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 401 – 600 of 901 Newer› Newest»

Leah Texas4Obama said...: Anonymous Ny Democrat-

Shame on YOU!

It's people like you and those that put out those 3 second sound bites that distort the truth and don't have the best interests of America in their hearts, minds, and souls.; April 12, 2008 4:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Tyler, I WAS a Obama supporter until a few weeks ago, duly elected at the Texas Caucus.
Clinton supporters did not sway me.
Obama did.
His speech at that fundraiser offended me and should offend anyone who has a fair understanding of the English language and a small town voter.; April 12, 2008 4:41 PM
MKSinSA said...: Rob H,

Your request for discourse with Tony/Nancy may prove unsuccessful in the terms you have requested. To understand my point, please look back for postings under the names subodh/Michael/Jackie now Tony/Nancy. Please don't take the bait.

Yes, I know subodh, I should not be confused about these identities as you only happen to agree with the writings of Michael, Jackie, Tony, Nancy.

"By their works ye shall know them." Luke 13:26; April 12, 2008 4:58 PM
Anonymous said...: The ship is sinking. Just call me a happy RAT!; April 12, 2008 4:58 PM
RobH said...: Jim, with all due respect, just because his speech offended you, why must it, therefore, offend everyone?

I have a fair understanding of the English language and I'm a small town voter, and it didn't offend me.

Your statement implies your views are the only valid ones, you've got the right ones, and anyone elses don't count, and aren't worth listening to, or learning from. Too bad.; April 12, 2008 5:00 PM
RobH said...: mksinsa,

Yeah, I know. I fell for it, sorry 'bout that. I've been observing here a long time now and know all about that connection. My bad.

I observe Nancy/Tony posted similarly w/in five minutes of each other three plus hours ago, then disappeared. He/she/it is probably making the rounds now, flaming away on other blogs.

Still hope he/she/it will take the opp to vote for Barr.; April 12, 2008 5:07 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Jim-

I honestly don't believe that you were ever a true Obama supporter. I have been reading tons of comments on blogs today and a lot of people in PA have been posting saying that they are BITTER about losing jobs, pensions, health insurance, etc. If these people are not upset at Obama then I really can't see why you, a Texan, would be offended. People that lose jobs, etc. because of the actions of the government do get bitter - and aren't going happily through life as Hillary would want you to think they are.

The Clintons made $109,000,000 in the past six years - they haven't a clue about the day to day hardships of living for the average American. Get real!; April 12, 2008 5:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Ok robh,
Good point. Let me modify.
In my humble opinion, it should offend.
Any supporter of either Obama or Clinton has opinions which they hope will sway the other side.
I never get nasty or mean. I leave that the candidates and thier more ardent supporters; April 12, 2008 5:36 PM
Anonymous said...: leah,
"I honestly don't believe that you were ever a true Obama supporter."
You have a right to your opinion, however, I always consider the source in all posts followed by
" get real"; April 12, 2008 5:46 PM
UUbuntu said...: Jim: "His speech at that fundraiser offended me and should offend anyone who has a fair understanding of the English language and a small town voter."

As a fellow Democrat, Obama recently said something that I felt was far more profound than anything that's being talked about today. A couple of weeks ago, he said this:

"We have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism.

...

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, 'Not this time.'"

Well, I see us doing exactly that. The politics of division.

As a Clinton supporter -- one who truly believes in her candidacy -- I felt that his words above were the most important words about our election process anybody has said in many years. I don't support his candidacy, but after those words, I sure understand those who do.

This dialog about whether words like "bitter" and "resentful" to describe people who've been hurt by our government's policies in recent years is the wrong dialog.

We need to talk about WHY someone might (or might not) be bitter. WHY someone might (or might not) turn to religion or isolationism. Or hate. And what we -- black, white, brown, pink, grey -- have in common. We all bleed the same color, we all want the best for our children, we all want a better America for our children than the one in which we live. Instead, we get soundbites like "He's an elitist", or "I find his words offensive, and won't support him any more".

If you found Obama's recent words divisive and offensive, I suggest that you watch his speech from two weeks ago, unedited. It's a brilliant piece of writing and speaking.

It's funny -- I support Hillary Clinton for president, but I find myself defending Obama's words most of the time. I know it's not the best way for her to win the nomination any more, but I wish that Sen. Clinton would spend more time talking about her offerings and strengths -- and there are many -- than about Obama's perceived deficiencies.; April 12, 2008 7:30 PM
MKSinSA said...: tyler,

I'm stealing your words, thoughts and ideas and passing them along to some other Democratic supporters of both sides. Heck, to Republicans as well. With all the rancor and senselessness spreading across the Internet, these are the most appealing I've heard to date. What I find most captivating about your intellect is the ability to rationally and fairly defend your "opponenet's" position without losing faith in your own candidate. Opponent is set off to denote my sense that that the word too strongly overstates your position.

It is perhaps the most eloquently stated and well-thought out that I've seen a quite a long while. You, Sir, are a blessing to your candidate, your party and to the people who know you.

(You were indeed the perfect pick for Sec of State on the DCW slate!); April 12, 2008 8:15 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Could Speaker Pelosi be telegraphing her support?

From http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/pelosi-on-bill.html (TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/59o7or):
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was asked about former President Bill Clinton's error-riddled defense of his wife, regarding her Hemingway-esque accounting of her 1996 trip to Bosnia.

"I can't for the life of me figure out why the president would have said it except he may have been having a late night adult moment," Pelosi told CBS's Bob Schieffer, "but let's leave it at that."

Mike; April 12, 2008 9:32 PM
UUbuntu said...: MKSinSA -- Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate them.

By all means, feel free to share anything I write with others who may appreciate them (with credit). Sometimes in the heat of arguments, we forget that we're writing to (and about) human beings, and our words can sting and provoke.

As to the candidates themselves, I go back and forth. They both have a lot to offer, even if their campaigns make it hard for us to see.

Sometimes I wonder if this democratic process -- with all of it's tearing down and political gamesmanship and slight of hand regarding issues -- is really the best way to choose a government.

Then I consider the alternatives to this process, and I no longer need wonder.; April 12, 2008 10:09 PM
Unknown said...: This "Bitter-gate" is a complete non-starter- and has zero legs- I expect if anything it will be a net positive for Obama- because once he emerges from this he will add coat of teflon...pretty soon Obama will make Ronald Reagan look like glue....

I can't help but think the MSM has turned on Obama...at some level I think they feel betrayed- like they created him, and they somehow want him to show a huge debt of gratitude....in some ways though this is not much different than the NY Times story with McCain and the female lobbyist- it is an example of the media trying to ruin someone after they have already coronated them...and for this reason- it will soon become apparent to democrats that they cannot have their presumptive nominee weakened in a two front war.; April 13, 2008 1:00 AM
dwit said...: Tony & Nancy,

You guys are clearly Repulitards. While you are voting for McCain in November, "smart people" will be casting ballots for Obama. Your attempts to divide progressives are laughable.

Good luck with that.; April 13, 2008 2:47 AM
dwit said...: Tyler said...

"...I wish that Sen. Clinton would spend more time talking about her offerings and strengths -- and there are many -- than about Obama's perceived deficiencies."

BINGO BABY!; April 13, 2008 2:51 AM
RobH said...: dwit,

At least urge them to vote for Barr instead of McCain. Maybe we can get a movement going in that direction.....; April 13, 2008 10:32 AM
dwit said...: Rob,

These guys listen to no one but Limbaugh and Hannity. That's why they are pushing Hillary. They want to keep driving oil prices up and keep us in Iraq for the "hundred years war". Barr seems to be more like Ron Paul on the war.; April 13, 2008 1:44 PM
RobH said...: dwit,

Roger that, but if Barr can be developed as a credible alternative for the hard right, he can peel votes off of McCain in the General. And that could tip some deep south states in the Electoral College that could come into play due to favorable demographics if BO is the nominee.; April 13, 2008 1:59 PM
Keryl said...: Jim: You've given a number of different reasons since you started posting here for why you "switched" to Clinton. You've complained about Mich and Fla, you've said you've switched because the Obama bloggers offended you, then it was Wright, now it's Obama himself that's offended you. I think it's pretty fair for Leah to say you weren't an Obama fan long before he made those statements. I'm sure like many, there's nothing he can say that you would accept. Just as to Hillary haters there isn't much that she can say to convince them that she doesn't tell blatant lies repeatedly. Any good dem should know that either line of attack is bad for the party. McCain won't have to steal this election. The dems will have gift-wrapped it for him.; April 13, 2008 9:37 PM
magia said...: RobH said... Hey Kids....."can't we all just get along?" . . . The vehemence of the personal attacks is really counterproductive. We really do need to chill out.
Followed by:
Anybody besides me notice how the postings here are perfect reflections of the candidates themselves? BO supporters tend to be logical, calm, reasoned, brief. HRC supporters tend to be vicitmized, hysterical, deluded and exhaustive.

dwit said... While you are voting for McCain in November, "smart people" will be casting ballots for Obama.

