American citizenry.; March 31, 2008 1:47 AM
Unknown said...: I've stayed away from this thread because i know there's nothing i can say, based in fact (like many people's comments) or emotion (like the only clinton supporter here, subodh) that will change anyone's mind. I firmly believe Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with the potential to turn this country around. She is the ONLY candidate in the race whose health care plan cover's EVERY American. I've dislike Hillary my whole life but the fact is this country needs her. But thats not why i posted.
WTF leah? Hillary Saddam Clinton? Tell me that's not trolling. You just make yourself look like a fool.
Ed- Your views on Israel are disturbing. We need Israel as much as she needs us. You can't focus on the "refugee" crisis without looking at the middle east as a whole. Israel is a pluralistic, democratic, island in a sea of hostile theocracies. It has Arab members of its governing body and is one of the only countries in the world (and certainly in the middle east) where the openly gay can serve in the military. Of course her action's aren't perfect, but no other country is held to the same standard as she.
Luckily, your views are also wrong. I had the privledge of speaking to Senator Kerry and former DNC chair Steve Grossman today here in Mass. and both expressed confidence that the 3 major candidates are all friends of Israel and supporters of the two state solution.; March 31, 2008 6:52 AM
ed iglehart said...: Micah,

Israel Kills children. She certainly needs us, but our uncritical support of a state practising apartheid is at the root of a large part of the hostility with which so much of the rest of the world views us.

Nakba denial
Self-determination?

Self -determination DENIED Check the voting, and ask yourself if it shows any respect for the founding principle (UN & League) of "self-determination of indigenous peoples."

" In favour: 33

Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: 13

Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Abstained: 10

Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia."

The Zionist project, while understandable in the circumstances, has been the greatest mistake of the past century, as forseen by over 300 prominent American Jews in 1919
Check their signatures

Further
reading from Mideast web for co-existence:

And, Some words from Jews for Justice in the Middle East.

We cannot hope to "heal the world" while unconditionally supporting the oppression of the expelled natives of Palestine.

I rest my case

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed; March 31, 2008 7:36 AM
dwit said...: Micah,

Please enlighten us on how WE need Israel.; March 31, 2008 7:45 AM
dwit said...: Also Micah,

Israel is "pluralistic and democratic"? Don't make me laugh! Did you know it is illegal for a Jew to marry a non-Jew in Israel? Tell me how that fits YOUR definition of pluralism?

Sounds More like APARTHEID to me.; March 31, 2008 7:49 AM
ed iglehart said...: Micah,

In supporting the "two-state solution, do you mean the "road map"? Have you read it? And the Israeli "reservations"?

And I remind you that they are building more houses in illegal settlements TODAY. So much for 'solutions'

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed; March 31, 2008 7:55 AM
dwit said...: You got it Ed. The "road map" is totally untenable. It looks more like three state plan to me.; March 31, 2008 8:08 AM
ed iglehart said...: Zogby on Equal treatment in a "pluralist democracy".

It's also worth noting that before it could adopt the pretence of 'majority' rule, Israel had to expel the native Arab majority and prevent their return. 700,000 refugees were created by proto-Israeli militias BEFORE the "declaration of independence" in May 1948. The UN continues to require their right of return and Israel continues to ignore those resolutions and many more (far more than Saddam defied/ignored)

If this "pluralistic democracy" were to honour her obligations under international law, there would be no Jewish majority.....

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
-ed; March 31, 2008 8:51 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Micah-

Yes you are correct. I did did a foolish thing and made myself look like a fool. The word I actually meant to type was Sodham (which I have seen others elsewhere use online and on John Stewart's show), which would have also been inappropriate for me to use here on DCW . My frustration point was boiling over and I guess I just temporarily lost it for a few minutes. I apologize.; March 31, 2008 12:44 PM
MKSinSA said...: Takes a big person to make that sort of admission, Leah. Now you've got a fan for life!; March 31, 2008 12:51 PM
Unknown said...: a; March 31, 2008 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...: We have to blame the DNC & leadership in the Democratic party for creating the biggest mess I have ever seen.( I have been voting since 1960) The facts are that in Texas Primary Hillary won by 100000 votes and she got only 4 more delegates. Then they hold the caucuses there and Obama gets 9 more delegates than Hillary even though she was behind by only 5000 votes.Similarly Hillary lost in caucuses in Washigton state by 11000 votes yet B. Hussein got 25 delegates. In CA, she won by 400000 votes yet she got only 36 more delegates only.Combine Washington and Texas Caucuses , 16000 votes margin is equal to 400000 margin for Hillary in CA.
Then they do not want to include the MI & FL votes.

This is creating an illegitimate lead for B. Hussein and that is why if he is nominated , it will be illegitimate win and that is why the contest should be taken all the way to the convention so the right candidate should be nominated.

Is that how we run the elections in the most powerful nation in the world. That is why the whole world is laughing at Democrats and that is why if Obama is nominated, 25% of the Hillary supporters will vote for McCain and that is why Mccain is leadind in National polls.; March 31, 2008 2:24 PM
ed iglehart said...: Michael,

Which national polls is McCain leading in?

The odds at the Political Market give you three to two on a Democratic President.; March 31, 2008 2:35 PM
MKSinSA said...: Hello, my Indian friend. I see you've changed your name to Michael now.
"By their works ye shall know them." Luke 13:26; March 31, 2008 3:01 PM
dwit said...: MKSinSA,

Yeah, "Michael" is pretty transparent. Glad somebody else is calling her out.; March 31, 2008 3:26 PM
2009 Journal Writer said...: To Michael:
I don't know which WA state results you're looking at, but I can tell you from first hand experience that Obama blew out Clinton in this state. It wasn't even close.; March 31, 2008 3:28 PM
Worried John said...: Dear Fellow Democrats,
The primary challenge confronting us in the November elections is returning intelligence and diplomacy to the White House. The clear and present danger in Senator McCain winning is extending the myopia of Bush/Cheney, Inc. Far more blood will be spilled if he is elected. With his ambition to indefinitely remain in Iraq comes an ever-burgeoning national debt that is now a mind boggling, Bush legacy $9.3 trillion.
Never forget that McCain was one of the prime movers that got us into the Iraq war. Whether he neglected to read or refused to read in detail the UN inspection team’s reports on Iraq’s weapons is irrelevant. The Viet Nam veteran betrayed his conscience by aligning himself with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearle, et al, in ordering the American military into an unnecessary, ill-conceived, illegal, and immoral war.
He has proposed extending the miserable concept of Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy. He is likely to replace the next retiring Supreme Court Justice with a Scalia clone. His voting record on environmental issues is abominable.

McCain Scores a ZERO on the Environment
Washington, D.C.--In the 2007 National Environmental Scorecard released today by the League of Conservation Voters, John McCain receives a score of ZERO. McCain was the only member of Congress to skip every single crucial environmental vote scored by the organization, posting a score lower than Members of Congress who were out for much of the year due to serious illnesses--and even lower than some who died during the term. By contrast, the average Member of Congress scored a 53 in 2007. McCain posts a lifetime score of only 24.
Statement of Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director (sierraclub.org/February 21, 2008)

Our best hope to recover our loss of dignity, respect, and friendships, and prevent the loss of any more of our valued and brave uniformed Americans is to elect a Democrat. This is absolute. There is no room and this is no time for an unbalanced devotion to one Democratic candidate over the other.
Senator John McCain has repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that he is a Conservative Republican. We should never set aside his affirmation.