Leah said... Why on earth did those people vote when they knew the votes would not count? Are people in America really that stupid?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, I think you need to check yourselves. You are not exactly the shining beacons of open-mindedness that you seem to think you are. You should understand that there are MILLIONS of people who support Hillary Clinton, and quite a few of them are astute, educated and even serene.

This evidence of insularity may explain your total lack of insight with regard to the “bitter” remark. If in fact people are angry and disillusioned and even cynical because of all the reasons that some of you have laid out so eloquently, they still do not deserve the moniker of “bitter” – as in resentful, hostile or rancorous – unless one wants to convey a harshly negative connotation. Hence, Obama could have – as he has said -- chosen his words better (and he would have had he known we would be hearing them.)

Moreover, there is an element of condescension in attributing people’s views about their faith, or the 2nd amendment, or immigration, to their resentment or hostility towards “the other.” Whether there is a connection or not, it is insulting to so facilely dismiss them in such a way. From personal experience, I can attest to the fact using the word bitter as an adjective for someone will earn that person’s enmity.

Leah said... The Clintons made $109,000,000 in the past six years - they haven't a clue about the day to day hardships of living for the average American.

Leah, maybe you have forgotten someone named Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but check him out, as he is the proof of the inanity of that statement.; April 14, 2008 12:40 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: gloria1129,

The thing that Clinton could do now to convince me to give some support to her is to give me valid reasons to support her. Just about all she has done since the run-up to Texas and Ohio is to make (what seem to me to be) derogatory remarks about Obama.

Why should I support her? Do not give me reasons to not support Obama, but give me valid reasons why should I support her, and she hasn't been doing that.

Just one example:
Her argument that she is prepared to lead from day one in the White House is not convincing to me. One of the criteria of being prepared is to have alternate plans if the original plan doesn't work out. She had a single plan - blow the field away by Super Tuesday, and the nomination was hers.

She didn't have any plans for post-Super Tuesday if she didn't sweep all the other candidates off the field. She had an enormous lead in name recognition, money, and the opportunity for organization. She still had opposition after Super Tuesday, but no plan for what to do.

Post Super Tuesday, her campaign was in disorganization. She didn't plan on having to compete in caucuses (except Iowa and Nevada), and it showed. She's been blown out in every caucus since Nevada, and went four weeks from Super Tuesday until her primary wins in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island. Nine consecutive contests where realistically she wasn't even a factor.

My conclusion? No post Super Tuesday plan.

She didn't plan on needing serious campaign financing post Super Tuesday. At the end of February, she had to loan $5 million of her own money to the campaign just to pay the bills (and apparently all bills were NOT paid at that time).

Without an alternate plan for when the original plan doesn't work, you can't lead. Look what happened to Bush - his planning didn't take into account what to do in Iraq if we weren't greeted by flowers and hosannas. We weren't, and we've been stuck in Iraq for five years now.

Mike; April 14, 2008 1:50 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: gloria1129-

I think bitter is the right word - people ARE ANGRY, FRUSTRATED and FED UP - there are a lot of Americans that are fed up and want a change or at least a small glimmer of hope. There are a lot of Americans that have lost their jobs because of NAFTA and other reasons and they have lost their pensions, heath care, homes, etc.

I read where Hillary said the people she has talked with are happy and resilient. Well, I grew up in a working class lower income family years ago and I can tell you that most of the people in my neighborhood didn't go and talk to presidential candidates back then and are not involved in politics nowadays, but they were and are bitter regarding the government - I lived with my grandparents and they did even have a car so we didn't go much of anywhere ;) I can tell you that a lot of the older people in my old neighborhood were bitter even back then and are now dead but the people that are still there they ARE BITTER. My hometown used to employ thousands of people in the factories and most have shut down or have been automated and the unemployment rate is shameful. People are bitter, discouraged and many turn to drugs. One of the biggest industries there now is the court, jail and prison system.

I believe I have an open mind BUT I can not and will not ever be able to support a candidate that is an habitual liar and one that will 'win at any cost' even if it means degrading and belittling an opponent that is in her own party.

Now I am off to bed because I have been drinking rum all night - and I will come back tomorrow to read what I have written :); April 14, 2008 1:53 AM
Yousri said...: Mike in Maryland,

Check this post out, I think you will find that it describes in more detail "Post Super Tuesday" plans, if any.
Analyzing Sen. Clinton's Campaign Talking Points.; April 14, 2008 2:32 AM
MKSinSA said...: "If in fact people are angry and disillusioned and even cynical because of all the reasons that some of you have laid out so eloquently, they still do not deserve the moniker of “bitter” – as in resentful, hostile or rancorous – unless one wants to convey a harshly negative connotation."

gloria1129,
bitter: hard to bear; grievous; distressful: a bitter sorrow.

Having served 20 years in the military, I am bitter. I am not an elitist, just bitter. I grieve every day for the thousands of young lives we have lost in a senseless war and I find it incredibly hard to bear. While I choose not to characterize anyone's support of any particular candidate, I am saddened that a) these young lives, some of whom I have trained for this very eventuality, have been lost for the sake of a family's bitter infighting, and b) that these young lives are snuffed out in obscurity while defending a country that is more affected by campaign trail gaffes than ending a conflict that really matters.

In your words: I am resentful, hostile and rancorous that people died because Bush lied. As for inanity = lack of sense, significance, or ideas; silliness - the discussion of who faced snipers, who has the worst pastor, who made more money than whom and who used the wrong word IS inane.

This post is dedicated to the four unidentified soldiers killed this weekend, the 4.023 killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since the inception of this inane war, the countless Iraqi civilians killed in their homes, and the millions of Americans bitter for this distraction from the real target of anti-terror intervention - Osama bin Laden.; April 14, 2008 3:14 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Yousri,

As I said (and I need to add, prior to my reading your KOS post), there apparently were no post Super Tuesday plans except to accept the nomination, and your points also show that.

When things didn't go as planned, there was no Plan B, which then led to the big state/small state argument; don't count the caucuses because they aren't representative argument; go by popular vote argument; you HAVE to count the votes in MI and FL argument; blue states will become red states if Clinton isn't the nominee argument; electoral college count argument; etc., etc., etc., etc.

You refuted the various arguments very well.

Mike; April 14, 2008 3:26 AM
Yousri said...: Thanks Mike.; April 14, 2008 3:39 AM
dwit said...: Gloria,

Sure FDR was wealthy. He was born into it. Just as someone who is born into a poor family as I was, he had no choice there. The beautiful thing about him is that he realized he was very fortunate and used his wealth to pursue a career in public service.

Unlike the Clinton's who used public office to gain wealth.; April 14, 2008 10:25 AM
dwit said...: Has anyone else noticed how much anti-Obama innuendo has been flying around on CNN? Take a look at this headline on CNN.com:

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

Headline:"Senator Avoids Prostitute Testimony"

Followed by an unrelated story with a picture of Obama. The story was actually about Republitard, David Vitter, whose story runs second.

Another story run by NPR allowed a Hillary staffer to claim Jeremiah Wright is anti-gay. Oddly enough his record on LGBT issues is Libertarian, if not activist.

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/
gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=17869

Talk about elitism! The insiders and power players clearly support Hillary. This type of Fox News politicking makes me support Obama even more!