This is a portion of Senator John McCain’s Senate voting record:
(votesmart.org viewed on March 28, 2008)
Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions Yes
Military Construction Appropriations Act FY2003 No
Energy Act of 2007 No Vote
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization No Vote
Natural Resources and Environment Funding Amendment No
Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act No Vote
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Yes
Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 1996 No
Energy Policy Act of 2005 No
Energy Policy Act of 2005 No
Energy Policy Act of 2005 No (These are not identical Bills)
Environmental Effects Caused by Ethanol Amendment No
Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act of 2001 No
03/13/2008 Energy Amendment with Drilling NV
03/13/2008 Energy Amendment NV
12/14/2007 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (Farm Bill) NV
12/13/2007 Energy Act of 2007 NV
12/11/2007 Government Sponsored Farm Insurance Policies NV
11/08/2007 Water Resources Development Act of 2007 NV
06/21/2007 Energy Act of 2007 NV
06/21/2007 Alternative Energy Subsidies NV
06/14/2007 Offshore Drilling in Virginia NV
06/14/2007 Clean Energy Achievement Criteria NV
12/21/2005 Removal of ANWR Provision from HR 2863 NV
01/31/2006 Samuel Alito, Associate Justice Y
09/27/2005 John Roberts, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Y

Teen Pregnancy Amendment No | Iraq Withdrawal Amendment No | Reporting Matters in Iraq Amendment No |
Iraq Progress Reports Amendment No | Gun Show Sale Regulation No | Time Between Troop Deployments No |
Habeas Review Amendment No | Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners Resolution No Vote |
Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners Resolution No Vote |

Most Sincerely, John
(USN 1971 to 1976); March 31, 2008 3:30 PM
dwit said...: Also MSKinSA,

Notice how they keep whining about caucuses? Calling them "undemocratic",yet they are perfectly willing to allow the "super" delegates to decide this thing.

I happen to agree that caucuses are fundamentally undemocratic, but I also have spoken out against the SD's

You can't cherry pick the rules like George Bush cherry picks intel.; March 31, 2008 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Rasmussen Tracking 03/27 - 03/30 1700 LV 42 47 11 McCain +5.0
Gallup Tracking 03/25 - 03/30 4394 RV 45 46 4 McCain +1.0
FOX News 03/18 - 03/19 900 RV 43 44 13 McCain +1.0
Once you give an illegitimate victory to B. Hussein, 28% of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain and we will lose the election; March 31, 2008 3:57 PM
dwit said...: Yes, john! We do need to get this thing behind us. We need Hillary to understand that having this thing go to the convention is going to bring us another Republitard President.

That would be horrible for America!

Many super dels are already moving toward Obama, because they can see the writing on the wall. What does it say about the Clintons that most of Obama's advisors and super dels are former Bill Clinton staffers and cabinet members?

Time to move on and expose McCain for the "Washington as usual" guy he is.; March 31, 2008 4:05 PM
Bill UK said...: Michael,

Your point is seripusly flawed. If 28% of Clinton Democrats vote for McCain over Obama you forget the number of Republicans and Independants who will vote for Obama, that results in an Obaama victory anyway!

Take your blackmail elsewhere.; March 31, 2008 4:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Washington State Caucus Results2008

Obama 21,629 Delegates 53
reporting
Clinton 9,992 Delegates 25
Uncommitted 363 1% 0
California:
Clinton 2,306,361 Delegates 203
reporting
Obama 1,890,026 Delegates 167
12000 vote Lead = 28 delegate lead in Washington Caucuses
400000 vote Lead = 36 Delegate lead in California for Clinton
Delegates for Obama are mostly illegitimate based upon faulty Caucuses which are not run in any country in the whole world.
They are meaningless even though approved by some incompetent leaders in DNC.; March 31, 2008 4:08 PM
dwit said...: Good point Bill. Hillary is so hated by hardcore evangelical righties that it will mobilize millions of those who probably would have stayed home because of their muted hatred of McCain.; March 31, 2008 4:10 PM
MKSinSA said...: Hi dwit,

While caucuses are not particularly democratic, they fit snugly into the founding father's world view of us, which brought us the electoral college!

As for superdelegates, they are a throwback to the old politics when party elders and high rollers ran the show. To now say they don't wish to subvert the will of the voters, is a bit disingenuous. It's exactly why they were invented.

Both are undemocratic, but the caucus is particularly useful in rural states that have lower populations and tax bases. Like Nevada, which held caucuses the first time this year to save money. In other words, follow the money!

As for my Indian friend, it's important for me to track his (Subodh, now Michael, is a male name) postings so that I am able to attempt to view politics through the lens of their cultural traditions and apply the requisite patience due our newly-arrived foreign friends.; March 31, 2008 4:17 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 31, 2008 4:22 PM
MKSinSA said...: My Indian friend,

Caucuses aren't run by any nation on a national level, even the United States. They are approved at a state level. This year Nevada went from primary to caucus and Puerto Rico went from caucus to primary. These are not national events, nor are they DNC-approved. Hope that helps your transition.; March 31, 2008 4:22 PM
dwit said...: MSkinSA,

Oh and I forgot to mention the Nevada caucus that went for Clinton. Better scrap that one while we are at it.

Most of Nevada's workers have non-traditional schedules because they work in hospitality. Remember how the Clintons went to court to disenfranchise those who work on Saturday?

Yeah, that's "democratic"! They will stop at nothing. They are quite willing to throw out democracy if it suits their ends, aren't they.; March 31, 2008 4:23 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Don't forget that Bill Clinton had no problem with the caucus here in Texas when he was running for president.
When Hillary said that she had no idea how the election in Texas was run 'she lied'. There is no way she couldn't have known because of Bill's race here in Texas.

Anyway the only thing that matters now is that OBAMA WON TEXAS!

It's going to be so nice to hear the phrase 'President Obama - president of the United States of America' for the next eight years!; March 31, 2008 4:53 PM
dwit said...: Well said Leah.; March 31, 2008 5:06 PM
Anonymous said...: It is imperative that we count the original votes in Florida and Michigan! The Democratic party does not need to worry about how ling their primary is going to hurt the party if we fail to count 2 critically important states! The voters should not be punished because of Howard Dean and 2 Governors who ran their primaries against DNC rules. Voters from both states where innocent but determined voters who came out in record numbers and overwhelmingly supported Senator Clinton. These 3 million people have as much right to have their vote counted as do voters in the other 48 states. We are the party in 2000 that insisted every vote must count and we are the only party that has attempted to disenfranchise the votes of 3 million people . The voters in these states will not support us in the general election when we need their votes if we fail to count their votes in the primaries. Many including myself believe that Dean will not count these votes because the voters of these states voted overwhelming for Senator Clinton. Clinton supporters will not help the DNC if it does not count these votes do not look at us to support the DNC financially.