Write CNN as I have if you are disgusted.; April 14, 2008 11:01 AM
jpsedona said...: dwit,

You said: "Talk about elitism! The insiders and power players clearly support Hillary. This type of Fox News politicking makes me support Obama even more!"

I think it's over for Hillary and that the 'bitter' issue is not going to win her the nomination or greatly change the outcome of pledged delegate lead Obama has, or the SD's that will flock to him by July.

However, with respect to "Fox News politicking", I think Ed Rendell said it best:

“I think during this entire primary coverage, starting in Iowa and up to the present — FOX has done the fairest job, and remained the most objective of all the cable networks. You hate both of our candidates. No, I’m only kidding. But you actually have done a very balanced job of reporting the news, and some of the other stations are just caught up with Senator Obama, who is a great guy, but Senator Obama can do no wrong, and Senator Clinton can do no right.”

CNN is certainly far from a big Clinton supporter. I think that the mainstream media is following the pattern of kicking the candidate who happens to be down at the moment. They look for sensationalism and conflift. It feels time.

If Gore come out for Obama after PA and before NC, that will be the story. If Hillary doesn't win big enough in PA, that will be the story. If she exceeds expectations, then the media will jump on Obama. It's all the same.; April 14, 2008 11:31 AM
dwit said...: jp,

Sure, all of the "news" corporations would love to keep the election rancor going. Great for the bottom line if they can keep it going until at least August.

I guess you are correct on this one. Both CNN and FOX would like nothing more than to see McCain in the White House. If they can keep dems divided and get Baghdad John in office they will have 100 years of war to report.

Brilliant!; April 14, 2008 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Latest PA poll. It was tied a week ago. What say you?
Monday, April 14
Race Poll Results Spread
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary ARG* Clinton 57, Obama 37 Clinton +20; April 14, 2008 12:52 PM
RobH said...: gloria1129:

Ugh! You asked us to check ourselves on our claims to openmindedness, and then included this beauty:

(and he would have had he known we would be hearing them.)

Are you openminded when you allow yourself to be manipulated into believing that the leading candidate for your party's nomination conciously alters his language if he thinks he's "not going to get caught". That's a remarkably cynical and divisive posture on your part. (And I do mean manipulated because that's consistent with the GOTCHA politics HRC has played.)

As proof of contrast I give you BO's refrain from going after the Clinton's on the Columbia/Trade deal/$800K mess. Just refuses to be baited into that kind of politics, thekind we should be tryng to end.

I'll grant that my choice of adjectives APPEARED less than balanced and could be CONSTRUED as less than open-minded. But if you'll do the due diligence of reviewing these 430 posts, you'll be hard pressed to refute my simple observations.; April 14, 2008 12:56 PM
dwit said...: Jim,

That's Hillary's strategy. Keep telling the lies until they become truth. She learned from the best in the game, KARL ROVE.

“You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”
-G.W. Bush

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."—”
-G.W. Bush

Quite simple really.; April 14, 2008 1:07 PM
RobH said...: jim -

The poll you quote was conducted by ARG, a notorious outlier that RealClear Politics ALWAYS excludes from every one of their state running averages as unreliable. It's even excluded this one in today's calculation.

Curiously, the Susquehanna poll (read: reliable) Has Clinton by 3 points.

What say you....indeed.; April 14, 2008 1:09 PM
RobH said...: That's the dang trouble with polls. Just when you got one that says what you want, along comes another to dispute "your" truth.
Nasty little buggers.; April 14, 2008 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Both hillary & Clinton supporters should stop fighting with each other.
Here is the real threat

http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_1618

Be sure to have your speakers on.
The threat is from outside USA but it is now coming from inside like it did on 9/11. Beware of some people who are destroying us from within. Then & then only you will vote for the right person; April 14, 2008 1:18 PM
dwit said...: Bingo Randy!

With McCain, we will get nothing but the same with Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Not to mention the Evangelical Republitards here that seem to think sex with underage children and multiple wives is OK!

We should all fear the possibility of Bushes third term way more than we fear Hillary. If she gets the nomination by popular vote, I will support her 100%, despite her ties to Saudi money.; April 14, 2008 1:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Let’s take the first thing : Obama’s electoral coalition. His impressive success to date comes predominately from strong support among upscale, college-educated whites and overwhelming support from African-Americans.

Assuming he is the Democratic nominee, it seems virtually certain he would bring turnout of these groups to historic levels.

But there is reason to question whether he would be able to perform at average levels with other main pillars of the traditional Democratic coalition: blue-collar whites, Jews and Hispanics. He has run decently among these groups in some places, but in general he’s run well behind her.

Obama lost the Jewish vote by double-digits in the battleground state of Florida-where this constituency looms large--and that was before controversy over the anti-Israel remarks of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

He won only about one-third of Hispanic votes on Super Tuesday - and did even worse a month later in Texas. A Democratic nominee needs big margins with Hispanics to win states like New Mexico, California, Colorado and Arizona. In the fall, Obama would be running against a Republican with a record on immigration that will resonate with Hispanics.

Then there’s the lower-income white vote. Does it seem odd that a woman with a polarizing reputation would be rolling up enormous margins among some of the country’s most traditional voters? Three out of every four blue-collar whites in small-towns and rural areas of Ohio voted for Clinton over Obama on March 4. The reality is, this is already an electorate with deep, racially tinged divisions-and that’s in the Democratic Party.
The freak show has already signaled its early lines of attack on Obama. Many Americans already believe---falsely-that he is a Muslim. Voter interviews already reveal widespread unease with minor and seemingly irrelevant questions like why he does not favor American flag pins on his lapel. Nor does it seem likely that voters have heard the last about Jeremiah Wright.
Obama has serious problems with Jewish voters (goodbye Florida), working class whites (goodbye Ohio) and Hispanics (goodbye, New Mexico.)
Any candidate who is so far behindHallary in capturing Florida, MI, PA ,Ohio & New Mexico cannot win the General Election.
Wake up Democrats !!! It is still not too late. Let the contest go till the convention and let everybody freely vote—both delegates & Superdelegates including FL & MI and whoever is the winner, should be nominated; April 14, 2008 1:43 PM
jpsedona said...: Randy,

"Any candidate who is so far behindHallary in capturing Florida, MI, PA ,Ohio & New Mexico cannot win the General Election."

First, as Clinton supporters would tell you, don't confuse primaries with the general election.

In NM, for example, Obama is likely to have a reasonable shot. If Richardson is on the ticket, it's probably a certainty.

As for FL & MI, the last head-to-head polls between Obama and Clinton were taken in January. Clinton would like voters (and SD's) to believe that Obama's electability rides on FL & MI. Ignoring that the primaries and final polls were taken when Edwards and others were still in the race and before Hillary nose dived after Super Tuesday. Democratic chances to take FL in the general election are going to be difficult at best.

If a primary were held today in MI, the primary would be very close. I suspect that Hillary would win, but her flip-flop on NAFTA would hurt her there.

I think Obama would have trouble with PA in the general election. And I believe that Clinton would loose PA if McCain goes with Tom Ridge for a running mate. Without PA & FL, Hillary would stand no chance of winning.

When it comes to electability, Hillary's problem is that her negatives are around 50%. If she behind in pledged delegates and gains the nomination through SD's. Her unfavorable rating will be even higher. That will be a real liability in the general election. There is a reason the conservatives want to see her run in the general election after all.; April 14, 2008 2:02 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 14, 2008 2:23 PM
dwit said...: Randy,

As to your "Jewish" ploy. How many Jews do you think live in this country? Its about 6 million and 25% of them live in New York City. And, BTW, many support Obama.

As to "Blue Collar" question; I happen to be a "blue collar" dem and I whole-heartedly support Obama.

He is doing well among all progressives and independent conservatives. You can't argue his delegate and popular vote numbers. You think Hilary supporters will really vote for McCain? Doubt it!; April 14, 2008 2:24 PM
dwit said...: I also can't let your Florida comment slide. I have democratic family members there who are very engaged and they didn't even go to the polls because they knew their vote wouldn't count.; April 14, 2008 2:26 PM
Anonymous said...: robh
OK, I will wait on the others.
ARG has been closer when comparing polls with actual results than RCP has using their average. I only checked OH,NH,Tx, and NV.
RCP is supposedly neutral. One wonders.
If the other polls show the same trend as ARG, would that be dismissable?; April 14, 2008 2:27 PM
dwit said...: Let's not forget that Hillary will have to post 70% margins in all remaining primaries to win.; April 14, 2008 2:28 PM
RobH said...: Jim,

I'm with you 100%. If the ensuing polls show the same trend they are not dismissable. Of course the real poll that matters is 4/22..... and beyond....

(By the way, I wan't meaning to be testy before. More like trying to make a joke on the exploitability of individual polls to a prechosen purpose.)

I'm also with a lot of other posters here (dwit, jp, etc.)vis: If my candidate doesn't get the nod, I'll support the other to the end. Maybe not as enthusiastically, but I'll do it, 'cause the other choice is just unacceptable.

What really frosts me is the posts that say "if my candidate doesn't get it, I will vote for McCain."
Are we ought of our minds???

The real risk this time: the composition of the court, and its enabling of a "unitary executive", and subsequently the end of the independence of the Federal Elections Commission and thus actually contestable elections is just too great to comprehend.; April 14, 2008 3:24 PM
dwit said...: Amen Rob!

Even my conservative independent friends (2 of them former Republitards)voted for Obama. They see that McCain will mean "more of the same" and they can't even stomach the thought of Hillary.

I disagree with them. McCain will be much worse than Hillary in regard to court appointments and Health care.

We are all fiscal conservatives, and that is exactly why I am supporting universal health care. It will save us BILLIONS! I'm still working on them regarding that issue.

One thing we all agree on is that this war in Iraq is not doing our reputation and economy any favors.; April 14, 2008 4:54 PM
Amot said...: About health care - I think Hillary and Barack differ a lot!
I have been living for 7 year in a compulsory universal healthcare system! It's a nightmare and when I read Hillary's plans it looks like the same is coming to USA. A competitive and affordable healthmarket is the best choice, as I see it. And dwit, you are right - working health system is actually money saving system!; April 14, 2008 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: I just completed my fact pol in PA to determine the primary outcome.
From Whitepages.com
300 Results matching "Clinton, PA"
4 results for Hillary
26 Results matching "Bitter, PA"
1 Result matching "Obama, PA"

Michelle Obama
work
1 University Pl
Chester, PA 19013-5700
(610) 499-4000 FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT="
I am pretty sure Michelle will go Obama and lets give him all the Bitters.
Even if he gets 25% of the Clintons,
It doesn't look good for him.; April 14, 2008 5:28 PM
dwit said...: Amot,

Not sure which country you are from, but neither Hilary nor Barack are advocating a system quite like Canada. From what I have read it seems they'd like to emulate the compulsory systems of Germany, Japan and France. Their funding mechanisms are private and public.

I am stunned by the life expectancy numbers of the most industrialized countries. Below is a link to a wiki table that compares 8 of the wealthiest countries and life expectancy numbers. The US ranks at the bottom at 77.5 YOA.

And guess what? We are the only one on the list WITHOUT a universal health care system!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Healthcare_in_Sweden

What's even worse is that the US spends nearly TWICE that of Sweden annually by percentage. Have a look at these numbers...

http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=
1&parentID=61&id=358

WOW!; April 14, 2008 6:18 PM
Amot said...: 16%? That is a killer !!!
We have 6% here and we are fighting to not get it increased to 8% or 9%. BTW I have tried German-like system too, it worked better, but I don't think it can be implemented at this level in USA. First and most important it to cut expenses! 12% should be the goal to achieve at the end of Obama's first term! I don't like to comment that anymore! Healthcare is just a business and a good menager can make it a profitable and working business. The fact you don't have it now means one thing only - special interests. One more reason to not believe Clinton will change a lot!

P.S. I posted some new data researches in the Ultimate Delegate Tracker section. Mostly bad news unfortunately :(; April 14, 2008 7:45 PM
magia said...: You make me weary with your defensive posturing, so I won't be back, but I do need to say this much. Is it so impossible to just admit that Obama made a mistake? He himself has already admitted to one; I don't think it has diminished him, so why do you?

You can parse it any way you like, but you will not convince me, and the Senator from Illinois happens to agree with me. Whether you are old or young, rich or poor, if you have strong religious beliefs, or political theories, or lifestyle choices, you are not likely to be happy to hear you have them because you are bitter.

And if he had been choosing his words for public consumption, I do believe he might have caught himself. If you cannot arrive at that conclusion without someone manipulating you, then you are different from me.

Until recently, I've generally found you to be a fairly thoughtful and well-behaved group, somewhat insular but friendly and even charming as a rule. But little by little the Clinton supporters have been leaving the forum, and the Obama supporters have been getting pretty tense.

But you obviously have no intention to check yourselves, so I just hope that it doesn't get really ugly for you. Ciao!; April 14, 2008 7:57 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Gloria1129,

"lifestyle choices"???????

As an adult gay man, I find that term truly offensive.

Mike; April 14, 2008 9:05 PM
Keryl said...: Gloria: Don't go. I agree Obama made a mistake in wording, but I do think his fundamental point had validity. I also happen to think that we should give Clinton the benefit of the doubt on the Bosnia thing. It was a bit of political theater as candidates are known to do. All of this is a distraction from the issues at hand. And frankly, there's not a whole lot of space between Clinton and Obama on the issues, which is my bet why things are getting so personal. I like to think I'm reasonable. I'm for Obama. I like him for a lot of the reasons I liked Bill Clinton. I think he's a gifted communicator, and that right now our country desperately needs communication that leads to change. I think he works not at the fight, but at finding solutions and common ground. Anyway, even though I disagree with you, I found your postings informative and well reasoned. This debate needs more of that.; April 14, 2008 9:29 PM
magia said...: Mike in Maryland said...
Gloria1129,

"lifestyle choices"???????

As an adult gay man, I find that term truly offensive.

Mike
________

I almost got away, but had to respond:

Gee, Mike, I never saw that coming. I hope you're kidding, but probably not. Is it too much to hope you were being ironic (as in I wasn't careful enough in my choice of words, as in . . .)?

Doubting that, for the record, my four gay brothers and one gay sister sure didn't make a lifestyle choice. At least not about being gay. About living in artist housing, yes. About teaching high school in order to be able to write concertos, yes. About dumping the law firm, and the big bucks, to connect with ESL students, yes. About doing weird bookkeeping jobs so as to pay the rent while writing screenplays and translations, yes.

About dying of AIDS, no.

I believe that home-schooling is a choice (not one for us); I believe that communal living is a choice (not one that worked out for us); I believe that many of the trappings of a “religious” life are - yes, I dare say it - lifestyle choices.

I make my choices, and you can make yours, but I'm surprised that you believe that being gay is one of them.; April 15, 2008 12:26 AM
dwit said...: Thanks Amot. Hope I didn't come off like a goon. I value your perspective as someone who has (is)lived abroad.

Caught a little of that NPR series exploring health care abroad. Its tricky business!; April 15, 2008 12:56 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: gloria1129,

I have heard too many people of all political persuasions say "lifestyle choice" that I cannot be silent to anyone who says that.

Many try to say "I didn't mean it that way", but when in certain contexts, or when in no context, I WILL make it known that "lifestyle choice" cannot be used in my presence as cover for 'gay'.

And yes, I do have a hair trigger when it comes to certain comments and phrases, but probably no more so than other groups targeted by code words. I've learned that if you don't speak up the first time, there really is no better time to make a comment that should make a difference in the other person's opinion, vocabulary, or choice of words and context.

Mike; April 15, 2008 5:16 AM
ed iglehart said...: For those of y'all still chewing on bitterness:

I Was There: What Obama Really Said About Pennsylvania
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-coleman/i-was-there-what-obama-re_b_96553.html

Well worth a read for some context (= with surrounding material situation - think about it); April 15, 2008 9:40 AM
UUbuntu said...: gloria1129,

two quick items:
1. I'm a Clinton Supporter (please check my past posts), and I have been treated with respect by everyone on this board and on this thread. Yes, this group is a bit insular, and by and large are supporters of Obama, but insularity and the sometimes messianic promotion of one's candidate's views occur on all political blog contributor threads that I've come across. Some are more hostile to disagreeers, some are less so. With the exception of a couple of annoying trolls (or perhaps it's just 1 who assumes many names), I've found that my views have been treated with respect. However, I try not to be dogmatic about my candidate's political positions.