In addition Senator Clinton tried to work with these states for a revote. In fact Clinton supporters were willing to pay 1/2 the money for a recount. Senator Obama has been intransigent. Obama does not want the original vote to count and has put every obstacle he can to have a re vote. Both Florida and Michigan have reported how Senator Clinton has been in close contacts with the states and has agreed to a revote and came up with 30 million dollars. Obama supporters that are in the State Senator in Michigan have shut the revote down.

During the original vote in Florida Obama bought a national buy that played Obama commercials on CNN
throughout Florida for weeks before the Florida vote.
Clinton did not break the rules and ran no commercials before the primary she as the Florida voters have clean hands. Both candidates were on the ballot in Florida and on the day of the Florida primary voted after 19 primaries and a lot of news coverage Floridians voter en mass. The Republican Governor and legislature of Florida decided to run the primary early.The innocent voters in Florida cannot be punished because of Republicans. The voters turned out in record numbers (right after the South Carolina Primary Obama win) and voted and believed their votes would count.

In the case of Florida it was a level playing field except Obama does not have clean hands because he ran commercials that played in Florida weeks before the primary. Both Senators agreed not to run commercials. However, neither Senator agreed that these votes should not count. In addition to Obama violating the rules he has refused to have a recount.Obama says time after time he wants the Florida and Michigan votes to count but has refused to allow a new primary.

In Michigan it was a Democratic Governor who broke the rules. Again the innocent people of Michigan again went out to vote in overwhelming numbers and picked Clinton by 55%. Obama argues well he took his name off the ballet or else he would have prevailed. At first blush this sounds good until you dig a little deeper. The polling was showing it was going to be a Clinton blowout. It was not until the polls showed he would lose this state and lose by a lot that Obama removed his name off the ballot. From nowhere several 527 organizations for Obama ran a massive radio campaign to vote for uncommitted in the Democratic primary. To no ones surprise Clinton got 55% of the vote and uncommitted got 40% of the vote. However, this category includes both Obama and Edward's. Obama was right he did get trounced. The problem is finding out how many votes he won of the 40% however, one thing is clear Clinton did not have a radio blitz and she won by 55% of the vote.
Again Obama does not have clean hands and will not allow the original vote to count and has done everything he can to deny Michigan a re vote.

Obama says he wants every vote to count as long as it meshes with his plan to split the votes in both states 50-50! His plan is offensive it is tantamount to not counting the votes at all. Obama has not kept his word in the primaries and has refused to allow a revote in both states, Senator Clinton did not break any rule in the primary. Clinton won both sates by huge margins however, agreed to a revote and even pledged 30 million dollars to allow the revotes to take place. Obama the uniter does not want to count votes because he lost. He refuses to allow a revote because the polling shows a similar outcome! We cannot allow Obama to dictate which delegates should be counted and which ones should be excluded. Unfortunately he has the backing of the weak bias DNC Chairmen Dean. The American people will not stand for this undemocratic process. Seat the Florida and Michigan delegates and give us a chance to win this election. You must do the right thing not the thing that is right for Obama. You are the problem not Florida and Michigan! A pole was taken in Florida last week and the conclusion of the poll was at least 25% of Democrats will not vote in the General Election if their delegates are not counted and the delegates reflect the Florida primary outcome.

A poll was taken last week that showed 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain in the General if Clinton is not the nominee. In addition the big Democrats will not financially support Obama and the DNC unless Clinton is treated fairly ! This was written to Poles and you by inference. Fairly means count the Florida and Michigan votes and let the election continue until every state and vote is counted.

You may think you do not need the big financial Democrats and people like us who gave $9200.00 to Clinton campaign matter. You should realize we are talking about our money and votes. I am sure the RNC will be happy to have are money, support and vote!!!

Your continual lack of action to remedy this situation will leave you with a severely damaged party. Good luck without the White, Jewish, Gay, and Hispanic vote see how you 11% population of blacks, some of the young vote and some white ultra liberal voters will propel you to victory in November because if you fail to remedy this problem namely, your first step is to immediately sit Florida and Michigan. Failure to do so is at are parties peril!; March 31, 2008 5:40 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Obama had the APPROVAL of the DNC before he ran his national ad. The DNC said it was okay to run the ad because there was no way to run a national ad and excluded only one state - the networks can't do that.
______________________-

Obama is not afraid of a revote. He has said that MI and FL should be seated in a FAIR way.

What he rejected were the rules that Clinton proposed as to how the revote would take place. There were some unfair rules in there and Clinton would not budge on any of them. Obama will support a FAIR revote - but not the unfair one that Clinton wants to do.

Also the democrats in the legislature in Florida voted to move the election up too - it was not only the republicans. If the DNC now says that Florida counts then there will be big problems in 2012 because then states will try pulling the same tricky tactics. When you break the rules on purpose there must be consequences.

Several months ago Hillary said ON TAPE that she knew that the MI and FL votes would NOT count. She said it out loud and on tape. It is only now that she is losing that she wants them to count. In my opinion she has no integrity.

The more that the Clinton camp pushes the FL and MI issue the more foolish and desperate they look.

Hillary should spend more time on paying her bills, releasing her tax returnS, releasing her senate ear-marks, releasing the Clinton library donor list, and spending some time on apologizing to the American troops and people that were in Bosnia!; March 31, 2008 5:51 PM
MKSinSA said...: Hello my Indian friend Michael/subodh, I beg you please return to your Indian forename,

I realize that in your country you fight a caste system that is against women, lower castes and other disenfranchised groups that challenge the social and economic conditions that constrain them and work for broad, systemic reform. It is not the case in our country.

In our country, we have party systems that allow each party to determine its nominee in the way it deems best.

Additionally, states here retain all rights not specifically given to the federal government. Which applies to private political parties as well.

I'm sorry you don't understand our system. I would enjoy discussing rationally the cultural differences in our party system with your native land absent the "cut and paste" raves.; March 31, 2008 6:21 PM
Subodh said...: Michael , you are right.
The nominating campaign is about choosing the Democrat's nominee. Delegates pledged through the primary and caucus process is a barometer that normally is pretty clear. When there is a virtual or actual tie, the DNC through the "Super Delegates" effectively choose the nominee. In the event that it comes down to the SD, then all votes and every pledged delegate should and must be counted. You can’t and shouldn’t say that pledged delegates will determine the nominee when pledged delegates are based on the votes each candidate receives. If a candidate is winning by margin greater than the votes you are not counting, then I say fine, if not, count it all and stop with the political posturing!

Moreover, not counting the entire collection of votes in this instance is comparable to the votes of newly registered black voters in the Jim Crow South having to produce education documentation that their white counter parts did not have to produce and in most instances didn’t have either. Why is it comparable? Simply put, it is because the voters in the states that are being penalized were not responsible for the decision. They were powerless to do anything about it. Unlike the Jim Crow South these voters were and are being disenfranchised by their own party, not the opposition, or a local band of fearful and uneducated average citizens. (Although one could stretch the argument to include the Republican controlled legislatures in Florida and Michigan, I won’t.) Nevertheless these voters went to the polls as is their right and they voted. The DNC was as wrong as whoever was in charge of the Jim Crow South for enacting a sanction that effectively disenfranchises every Democrat in those states. They were just wrong! They made the penalty up with the stroke of a pen. They should undo it and call it a lesson learned! The DNC, BHO and HRC have no choice, but to count it for the hope of a unified party. There is no need to do it over. We just need to count it! Then and only then can you declare that every vote was counted and the winner is……whoever! Anything short of this is just politics that will cost the Democrats the White House! It may already be too late.