2. In response to this part of your post: "... if you have strong religious beliefs, or political theories, or lifestyle choices, ...", I think I understand what you're saying, but do you think that you could have chosen your words better? The use of the term "lifestyle choices" is pretty loaded, much like the term "bitter".

I use this example from your post as an example of how a certain section of our writings and speakings can be excerpted and misinterpreted. Sometimes the misinterpretation is intentional and for political spin, sometimes not. But if your words were "spun" by Mike in Maryland into something you didn't mean, can you see how Obama's words were "spun" by the McCain and Clinton campaigns into something he didn't mean? He has more words to spin, and the stakes are far higher than ours on this board.

The goal here is a Democratic victory in November, regardless of the candidate we choose. Any distractions simply make that goal more difficult to achieve.; April 15, 2008 10:55 AM
UUbuntu said...: As to the recent poll numbers, it looks like Clinton will win PA by between 7 and 12 points. The current trend is toward the 12, but a week ago, the current trend was toward the 7. But that 6-12 range has been pretty consistent throughout the Wright scandal, the race speech, the Bosnia gaffe and now bittergate. I consider Outliers (ARG +20, SurveyUSA +18, PPP +26, or ARG tie, PPP -2, Susquehanna +3) are just part of the noise of polling. Fun for cheerleaders (and hopers), but not really very useful.

Assuming Clinton wins PA by 8-11 points, she will cut into Obama's delegate lead by about 15-20 -- a cut that she could lose two weeks later in North Carolina. She needs to win by more than 10-12 points to make her case beyond NC. I hope she does, but that's me.

As to RCP's "neutrality": As a "horse race" site, the numbers are pretty neutral, but if you look at the overall list of RCP columnists and the overall choice of stories to highlight, it's pretty conservative in ideology. Not Drudge Report conservative -- more like Wall Street Journal conservative. Even though they have the best free source for up-to-date polling numbers, I treat that site cautiously when I'm there.; April 15, 2008 11:23 AM
jpsedona said...: Tyler,

Your delegate estimates of 15-20 for Clinton in PA may be a bit optomistic. There's a great article and analaysis of the district by district delegates for PA on CQ Politics.

Of the pledged delegates, there are 103 allocated by congressional district. They show that these should split 53-50 with Clinton gaining a net 3 delegates. Because of the allocation by district, winning a 4 delegate district by 60%-40% would still split the delegates 2-2. Overall, even a larger margin in some 3-delegate districts won't change the outcome at all.

The remaining 55 pledged delegates will split on the basis of the statewide vote. So, even with a 60%-40% win by Clinton statewide, she would gain a max 33-22 delegate advantae. Overall, Clinton is likely to pick up no more than 15 delegates. More likely, total pledged delegates coming out of PA.

If her statewide margin is only 10% then she gets a 31-24 delegate margin in the statewide vote for a total pledged delegate lead of about 10 delegates coming out of PA.

Since this is the largest remaining primary, cutting Obama's lead by 10 delegates doesn't change the delegate count significantly enough to change the outcome of pledged delegates at the end of the primaries. With a large lead in NC, Obama is likely to wipe out most her gains in PA.

The expectations for Obama in PA are now lower after the 'bitter' comments. This means that Clinton's win in PA must be even more substantial in order to show that Obama's weakened. If she cuts Obama's lead by only a dozen, and then gets thrashed in NC, the SD's are going to gravitate toward Obama quickly.; April 15, 2008 12:13 PM
UUbuntu said...: JPSedona -- Your analysis is probably correct. More importantly though, it highlights what has been (to my frustration) one of the most significant differences in this campaign season: the Clinton campaign's poor understanding of the scorekeeping rules of the primary.; April 15, 2008 1:33 PM
dwit said...: Thanks Ed. Most pundits in the media and Hillary campaign know the real story, but it suits both of their needs to distort it. That just shows how desperate they are. It worked for Karl Rove and Cheney, but I think people are wise to it now.

Will it work? I give Pennsylvanians a little more credit than Hillary Clinton does.

When they are made aware of her secret deals with Columbia and her real agenda to curb the 2nd Amendment, they will make the right choice.; April 15, 2008 2:11 PM
Anonymous said...: I was for Obama and that is the truth. Im sure i will be called a liar though. what changed my mind is what i wrote a few comments ago about the way i see Obama.

I think, as many people do, that we are being made to believe that Obama is this great uniter. I believed it at first, that is until i started seeing things that suggested division and not unity. He still obviously holds grudges for what the past was like. That will not unite but will only serve to divide. Racism from black or white, as you said is wrong. I now feel Hillary Clinton is the better choice and will do better against McCain in November.

What I don't understand is why Obama continues to align himself with these radical left wing people? I just want my President to have good judgment. However, I have been seeing Obama often with wrong judgment!!! Wright, bitter comments, friendly association with Bill Ayers, Obama marched with Farakhan on the million man march...give me a break. You need to know more about the candidate that you support instead of accusing people of believing in the conspiracy theory or listening to Sean Hannity or whatever. There is a far-reaching scandal brewing for presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, thanks to a radio talk show host based in Oregon. Syndicated talk host Laurie Roth's revelations make the news story about Obama's relationship with a racist, anti-American pastor look like child's play.
A top official at the Pentagon during former-President George H. W. Bush's Administration and a former CIA intelligence officer maintain that Barack Obama and former Weather Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer.
Grow up...and research Obama and you will find more about him than what the MSM is reporting. http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=8310
To say the obvious, if Sen. Obama is the Democratic nominee, it would be a huge mistake! Now with all those deprecating comments about rural Americans and working-class Americans and what they are like, Sen. Obama invalidated his own claim to be the unifier of the divided, polarized, fragmented America of which he promised to bring together. This unification theme was the foundation of his campaign and predominant of aspect of political philosophy. By his hubris and deprecating comments, he has destroyed all of that! Although, the media has placed Sen. Obama on a very high branch, now under scrutiny he is looking more and more like political Humpty-Dumpty. If he still happens to be the Democratic Party nominee, after all, which I hope not, Republicans are going to have an orgy attaching him. Besides, I am sure the Republicans are going to make Rev. Wright his running-mate in the fall. Having not won even a one major state during the primaries and having manipulated the caucuses with small groups of zealots, but now not in play for the presidential election, Mr. Obama is going to find himself stuck! Without Latino voters, women and working class and rural voters, I don’t think Sen. Obama stand a realistic chance at winning the presidential election in 08. Remember, old Ralph is in the game too. That will be end of story for Democrats. Sen. Hillary Clinton has done the impossible task of that only Bill Clinton was able to accomplish that is to bring in the rural and working class Reagan democrats back to the fold. The best chance of winning the White House for the Democrats is obviously with Sen. Hillary Clinton.; April 15, 2008 4:22 PM
RobH said...: Tyler, JP:

Think your analyses are right on...6 - 9 pts seems about right. I appreciated your comment, Tyler, regarding the "Clinton campaign's poor understanding of the scorekeeping rules."

But the thing that I will be most interested in on tuesday night is, ironically, not delegates, but margin as expressed in vote total differential. Even tho' I know that would appear to make me backslide into the Clinton trap, I'm interested in it for a more positive reason:

If turnout is projected around 4M, a 10 percent margin for HRC means 400K votes and unfortunately keeps alive the whole "popular vote" lunacy (after all the necessary machinations of FL, Mich, caucus state estimates, blah, blah, blah.)

But if it comes in around 5 pts, thats 200K votes and given the populations of the remaining states it removes the last "moved goalpost" of her campaign.

I'm guessing the lion's share of the new PA registrations are energized BO supporters. Time for them to step up. C'MON PA. DO THE RIGHT THING. TURN OUT THE VOTE BIG TIME. TIME TO END THIS.; April 15, 2008 4:27 PM
jpsedona said...: Rob,

I think that it's possible that Hillary could get a popular vote margin of 300,000. Not likely, but possible.