It is only this tight race that has exposed this error. Since it is exposed, the party has to eat the crow it created and count the votes. BHO postured for Iowa with Michigan, because it looked like a freebie. He postured with a caveat that in fact gave him what he would have earned that day; the uncommitted vote was his, because his campaign requested it from those that wanted to support him. The message got out big time.
The Michigan results are: HRC 328,309, C Dodd 3,845, Mike Gavel 2,361, D Kucinich 21,715, and BHO’s “uncommitted” 238,168. Therein is the justice.

This is the kind of dispute I learned to settle on the playground. Yeah some will be angry, but they will come back to play. This is a simple, fair and economical solution. This solution does not hand the nomination to Clinton. It also simultaneously helps to avert a convention nightmare. A nightmare that will show the nation and the world the complete and utter chaos you can expect from the Democrats and their nominee. Conversely, we can be mature responsible adults, count the votes as they stand, and all move on!

For all of you rule following people, I'm sure none of you ever exceed the posted speed limits, and if you do, I am equally sure, that you notify the authorities to have the proper amount of points assessed against your driver’s license, pay the fine, and the increased insurance premiums, right? After all, those are the rules. I didn't really think so.; March 31, 2008 6:51 PM
Subodh said...: Finally, someone who is being objective about the situation. All things were equal in FL. Both candidates names were on the ballot. The FL delegates should definitely be seated because the republicans of FL moved the states primary date up. The Dems. in FL had nothing to do with it and therefore shoudn't be punished. This isn't over yet, and it is arogant of Obamofiles to suggest that it is. Hillary 2008!!!

GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!; March 31, 2008 6:58 PM
dwit said...: Thanks MKS,

I'm sure "michael" or "subodh" or whatever she is calling herself these days, is working at some Indian call/email center for the McCain camp. Man, how low can you get? Offshoring your campaign support staff!; March 31, 2008 7:02 PM
MKSinSA said...: Hello my Indian friend,

Welcome back. It is nice to see you find agreement with someone on this site; however, traditionally in American politics we don't plant information under an assumed name and respond to it.

In November 2007, ABC News' Eloise Harper Reported that the Clinton campaign admitted to planting questions in Iowa.

The campaign replied: "This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again."

Please respect the American standard and use your given name. Planted questions are not considered fair game in the American political tradition.

Hope this helps your transition.; March 31, 2008 7:26 PM
Subodh said...: I am not from India. I am a male and not a female. I was born in England but I have been a citizen of this country sice the age of 5.I am a great admirer of India and what India has given to the world. India is the largest democracy in the world and has a woman President right now and has had a woman Prime Minister not like USA where people are afraid to select a woman for high offices .

Please do not confuse me with Michael. We are two different people eventhough I agree with him.; March 31, 2008 7:55 PM
MKSinSA said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 31, 2008 8:25 PM
MKSinSA said...: Well, my Indian friend,

How nice to hear you have a voice through the noise of your previous rantings on this board. I think we would all like to hear what you have to say but can't hear it through the attacks and the venom.

If you would agree to have a civil conversation here, I think we'd all be willing to at least listen. I can see from your post that you may be uncomfortable with the language, but do us the kindness of using your own words and do so gently. I will return the favor.

We celebrate our citizens, whether natural born or naturalized. No need to start on the offensive.; March 31, 2008 8:28 PM
ed iglehart said...: Rice says Israel should eend expansion of settlements
But Israel doesn't listen to ANYONE

"Peace Now warned the Israeli government it was repeating one of its "worst mistakes" by approving a surge of construction in the past five months, with 946 homes planned in the West Bank and at least 750 homes in East Jerusalem.

But Mr Olmert said that "all the reports of dramatic construction projects in the [Palestinian] Territories" were untrue.

"And it's not true that we're building in violation of commitments that were made," he told a meeting of his Kadima Party.

Mr Olmert said his government would continue to authorise construction work in the occupied areas it wanted to keep in any final peace agreement.

Later, the Jerusalem municipal authority announced plans to construct 600 new apartments in the contested East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Pisgat Zeev.

Plus ca change....
:-(
ed; March 31, 2008 9:10 PM
2009 Journal Writer said...: To Michael:

Washington State Caucus Results2008

Obama 21,629 Delegates 53
reporting
Clinton 9,992 Delegates 25
Uncommitted 363 1% 0
California:
Clinton 2,306,361 Delegates 203
reporting
Obama 1,890,026 Delegates 167
12000 vote Lead = 28 delegate lead in Washington Caucuses
400000 vote Lead = 36 Delegate lead in California for Clinton
Delegates for Obama are mostly illegitimate based upon faulty Caucuses which are not run in any country in the whole world.

Your stats are disingenous. You are counting the number of delegates won by each candidate instead of the total number of votes cast by actual voters in the caucuses.

I can guarantee to you that Obama won by more than 12,000 votes as at my one location we had 2,000 participants and Obama won 70-30. Repeat across the state and you can see your numbers are not realistic.

From http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/02/02092008_Washington-caucuses-wrap-up-large-turnout-among-Democrats.cfm:

Participation is believed to be double the 2004 caucuses, which numbered 100,000 participants.

So, if we take a 2-1 majority for Obama, and a 200,000 participation tally, that means the actual votes were more like 66,667 for Clinton, and 122,333 for Obama. That's a much bigger difference.; March 31, 2008 9:17 PM
Keryl said...: All this talk of hypotheticals, and other ways of counting, and what the vote would be if it were electoral college is just so much nonsense.

The objective here is delegates. Pure and simple. Not big states, not electoral votes, not popular vote. The candidates knew this going in, and planned their strategies accordingly. While all these other machinations are interesting, they don't matter. No more than looking at the stats after a football game about how the losing team actually had more yards rushing and passing. No coach thinks they should win because of the stats. The fact is, Obama's team has done a great job of focusing on winning the most delegates. They have put their resources into the right districts, the right states and the have been pretty smart about it. The Clinton team didn't have a post 2/5 strategy and now seems more focused on the fight than the win.

Oh, and the Subodh/Michael posts...it's funny reading the string from the top. Sort of reasonable early on, by by March 20 have gone off the rails into complete nutcase rantings. Those posts do more to support Obama than the factual ones. I still appreciate those who attempt to actually call them out on the facts.; April 01, 2008 1:04 AM
ed iglehart said...: Interesting polls
from Gallup. Obama better candidate against McCain as perceived by Asses AND Pachyderms:
Dems 2:1
Reps 3:1

Hmmmmm
xx
ed; April 01, 2008 6:43 AM
ed iglehart said...: Yet another Unbelievable hoax!
xx
ed; April 01, 2008 7:13 AM
ed iglehart said...: POLL

Country Split on Whether We're Divided
Half say yes, half say no.

;-); April 01, 2008 9:48 AM
ed iglehart said...: Rasmussen has HRC lead down to 5% in Pennsylvania"
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

NOT APRIL FOOLS!

Whooopppeeeee!; April 01, 2008 10:27 AM
Unknown said...: Hurray, thats definitely good news, I dearly wish Obama win PA and the whole nomination process be behind us.; April 01, 2008 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Note To Charlie Anthe
Let me take your data.
55000 vote lead in WA is equal to
28 delegate lead for Obama whereas 400000 lead in CA resulted in only 36 delegate lead for Hillary. Assume in an area there are 2 delegates allocated. Let us say Hillary gets 85% of the vote and Obama gets 15% Both of them get one delegate each. Is this fair? Is this the way we should nominate the person for the most powewrful job in the world? That is why voting in caucus states is all bogus and illegitimate . On top of that proportional allocation of delegates as done in Primary states should never be done. This creates friction and disunity.
Republicans have known it and have run their Primaries with winner take all method and by March , they have known who will be their candidate for thelast hundred years.
DNC should wake up and select the better candidate otherwise we will have 2000 & 2004 again and in 2008 we will

Name me a single country in the whole world where such kind of BS has been done in the whole world for elections.

That is why an incompetent and in experienced person is leading in the race and the media is lapping it up as they hate the Clintons who have always stood up to them and have cared for the vast majority of the people of this great country.
Democrats should learn from the Republicans who have always run Primaries with WINNER TAKE ALL . They know there winner by beginning of March.
DNC should wake up and select the right candidate, otherwise we will have 2000 and 2004 repeated again and we will lose in 2008 as well.; April 01, 2008 1:33 PM
ed iglehart said...: Michael,

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....; April 01, 2008 2:11 PM
ed iglehart said...: Micah (& Dwit, Leah),

Your thoughts on this?

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed; April 01, 2008 3:25 PM
dwit said...: What do I think Ed? I have been saying this very same thing for years (even before 911). This is just common sense.

When people are bullied and oppressed for years on end, eventually they will freak out and take whatever steps necessary to hit back. Palestine, Vietnam, China, Afghanistan, etc...

Not to mention the economic factor. Because of this oppression most of these folks are denied the ability to make a living.

Anybody tries to hinder me putting food on my families table, trust me, I will do whatever it takes to see to it they feel some of the pain too.; April 01, 2008 4:40 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: (Warning - this is a long post)

Some math on how the upcoming primaries MIGHT go:

For Pennsylvania and North Carolina, I'll use the average of the two most recent polls. For the other primaries, no poll, or no recent polls have been taken, so I'll figure the 'presumed' leader to get 55% of the vote. I'll presume the undecideds will break very close to the current polls.

I also realize that the votes in each primary (except Guam and South Dakota) are apportioned by district - for this purpose, I'm ignoring that apportionment and treating the delegate count as if the candidate receives a uniform vote total across the state. This will skew the prediction to some extent (some districts will go for/against each candidate much differently than the state/territory as a whole), but most likely it evens out over all 10 primaries.

We start with the current AP pledged totals:
Clinton - 1250
Obama - 1414

Pennsylvania (158 pledged delegates [PDs]) - current poll averages show Clinton 50%, Obama 41%. 50% of 91% gives Clinton 55% of the vote.
Clinton: 89
Obama: 69

Guam (4 PDs) - no poll, thus Clinton gets 55%.
Clinton: 2
Obama: 2

North Carolina (115 PDs) - current poll averages show Clinton 35%, Obama 51%. 51% of 86% gives Obama 59%, Clinton 41%.
Clinton: 46
Obama: 69

Indiana (72 PDs) - no recent polls. The only poll I've found was in February, showing Obama up 40 - 25. Even so, I'll give Clinton the state, and at 55%.
Clinton: 38
Obama: 34

West Virginia (28 PDs) - no polls. 'Conventional wisdom' says Clinton, so she gets 55%.
Clinton: 15
Obama: 13

Kentucky (51 PDs) - no polls. 'Conventional wisdom' says Clinton, so she gets 55%.
Clinton: 28
Obama: 23

Oregon (52 PDs) - no polls. 'Conventional wisdom' says Obama, so he gets 55%.
Clinton: 23
Obama: 29

Puerto Rico (55 PDs) - no polls. 'Conventional wisdom' says Clinton, so she gets 55%.
Clinton: 28
Obama: 24

South Dakota (15 PDs) - no polls. 'Conventional wisdom' says Obama, so he gets 55%.
Clinton: 7
Obama: 8

Montana (16 PDs) - no polls. 'Conventional wisdom' says Obama, so he gets 55%.
Clinton: 7
Obama: 9

The next 10 primaries COULD end up with Clinton gaining 283 pledged delegates; Obama gaining 280.

A net gain of three for Clinton.

Clinton - 1250 + 283 = 1533
Obama - 1414 + 280 = 1694
(not including remaining Edwards delegates, and certain other unknown pledged delegates)

This means that Clinton would need to get 73% of the remaining superdelegates to endorse her to win the nomination. Obama would need 34%.

I know the pledged delegate count will not come out exactly as I display above, but I'd wager a bet that it is more likely to be closer than Hillary Clinton getting 70% or more of the remaining superdelegates, and thus the nomination.; April 01, 2008 9:08 PM
Keryl said...: Mike: Nice post. I haven't seen it laid out this directly. Makes sense. Even if you start tipping the numbers to Clinton even more, she's not going to get the number nod unless Obama implodes.; April 02, 2008 12:27 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: One correction to my previous post. Puerto Rico is off by three.

I got the delegate count and distribution from The Green Papers, which states that the PR delegates will be determined as follows:

"36 district delegates are proportionally allocated by senatorial district (Puerto Rico has no congressional districts) (these numbers are off by 3 delegates).

* District 1 San Juan: 4
* District 2 Bayamón: 5
* District 3 Arecibo: 4
* District 4 Mayagüez: 4
* District 5 Ponce: 4
* District 6 Guayama: 4
* District 7 Humacao: 4
* District 8 Carolina: 4

In addition, 12 at-large and 7 Pledged PLEOs are proportionally allocated by the islandwide vote.

* 12 at-large National Convention delegates
* 7 Pledged PLEOs"

The adjustment, wherever it occurs, could mean 0 to 3 more delegates to either candidate, assigned as you wish, as it will not dramatically affect the grand total for either candidate. If to District 2 and/or the PLEOs, the benefit is to Obama, otherwise the count goes to Clinton.

My apologies to anyone trying to figure out why PR is off by three.; April 02, 2008 3:40 AM
ed iglehart said...: One thing y'all seem to be forgetting is the "handicapping".

HRC gets extra points for being female, almost retirement age, and most importantly, blonde. BHO gets points deducted to offset the advantage of minority status due to political correctness, and a handicap to adjust for youthful stamina.

When these factors are taken fully into account, HRC is a clear winner.

xx
ed; April 02, 2008 5:53 AM
UUbuntu said...: One minor piece of polling news: Obama has a small lead in PA, according to the latest PPP poll. The especially interesting thing is that this is the same polling organization that had Clinton in the lead by 26 points 3 weeks ago.