That said, keep in mind that his advantage with about 700,000 votes excludes unreported popular vote totals from IA, NV, ME, WA. RCP uses an estimate of an additional 110,000 margin for Obama. However, I have seen numbers reflecting 300,000+. I suspect that the margin is somewhere between.

Since they are not reported, why would Hillary want those states included in the total popular vote?

My best guess is that Hillary gets a popular vote margin of 250,000 in PA. If she wins IN then she maybe picks up an additional 100,000. She loses NC big and gains a net of maybe 150,000 between the three contests. And probably is washed out by the unreported popular vote totals from IA, NV, ME, WA.; April 15, 2008 4:55 PM
RobH said...: jp-

I understand that the 700K lead doesn't even include the approx 110K uncounted from the 4 caucus states, but that entire foggery (there's a new word for ya') of the "is it included, is it not, how big is it, what about Florida, etc" is the entire foggery that I want put to bed by a decisive count out of PA.

We've done ourselves ill, becoming the Clinton's enablers by allowing the popular vote to become a creditable measurement (instead of delegates as the rules state), but with an insurmountable lead coming out of PA, we could at least end all those machinations.

(Yes, then they could fall back to "Electoral State" math - but they've hung their hat so publically on popular vote, that abandoning this one would be hard
to live down.)

PA: YOU CAN DO THIS. C'MON ALL YOU UNPOLLED CELL PHONE USERS! SURPRISE US!; April 15, 2008 5:28 PM
UUbuntu said...: Joy Kapur -- Welcome. I noticed that your profile points to the same website as a previous poster on this board named "Tony" used in his signature. You don't know each other, do you?

"By their works ye shall know them." Luke 13:26; April 15, 2008 8:09 PM
ed iglehart said...: Of interest? A breath of fresh air?

For too long, the only voices politicians and policy makers have heard on American policy toward Israel and the Middle East have been from the far right. It is high time that mainstream pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans fought back for real peace and security.
J Street

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed; April 15, 2008 8:21 PM
UUbuntu said...: Popular vote is not how the score is kept in primaries. Superdelegates know this, the DNC knows this, and the candidates know this. The Obama campaign has singlemindedly focused on delegate counts for the duration of this campaign, and it shows. Obama's campaign should avoid mentioning popular vote at all costs, whether they're ahead or not. It's a red herring.

There is only 1 way to become the nominee: Get the majority of the delegates, whether super or regular.

Clinton's hope is that she'll be able to make the case to most supers that she's the stronger candidate based on popular vote. It'll be a difficult, though not impossible, hand to play. She also has to hope for a significant gaffe by or revelation about Obama in the next couple of months. Again, it's a possibility.

Right now, her campaign is all about possibilities. Exceeding expectations in PA (which I put at 10-12%) is essential if she's going to have a serious shot. But the case will have to be emotional appeals to supers, not mathematical running of delegate numbers, and the popular vote will go far to work that appeal.

It's a fun campaign season, isn't it!; April 15, 2008 8:25 PM
RobH said...: Tyler,

Yeah I know that pop vote is not how the score is kept in primaries. I'm just hoping for a small enough margin in PA so that we can remove DECISIVELY the measures that THEY would falsely rest their case on. I want to mention popular vote one more time: on 4/23 when the MSM can say "it's over".

I'm thouroughly impressed by the Obama campaign's discipline. In contrast to the lack of same in the HRC campaign, if this is any measure of his Presidency, we will be well served.

Interesting conciliatory statements today by Rendell and Frank. Things could be real interesting between 4/22 and 5/6.; April 15, 2008 9:47 PM
dwit said...: rob,

If Hillary gets the popular vote I gotta go with her. Obama has done well with party hardcores who have shown up for the caucuses and that is great, because we can definitely count on them to show up, but its the newly registered youth and formerly disenfranchised that are going to win this thing in November.

I'm a populist, what can I say?; April 15, 2008 9:51 PM
Unknown said...: Even if Hillary is able to win the popular vote, this will not carry much weight. It is a delegate race- and Hillary made a huge tactical error in her approach. I don't want to trivialize the Iraq War- but HRC's campaign strategy was very similar to W's Iraq war strategy- just as George Bush thought the war would be over when Saddam's statue was toppled, HRC thought this campaign would be over on Feb 5- and had no strategy afterwards. This is a candidate who had been involved in two presidential campaigns- yet she was not able to devise a coherent strategy to win the contest.

HRC has been put in charge of three things in her political life- health care and her campaign- and she has failed miserably at both. There is no reason she should be allowed to manage the country- she has already been proven to be incompetent.; April 15, 2008 10:53 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: dwit-

I respect your decision BUT please keep two things in mind:

1) I read somewhere that the 'actual' popular vote could have Obama with like 1 1/2 to 2 million more in votes (I don't know where I read that a couple of days ago). So be sure if you are going to base your decision on popular votes then get all the data that you can find on an accurate figure for all the hundreds of thousands of people that showed up to cast their vote at the caucuses.

2) I would have to disagree that the people that showed up to caucus were the party activists or hardcore. At the Texas precinct caucus that I attended out of the 300+ people there (they asked us and) there were less than ten people that had ever caucused before.
So in my opinion the people that caucused represented the voice of the people.; April 15, 2008 10:57 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Hillary's Math to winning the delegate count:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfgX0fyNeLc
(TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/4xfp4g)

Mike; April 15, 2008 11:25 PM
dwit said...: Leah,

As to point 2, you may be very correct on that. In Washington State, where I live, we have both a caucus and a non-binding primary. In the past most of us simply voted in the primary and did not show up to caucus, because our votes usually don't mean anything.

My experience was much like yours. I never caucused before and I had only made up my mind to vote Obama on the way. When I got to the primary school I was blown away! We could barely move through the hallways. It was most certainly a fire hazard. And at my precinct table I didn't see one Hillary vote on the page. It was astounding. There was electricity in the air. I never felt more a part of my community. That is when I knew we had a very special candidate on our hands.

I do, however, always vote. Clearly, those I caucused with are also politically motivated. I know those who attended will not miss the general. I can't speak for the rest.; April 16, 2008 2:29 AM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 16, 2008 3:24 AM
dwit said...: Mike you have nailed it! The absurdity of this situation is conveyed perfectly by Ma and Pa.; April 16, 2008 3:33 AM
RobH said...: dwit,

I too respect your decision. But the main reason I want the skinniest possible margin (or none at all) out of PA is illustrated by the immediate follow-ons to your post from jceasar and leah.

My point is: How will we ever know if she won or not, given all the uncertainties about the magnitude of the non-tallied caucus states, Mich, Fla, etc. As long as the lead is "not insurmountable" anyone who wants to stay in (and I mean after June 3) can justify it by manipulating the math and the measurements.

If she's gotta win PA I want to hear "well, she only picked up 100K votes and so no matter what, even if we leave out the caucus states, and add in Fla and Mich, any resonable estimates of the remaining states means it can't be done."

I guess I'm beginning to feel that that will really happen on 5/6, but we could go a long way towards that on 4/22.

I also agree with Leah's hesitation about your read on party hardcores vs. newly registered youth and formerly disenfranchised. I agree that they can be the determinant in November, but I worry about their level of enthusiasm and commitment if it's HRC, not BO. I'm certain that the massive new registrations are more a reflection of the man than of the party or the times.

I've got three teenage sons. I watched them grow engaged, and then look for an advocate for their engagement. Before BO won their hearts, a certain Ron Paul held their interest, and the interest of much of the youth. Before they understood positions. More than anything else, they (my kids and maybe youth at large) want to START FRESH! And HRC is not it. And if she does secure the nomination, I worry about what we can really count on in November.

WOW, way too long, sorry about that.; April 16, 2008 10:24 AM
jpsedona said...: dwit,

You said that if Hillary wins the popular vote you have to go with her. Hillary's campaign would love for everyone to drink the Kool-aid.

Here in no particular order are factors why popular vote won't matter.

1) The actual vote totals for IA, NV, ME, WA are not included in the popular vote totals. They are unreported but estimated to be an additional margin of 110,000 for Obama.

2) Hillary cannot take a lead in the popular vote total without BOTH FL & MI. No one could consider adding the popular vote totals from MI where Hillary would gain 328,000+ votes to ZERO for Obama. Best case, she has a 328,000+ margin in FL.

3) Turnout in states holding primaries is always higher than caucus states. That's one of the reasons that Hillary didn't want any re-do's in MI & FL with caucuses. For the popular vote argument to prevail, she couldn't afford a significantly lower turnout that reduces the popular vote margins. Where Obama did well in caucus states, the overall turnout is signififcantly smaller than if those states held primaries. So, superdelegates in their decision process will factor that in.

4) Let's assume that FL & MI are counted into the popular vote (ignoring Obama got ZERO votes in MI). Let's assume that the unreported caucus states yields another 110,000 vote margin for Obama. Let's say Hillary blows Obama away in PA and eeks out a 250,000 vote lead in popular vote. That would require an unpredented turnout in all the remaining primaries. There have only been about 28 million votes cast so far. Let's assume that 6 million people vote in the remaining primaries for a total vote of 34 million (or choose your own totals). Hillary at best leads the popular vote by 3/4 of one percent. Essentially a dead heat. Is that enough of a difference for a SD to overturn a roughly 5% margin by Obama in pledged delegates?

5) Superdelegates, especially elected SD's, are going to seek self-preservation. They will cast their vote on the basis of the easiest defense of that vote. In the end, SD's will not want to be charecterized as stealing the nomination from Obama. The comparisons to Florida 2000 will be to vivid to ignore.

So, in summary, even if Hillary eeks out a popular vote total. That margin will be tainted by including MI and will be so small in terms of the percentage of votes cast that no currently uncommitted delegate can defend voting for Hillary on the basis of the popular vote.; April 16, 2008 11:41 AM
Yamaka said...: Hello ALL:

As per today's Wall Street J, PA is decidedly sticking with HRC:

She will win at least with a 6-10% margin if not more.

"The Condescending Elitist Thinking" of BHO is doing the required damage. Bad for him!

This is similar to what BHO was talking to Reno Newsmedia: "Ronald Reagan was a Transformational Leader, and the Republican Party is a Party of Ideas".

On hearing this, BTW, I changed my hat to HRC.

I am a delegate from TX standing up for her ever since.

My sense is the pledged delegate number will not reach 2208 by mid June. The Nomination will be judged by the about 350 SDs so far undeclared.

I appeal to the SDs to Nominate the Most Electable Candidate (MEC) who can go toe to toe with the vastly experienced John McCain, who is also a war hero with lots of credibility.

I happen to believe that HRC is the MEC, and BHO is NOT because he has the snakes of Three Scandals stuck around his neck:

1. Tony Rezko
2. Jeremiah Wright
3. Michelle Obama's $200K Salary Increase and "quid pro quo" of Senator Obama.

The liberal MSM is very kind to BHO from day one. But the Republican Attack Machine RAM will not. HRC has taken their best hit already and is still standing tall, vibrant and active.

BHO will NOT stand the RAM, he will "melt away like snow in a desert"-J Wright.

SDs, are you listening?; April 16, 2008 12:19 PM
RobH said...: Hello to you, too, Yamaka:

1) WSJ is the one source of the definitive PA outcome? Really?

2) You're right, looks like 6-10 points. Down from 17 just THREE WEEKS ago, and from 28 in January!
In a slam dunk state. Where she's got the machine and the demographics. And where the delegate distribution will be narrower than the margin. Ouch. You're not pointing at that 6-10 as a good thing, are you?

3) Check the RealClearPolitics rolling average all polls Pensylvania. See the tightening in the last two days? That's whiplash to her overkill of the 'bitter' mess and her killer shot-glass moment. As Stewart said: Is she running for President or pledging?"

4) Your three snakes imagery sounds remarkably like Repub talking points. Oh, that's right you got them from the HRC team. She's a real team player, isn't she?

Yep, the SD's are, indeed,; April 16, 2008 12:47 PM
dwit said...: JP,

Don't make me go there..."CHILL OUT"!

I couldn't resist. Look, from what I can see, Obama even leads with Florida AND Michigan.

Obama:13,931,423
Clinton:13,837,418

She may take Pennsylvania, but I'm not counting that as a done deal just yet. In other primaries Obama was way down in the polls and either took them or came much closer than polls indicated.

He will do much better in NC and IN, I wouldn't worry too much.

I do agree, however, Hillary will be the weaker candidate against McCain. They are simply too close in character and foreign policy. I do think she could beat him, however, if she revamped her staff.

If the SD's decide this despite the popular vote for either side, you can bet neither will have a chance against McCain. Progressive populists like myself, African Americans and/or women will simply stay home in November. All of the newly registered youth would simply be turned off.

The consequences of voting against the people would last for generations.; April 16, 2008 3:36 PM
dwit said...: And to all,

Let's not forget Hillary's Saudi and lobbyist problems. Those are going to dog her big time in a general election. She will come off as the elitist against McCain. Now that is completely ironic.

Unfortunately, any small donations from middle class folks she may have received, during the primaries, and they are few, will dry up and she will be forced to accept even more corporate $.

It will all look very bad for the "party of the people".; April 16, 2008 3:50 PM
jpsedona said...: dwit,

An interesting side effect of pushing a popular vote total will be the dis on small states. If the Dems ever hope to have the electoral college replaced by popular vote for Presidential Elections, they would need an awful lot of the small states to support it as a constitutional amendment. Being marginalized by override the pledged delegates won't sit well with small state Dems.; April 16, 2008 3:57 PM
dwit said...: JP,

Don't forget, I come from a small state. There are many here who feel like I do.; April 16, 2008 4:08 PM
countjellybean said...: New List of Leaners. Add Altmire, based on an interesting quote on the NY Times superdelegate page.

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

Obama [10]:
Altmire
Brazile
Campbell, Margaret
Carter
Griffin
Johnson, Denise
Johnson, Joe
Kirk
Smith, Edward
Watkins; April 16, 2008 4:33 PM
Yamaka said...: "Ouch. You're not pointing at that 6-10 as a good thing, are you?"

RobH:

Thanks for your reply.

Considering the money BHO spends and the rhetorical eloquence and poetry he delivers from his silver tongue, I would expect an upset victory in PA for him. He has a long campaign time in PA also.

A Nominee of the Democrats MUST win large battle ground States like OH, PA, FL or TX. If not, there is no legitimacy, I believe.

HRC is a fighter - may not be the "team player" as per your definition.

She works hard and harder everyday for the American people - which makes her the Genuine American Classic.

Yes, I am a delegate standing up for her, because she stands up for people like me in TX.

RobH, the Three Snake Imagery is out there; it's neither HRC's or McCain's construct. But, they are REAL.

I want the SDs to remember the Imagery when they vote for the Nominee. That's all.

Stay tuned.

Let us enjoy the Debate tonight.

Cheers.; April 16, 2008 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...: OBAMA LYING AGAIN THAT HE DOES NOT TAKE MONEY FROM LOBBYISTS. HIS ADS IN PA ARE MISLEADING
Obama, like Clinton and John McCain, has accepted donations from oil and gas company employees — $222,309 in Obama's case from donors from Exxon, Shell, Chevron and others, according to campaign-finance data. Two oil company CEOs have pledged to raise at least $50,000 each as part of Obama's fundraising team.

The point, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said later in a statement, was that Obama doesn't accept money from oil industry lobbyists or their political action committees (PACs), while his opponents have no such policy.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Washington | New York | Boston | Senate | Hillary Rodham Clinton | Google | John McCain | CEOs | University of Pennsylvania | Obama | Goldman Sachs | Citigroup | Center for Responsive Politics | Sarah | Bill Burton | Chevron | St. Petersburg Times | PACs | Exxon | Campaign Finance Institute | Tommy Vietor | Shell Oil | Greenberg Traurig | Rosenthal | Bryan Cave | FactCheck.org | Nath
"The Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference," said a statement on the website of FactCheck.org, an affiliate of the University of Pennsylvania. "We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees."