4/2: Obama 45, Clinton 42
3/17: Clinton 56, Obama 30

Granted, 3/17 was at the height of the Wright controversy, just before Obama's speech and a week before before Clinton's Bosnia comments story. But a 28 point swing in less than 3 weeks is significant.; April 02, 2008 10:47 AM
UUbuntu said...: A link to the above information:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pppmain.asp?@spdT=B6B42829136845A69B19; April 02, 2008 10:47 AM
Amot said...: I have asked PPP and they have just added regional crosstab info for last PA survey. We can do the detailed projection now :); April 02, 2008 12:46 PM
Subodh said...: Not so fast Mike from Maryland. The nomination cannot be legitimate, unless FL & MI are also counted.If we do that Obama has 1700 & Clinton has 1689 delegates ( USA consists of 50 states and not 48 states)
I believe out of the remaining 10 states Hillary will have a net gain of 21 as she will lead in PA, IN, WV, KY and PR because of the Wright factor. This will give her 292 delegates and Obma will have additional 271 delegates. Now let us look at remaining superdelegates and uncommited delegates and delegates commited to Edwards. That is a total of 462 delegates mostly super delegates.Clinton has gotten 9% more superdelegates than Obama. Using the same margin, Hillary will gain 252 delegates and Obama will get 210 more superdelegates (+others) and that will not happen till the convention. Thus Hillary will get 2233 total and Obama will get 2181. Even if I use your count with Hillary getting 283 and Obama getting 280, She beats him 2215 to 2199.
No matter how you look at it , the fight will continue till the convention with Clinton being the eventual winner.
I must say that the race is extremely close and those of us who are calling for Clinton to give up are stupid and undemocratic and it will also backfire on them if all votes are not counted.

THIS IS ONLY FAIR

Cuurently Clinton has 267 electoral votes and Obama has 202 electoral votes using the same method as used in the General Election . Assume that Hillary wins PA, WV, Indiana, KY
and Obama gets SD, NC , OR , MT , Clinton will have 318 electoral votes and Obama will have 220 Electoral votes.Tell me who should be the winner.We need to use the same calculation for the primaries as in the General Election.Primaries are like the Playoffs and General Election is the Superbowl. I have never seen anywhere inthe world for any game where the rules for the semifinals or playoffs are differentfrom rules for the Finals or the Superball. Can you name one game?

We all love America all our lives except for a few who just started loving America to win an election and are devoted to a hate mongering priest for 20 years.
GOD BLESS AMERICA A BILLION TIMES !!!; April 02, 2008 1:09 PM
ed iglehart said...: Subodh,,

You obviously haven't watched
Dr Wright IN CONTEXT as I advised.
http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/2008/03/you-guys-know-fox-news-is-right-wing.html

And, here's a
White Man's testimony to Dr Wright as a Love-mongering pastor:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0326trinitymar26,0,2358398,print.story

You're the one who seems a bit filled with hate and denial.

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed; April 02, 2008 1:19 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I find it kinda strange that so many of HILLARY'S super delegates are linked to sex scandals. Today there's a new one to add to the list!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/02/stabenows-husband-tells-police-he-had-sex-with-prostitute/

Senator Stabenow (husband)
Ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer
Gov. Patterson
Ex-Pres. Bill Clinton

Anyone know of anymore?; April 02, 2008 1:40 PM
ed iglehart said...: Obama's gone above 51% in the betting.
http://predictions.wsj.com/; April 02, 2008 2:09 PM
MKSinSA said...: Hello my Indian friend,

As an American immigrant, I realize your stated patriotism is a bit more jingoist than that of our natural born citizens; however, in our country, a country of immigrants, we try very hard to not paint our elected officials as it denigrates us Americans who elected them likewise.

While I am thrilled that you "love America all your life," unlike Sen. Obama, who was born to this country and served this country as a state senator, you were not. And unlike Sen. Obama, who has embraced his ethnic heritage, you have not. You have masked your proud Asian-Indian heritage behind such quotes as "So in the speech, B. Hussein Obama casually informed us that even blacks who seem to like white people actually hate our guts."

It is difficult to take seriously your hate-filled rantings when the hate therein is obviously directed inward.

Love yourself, please.; April 02, 2008 2:17 PM
Mike Ruth said...: Nobody has any electoral college votes. It silly to think that because Democratic candidate X won more pledged primary delegates than Candidate Y in a state primary or caucus, that they somehow can be "counted on" to carry that state's electoral college votes in November.

Please put that fatuous pseudo-argument to rest.; April 02, 2008 2:35 PM
countjellybean said...: My revised List of Leaners. I;ve added Brazile and Hardt.

Clinton [13]:
Bosley
Burke
Donatucci
Farrell
Hardt
Mafnas
Malone
Martinez, Robert
Moss
Stapleton
Strauss, Bob
Taitano
Umemoto

Obama [7]:
Brazile
Griffin
Johnson, Denise
Johnson, Joe
Kirk
Smith, Edward
Watkins; April 02, 2008 2:48 PM
Subodh said...: Race Poll Results Spread
Democratic Presidential Nomination Gallup Tracking Obama 49, Clinton 46 Obama +3
Democratic Presidential Nomination Rasmussen Tracking Obama 44, Clinton 45 Clinton +1
Indiana Democratic Primary SurveyUSA Clinton 52, Obama 43 Clinton +9
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Quinnipiac Clinton 50, Obama 41 Clinton +9
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 40, Clinton 48, Und 8 Clinton +8
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 39, Obama 43, Und 11 Obama +4
Florida: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 42, Clinton 44, Und 8 Clinton +2
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 46, Obama 37, Und 9 McCain +9
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 42, Obama 43, Und 8 Obama +1
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 39, Clinton 48, Und 8 Clinton +9; April 02, 2008 4:02 PM
Anonymous said...: New polls suggest race too close to call . Clinton faring better than Obama in PA, IN , OH & FL--- All states needed to win General Election
Race Poll Results Spread
Democratic Presidential Nomination Gallup Tracking Obama 49, Clinton 46 Obama +3
Democratic Presidential Nomination Rasmussen Tracking Obama 44, Clinton 45 Clinton +1
Indiana Democratic Primary SurveyUSA Clinton 52, Obama 43 Clinton +9
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Quinnipiac Clinton 50, Obama 41 Clinton +9
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 40, Clinton 48, Und 8 Clinton +8
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 39, Obama 43, Und 11 Obama +4
Florida: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 42, Clinton 44, Und 8 Clinton +2
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 46, Obama 37, Und 9 McCain +9
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 42, Obama 43, Und 8 Obama +1
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 39, Clinton 48, Und 8 Clinton +9; April 02, 2008 4:11 PM
MKSinSA said...: Hello my Indian friend,

Thank you for the unadorned poll information. It is a useful tool, and I for one will give it careful consideration.

I see you have already found an advocate to these data in Michael. This is beneficial to your stated position. It would be truly counterproductive to your thoughtful information if your ideological ally were to take it and turn it into unpatriotic discourse. I wish you the best in convincing Michael of this fact.; April 02, 2008 4:59 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Michael said:
"Clinton faring better than Obama in PA, IN , OH & FL--- All states needed to win General Election"

Michael -

If you think that Hillary Clinton will be able to win Indiana, you are truly delusional.

Do you know when Indiana last voted for the Democratic candidate in the general election?

1964.

And the previous time?

1936.

In the last 18 elections, Indiana voted for the Democratic candidate two times.

In fact, since 1856, the first year the Republican Party ran a candidate for President, Indiana has voted for the Republican candidate more times than any other state.

And you think that Hillary Clinton can win Indiana in the General Election??????

If you can't come to the discussion with relevant AND accurate information, then you need to be ignored.; April 02, 2008 9:15 PM
Amot said...: Mike, I wonder why you guys still pay attention to such twisted minds... Obviously no reasonable debate can happen.

BTW I read the projections about the coming contests you made 2 days ago. I guess you have to put a lot of work since we have some new polls for 3 of the states. Funny thing is that state-by-state my projections differ a lot from yours but final result as today is the same - Clinton net +3. But in my projection I use poll data for IN, KY and WV that I find a little bit unreal. I mean we know what happens when Obama starts ads and rallies in one state.
My projection is:
PA 52% HRC, 48% BHO - 79/79 tie
Guam 70% BHO, 30% HRC - 3/1 Obama
IN (poll scenario) 55% HRC, 45% BHO - 39/33 HRC
IN (real scenario) 51% BHO, 49% HRC - 36/36 tie
NC 57% BHO, 43% HRC - 70/45 Obama
KY (poll scenario) 65% HRC, 35% BHO - 32/19 Clinton
WV (poll scenario) 65% HRC, 35% BHO - 19/9 Clinton
OR 55% BHO, 45% HRC - 29/23 BHO
PR 60% HRC, 40% BHO - 32/23 Clinton
MT 55% BHO, 45% HRC - 9/7 Obama
SD 55% BHO, 45% HRC - 8/7 Obama

However I believe that Obama can have 4 in a row - PA, Guam, IN & NC before he faces potentialy big loses in KY and WV. And I believe the race will be over May 6th. My analysis say that Obama will tie PA if he lose with 5% or less and last two polls give exactly 5% or less. If he wins PA than he will also win the next 3 and his lead will increase by 30 delegates up to 200 pledged delegates lead. That is not 1% difference!!!; April 02, 2008 9:53 PM
MKSinSA said...: Hey Mike in MD, On the lighter side, I'm about delusional enough to think a Dem can win ANY state against this:
McCain: You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception

As for PA projections, I have to go with Mike on that one (haven't really had a chance to get much beyond that). I honestly think the polls underestimate that "T" running down the middle. Then again, of the entire state, those are generally least likely to vote.; April 02, 2008 10:09 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Amot said...
"Mike, I wonder why you guys still pay attention to such twisted minds... "

Amot,

It's not that I'm paying attention to what certain posters write.

As a former resident of Indiana, the reference to Indiana caught my eye. I responded to that post more to warn others that a lot of male bovine droppings (MBD) is being written in certain postings. I'm hoping by pointing out a couple of the misinformation points, others will realize how much MBD is being spread by some posters.

I'm still trying to figure out whether the posters are Clinton surrogates, or employees of the RNC.

Mike; April 02, 2008 11:05 PM
Amot said...: Mike, I think it doesn't matter if they are RNC or Hillary's. My decision is not to pay attention. The problem is that sometimes they use the site for spamming with endless copy-paste and that makes it hard to read. I wish Matt and Oreo accept policy for deleting certain type of posts to make the site more readable (in the previous open thread one message was posted at least 50 times for a month). So far this open thread looks ok and I hope it will stay like that.

About Indiana - I think a late April tour will change the things there in Obama's favor and he will win by razor small margin.

Best regards, Tom; April 03, 2008 5:37 AM
countjellybean said...: New List of Leaners, adding Carter.

Clinton [13]:
Bosley
Burke
Donatucci
Farrell
Hardt
Mafnas
Malone
Martinez, Robert
Moss
Stapleton
Strauss, Bob
Taitano
Umemoto

Obama [8]:
Brazile
Carter
Griffin
Johnson, Denise
Johnson, Joe
Kirk
Smith, Edward
Watkins; April 03, 2008 9:10 AM
Richard said...: It's a curious thing to me how some people's minds work, especially the idea that posting the same information twice in a row under different usernames somehow lends it credibility or does anything but confirm the already-transparent identification of a duplicate account holder.; April 03, 2008 1:22 PM
Unknown said...: New Data shows McCain beating both Clinton by 5% & Obama by 7%

General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen Tracking Clinton 42, McCain 47, Und 11 McCain +5
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen Tracking Obama 41, McCain 48, Und 11 McCain
Anne Coulter sent this kind of email recently. Only portions here " “If characters from "The Hills" were to emote about race, I imagine it would sound like B. Hussein Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father”

When his mother expresses concern about Obama's high school friend being busted for drugs, Obama says he patted his mother's hand and told her not to worry.
This, too, prompted Obama to share with his readers a life lesson on how to handle white people: "It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."
First of all, I note that this technique seems to be the basis of Obama's entire presidential campaign. But moreover -- he was talking about his own mother! As Obama says: "Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning." Say, do you think a white person who said that about blacks would be a leading presidential candidate?
The man is stark bonkersville.
By contrast, Malcolm X's autobiography "spoke" to Obama. One line in particular "stayed with me," he says. "He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."
Forget Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Wright is Booker T. Washington compared to this guy.”; April 03, 2008 2:17 PM
UUbuntu said...: Jackie -- I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. Do you see things I don't see?

When I see McCain, I see a moderate-to-conservative Republican with a lot of legislative experience who supports the war effort but believes it needs better management.

When I see Hillary Clinton, I see a moderate-to-liberal Democrat with some legislative experience and some experience a pretty active member of Bill Clinton's administration, who initially supported the war effort but now opposes the war. I see her core strength as an ability to pull together a team from disparate coalitions that will produce effective governmental policy.

When I see Barack Obama, I see a moderate-to-liberal Democrat with limited legislative experience who opposed the war from the start. I see someone who inspires people to believe that their government can be a better reflection of their own aspirations.

While my views cause me to support Hillary Clinton for President, I don't see any of the three candidates as evil or crazy or sinister. And I certainly wouldn't support the Republican candidate over either of the Democratic ones.

Your post indicates that you see Sen. Obama in a different light than I do. You seem to see him as either unstable or sinister.

Or perhaps I misread your post. Can you explain how you see the three candidates (or at least the two Democratic candidates)? Thanks.; April 03, 2008 2:56 PM
Richard said...: Jackie, I too don't understand what you're saying. What is crazy about a sensitive and intelligent man of any color empathizing with Malcom X's intense discomfort with the knowledge that part of his DNA was that of the white masters who raped his ancestors? Can you, Jackie, find no way to imagine how it must feel to someone who faces daily oppression by white people to know that he himself bears the blood of people who enslaved and raped his ancestors?

Moreover, can you not understand that Sen. Obama, by describing his ability as a typically-manipulative teen-ager to make use of people's prejudices, is expressing a deeper and more troubling matter? Many black Americans face this same prejudice -- that they are implicitly assumed to be inarticulate and uneducated even by many well-meaning white people. How many times have you heard anyone praise a white candidate for being "articulate"? Yet I have heard countless white commentators say so of Barack Obama, apparently without noticing how condescending it sounds.

In short, what exactly do you find so crazy about empathy, self-reflection, and the ability to express one's experiences with prejudice as a member of a minority race? Personally, I find it refreshing.; April 03, 2008 3:25 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: I'm sure that a lot of comments from Barak's books and speeches will be taken out of context, and Coltergeist will be one of the leading villains in doing so.

Reminds me of a college professor I had in the early 70s who started one class stating "Indianapolis needs more ghettos."

WHAT?????

He then went on to explain that 'ghetto' means community, and that the white population of Indianapolis was doing it's best to destroy every black community in the city by building streets, Interstates, lines of high rise buildings, creating long and narrow parks, putting in restrictive zoning, etc. through the middle of established black communities. It was stated they were doing this to bring benefits to the communities, but in fact it was being done in order to destroy the established black communities.

The reasoning used by the white establishment to hide the fact that the black communities were being destroyed made it difficult for some to see how those actions were actually destroying the communities.

Look at a map with streets, parks, tall buildings, and other features that restrict walking, and you can easily identify communities. Construct an Interstate through the middle of a community, and you split it in two. Build a string of high rises through the middle of the community, and you cut that community in half. Put in a park, if designed in certain ways, and you can split a community into three, four or more parts.

The professor stated that once Indianapolis gained back some black ghettos (aka communities), then the community could advance past the ghetto stage and become a real, functioning, and contributing community.

Thus when the professor stated "Indianapolis needs more ghettos", if taken out of context and not explained, it would seem that he was being quite racist. In context, he was, in fact, being the opposite of racist.

Mike; April 03, 2008 3:39 PM
MKSinSA said...: Hello my Indian friend,

What an interesting choice of names. Unlike Michael, it is rather gender neutral. Is this speaking to identity issues beyond the frequent change of name?

Your fixation with Obama's race and views on it is far less interesting to me than your own internalized racism that spurs such self-loathing when you select such Anglicized names.

Yes, I know, I should not be confused about identity as both subodh and Michael agree with your writings.

"By their works ye shall know them." Luke 13:26; April 03, 2008 4:03 PM
Kinjor said...: The one thing I do not really understand is why dont they throw out the 'self-endorsements' as well as the spouses of ... in other words, Obama can endorse himself (he got a vote in the state election already, and Hillary and Bill cant vote for Hillary (they already voted once in their state as well. For them to also have the super delegate status tips the scale unfairly...I do not think that its going to come down to their 3 endorsements, but it does bear some thought.; April 03, 2008 4:16 PM
Richard said...: mksinsa, I am afraid you are right and I have fallen for subodha/michael/jackie once again. D'oh.; April 03, 2008 5:05 PM
MKSinSA said...: Hey Richard, it happens. I know some on here think I'm nuts, but after 20 years in the military I just consider it an additional service to the country!; April 03, 2008 5:11 PM
Subodh said...: Richard,
Ann Coulter has hit the nail on the head:
The subject of black anger and the Rev Wright has been in the news for three weeks. Further, the campaign has been on for 13 months and neither the MSM nor the Clinton campaign have mentioned the depths of racial anger that she highlights. Sen Obama's attitude toward his own mother should give even the most strident supporter a real cause for concern especially in light of his fervent denials of support for the Rev Wright and his constant state of demurral with regard his understanding of the right Reverend's racist remarks.
This, too, prompted Obama to share with his readers a life lesson on how to handle white people: "It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves."
First of all, I note that this technique seems to be the basis of Obama's entire presidential campaign and therefore his candidacy to be the President of the USA has to be questioned especially when we have two middle of the road candidates available rather than picking the most left leaning candidate in the history of this country.; April 03, 2008 5:16 PM
MKSinSA said...: Hello my Indian friend,

I note your quote of Ann Coulter, citing her as the definitive authority on race relations. I am sure then that you ascribe to her many other statements, such as "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"

While you may parse the meaning of this ethnic slur, please note that in common usage this includes those who share your rich Asian-Indian heritage:

"So, they have me call some raghead in India who is incompetent"

Rag-Head to Open Senate with Blasphemous Hindu Prayer

"unfortunately it's what they call an Arabic or Indian person to be mean."

Have you so internalized your self-hate to espouse someone who so demeans you and those of your proud racial heritage? I find this much more fascinating than Obama's racial positions as he does not harbor such hatred of self.; April 03, 2008 5:57 PM
Richard said...: MKSinSa, Don't you find it hard to believe that even Subodh/Michael/Jackie could possibly think that quoting someone as caustic and bigoted and universally reviled on the left as Ann Coulter is the way to convince even a single Democrat to vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama? S/he is getting rather pathetic, actually.; April 04, 2008 12:08 AM
MKSinSA said...: Richard,
If my Indian friend was thinking at all, s/he would first and foremost get that bigotry is as dangerous a weapon as a high carbon Japanese sword. One should never use it as unwisely as has my Indian friend.

My point is that this is not the place for that sort of racist rant. If one wishes to hate oneself publicly, there are a ton of other places (non-Democratic watch boards) where help might be available. Personally, given the multiplicity of the personalities, a shrink might be the best option.

On another matter, what do you think about countj's leaner list? Looks very strong for HRC. Of course if you're an HRC fan that's good news for you! And that DC add-on was another 50/50 split. Not happy with accountants about now (just kidding Count, maybe I'll give love after the 15th); April 04, 2008 12:21 AM
dwit said...: guys...guys. Why do you you guys continue to acknowledge this douche bag michael/subodh or whatever? I'm beginning to wonder about you.; April 04, 2008 1:03 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: countjellybean-

Don't forget to add Alexander DC to your list for Obama.
She is an Obama supporter but no one has found an actual quote for her yet.; April 04, 2008 2:36 AM
Unknown said...: MKSinSA, although I voted for Hillary Clinton in the Connecticut primary, I am not at all pleased that she remains in this race tearing down what I think is at this point our inevitable nominee. To overcome the pledged delegate lead I predict for Obama in June she would have to convince a virtually unattainable percentage of supers to vote against their constituents (yes, even DNC members have constituents). I just don't see it happening.; April 04, 2008 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Have I totally missed the point. Isn't our goal this year, to win back the Whitehouse?
That would mean supporting the person who gets the nomination however they get it.
This means MI and FLA must be counted. If they are in the mix and Obama gets the nod, then I am for him. On the other hand, if they swing it to Clinton, then I am for her.
If the back room at the convention somehow ignores both and nominates
a "Rednecked Dogcatcher from East Texas." Then that is where my vote goes.
I attended my Texas County convention and it was civil and spirited, but the majority to great care to treat the minority fairly.
This was sadly not so at many others. Both Clinton and Obama supporters tried to screw the other side, so it was reported.
Democrats are tough, but fair.
Let us all rise to that principle; April 04, 2008 11:51 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 901 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

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Open Thread

901 comments:

Tags