$193 million — and counting

The episode underscores the pitfalls confronting a candidate who rails against special interests while raising $193 million and counting — the most of any presidential campaign. Obama's fundraising tests the limits of his claim that he is independent of Washington's influence industry because he doesn't take money from federal lobbyists and PACs.

Other examples that strain against that claim:

•Obama holds fundraisers at law firms that lobby in Washington. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the campaign held five fundraisers at New York and Boston offices of three firms that lobby, including Greenberg Traurig, whose lobbying clients include gambling and handgun interests.

Obama counts lobbyists among his informal advisers, including Broderick Johnson, who heads the Washington lobbying practice of Bryan Cave, which represents Shell Oil, records show. Nine campaign staffers have been lobbyists, public records show. Johnson did not respond to requests for comment.

•Obama accepts money from spouses of federal lobbyists. In December, the campaign returned a $250 contribution from lobbyist Thomas Jensen of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, but a few days later, it cashed a $500 check from his wife, Sarah, records show. Jensen said his wife had "personally chosen" to contribute to Obama.

•Obama accepts contributions and fundraising help from state lobbyists. Florida lobbyist Russell Klenet hosted a fundraiser for Obama Aug. 25, according to the St. Petersburg Times. Two months before, Klenet had withdrawn as a lobbyist in Washington for a kidney dialysis company that relies heavily on federal revenue, Senate records show. Klenet did not return phone calls.

•Obama is raising more than his opponents from executives of some of the corporate interests he criticizes. Obama has received more money from people who work at pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. He's taken in $528,765 through February, compared with $506,001 for Clinton and $139,400 for McCain, despite saying last July that "I don't take pharma money."; April 16, 2008 5:28 PM
RobH said...: Yamaka:

I confess you've got me confused. You state "yep, looks like she's gonna take PA after all at 6pts 'cause WSJ said so" then say you expect him to win.
That's classic expectations gamesmanship if I've ever seen it. That way, when she wins by 2 you get to call it a landslide (forgetting her institutional advantages)..."hey after all that money and time he spent here...he shoulda won..."

Truly, I don't want a fighter. Always fighting, and dividing to conquer, has gotten us into this mess. It's poisoning the waterhole.
And that's all she knows. How to be a victim and fight back. If she wins, and wins the GE, we can expect four years of divisive partisanship which we can not afford given the criticality of the issues we face.

She works harder for the American people everyday ?!?!? How d'ya measure that? That's just useless hyperbole.

I doubt I'll enjoy the debate tonight. If they'd both talk fundamentals, give us reasoned discourse, show use some vision, I'd enjoy that. But I doubt they both will. It's more like scripted poll-tested gag-lines, and that stuff makes me uncomfortable. Hard to believe there can be much new after twenty-something debates.

Oh yeah, there could be some new stuff, like some personal destructive negativity toss offs. I've read today, from a supporter (Doug Schoen, Washington Post) that her only strategy now is, AND SHOULD BE, to go totally negative.
A quote from his article:

"Without bringing a strong amount of skepticism to (his) claims, Clinton will not be able to make significant inroads in Obama's lead and cannot persuade the superdelegates to go against the will of the American people. "

Can you believe the gall of those last twelve words??

If she brings that to the debate tonight she will be well and truly done.; April 16, 2008 5:34 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka -

Don't forget that Obama WON TEXAS!

I am in Texas and Hillary doesn't represent me - and I will never be able to vote for her because of her character.

And as far as what Hillary 'thinks' of us southern white working class folks I guess you haven't read about her saying "Screw 'em":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

It's time for her to go on back to the senate!

p.s. And let's not forget about Bill Clinton's recent comment basically calling the 'young voters' fools:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/16/cafferty-bill-clinton-older-voters-too-savvy-to-fall-for-obama/

Obama '08; April 16, 2008 5:36 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Yamaka,

You, and just about every other Clintonista, has not done two things you need to do to convince me to think about changing my allegiance from Obama to Clinton.

1. GIVE ME A REASON TO VOTE FOR CLINTON.

- Don't give me the possible upcoming scandals the Rovian smear machine is spreading about Obama.

- How and why will Clinton make the US a better nation?

- How will she work with Congress to get us out of Iraq?

- How will she stop the exporting of American jobs overseas? What changes will she propose in NAFTA? What changes in tax law will she propose to make off-shoring of jobs by businesses less desirable?

- What will she propose to help allay the effects of global climate change? A cap & trade scheme? Limits on greenhouse gas emissions? Research, and if so, in what areas?

- What will she do to help educate America's youth, and also help to educate older Americans who need additional education to get a job and/or just to function in today's society? What about education funding?

- What will she propose to help strengthen America's infrastructure? The roads, bridges, water distribution, etc.?

- How will she propose we increase America's security against terror? What proposals does she have to increase port security?

2. WHEN WILL SHE STOP TELLING LIES?

- Why did she support the Iraq War Resolution? When did she first speak out against the war? Obama spoke out against it before she voted for it. She CAN'T claim she spoke out against it before he did.

- What did she do to stop NAFTA?

- What REALLY happened in Tusla? An example: The pilot says he'd never tell anyone on his plane to sit on their flack jackets, he didn't do that in 1996, so why is Clinton telling us he did?

- When will Clinton start supporting American-made goods? Her drinking a Canadian whiskey might be an example of her opinion of American-made goods. She couldn't find a good American whiskey to drink?

- She claims she came from a poor to middle-class background. How many people had a cottage on the lake in the 1950's? Is that something that middle-class Americans had back then? Is that something that middle-class Americans have TODAY? Most middle-class Americans, then and today, who vacation in a cottage on the lake, rent the cottage for a week or two, they don't OWN it.

- How can she be ready from Day One in the White House when she can't run a campaign? What plans did she have post-Super Tuesday, other than the plan to accept the nomination? Could the lack of any plan B explain why she didn't win a caucus after Nevada, and why she lost every February post-Super Tuesday primary?

Give me reasons to support her, and stop giving us the talking points of her lies. Until then, you can stop the tickling of the keyboard with your Clintonista propoganda, because a lot of Americans either won't listen, or they will become more rigid in their dislike of her.

Mike; April 16, 2008 5:59 PM
Anonymous said...: leah,
I am also afrom Texas and I can assure you that as of this date, no one has won Texas and we will not know until the state convention in June.
All the counties have not reported yet and many Supers are still not committed.
Obama leads at this point, but there are over 40 credentials challenges plus one big one which has to do with Collin County holding their convention on Sunday, instead of Saturday which is required by law. I predict they will not be seated.

We advised Collin County that if they moved the date of their convention it would violate a state statute and leave their delegation open for a challenge," said Hector Nieto, a spokesman for the Texas Democratic Party.

Article IV - Party Conventions

C. County and Senatorial Conventions

1. Time and Place.

Each County and Senatorial District Convention shall be held on the third Saturday after the First Primary; however, if that date occurs during Passover or on the day following Good Friday, the Convention shall be held on the next Saturday that does not occur during Passover or on the day following Good Friday. The Convention shall be held in a place easily accessible to the public and large enough to accommodate all participants. The Convention shall be publicized in the same manner prescribed by Party Rules for Precinct Conventions. (Texas Election Code §174.063)

This alone could cost Obama Texas

Clinton Obama Total
1 8 Collin 55 108 163
.
1 30 Collin 8 9 17; April 16, 2008 6:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Now it is Florida, Michigan and Collin County< Texas breaking the rules.; April 16, 2008 6:23 PM
Yamaka said...: mike:

Thanks for your reply.

I will tell you why I am a delegate standing up for HRC, and why NOT for BHO:

1. I am a Center Left politically: a social liberal, but a fiscal conservative. I believe HRC is also Center Left, as Bill Clinton is. Hence, we have an ideological connection.

2. I believe that 1992-2000 was a Golden Period in American Politics/Policy: 22 million jobs created, economy grew at 3.75% a year and the American Brand name was reigning supreme all over the world. I am very much attracted to that nostalgia!

BHO does NOT understand all this. He told the Reno Newsmedia that Ron Reagan was the Transformational Leader, and the Republican Party is the Party of ideas. I totally reject his rationale and audacity. This he said to poke a finger on Bill Clinton's eye! BHO is a pathological liar (I was once a Obamamania; I left him soon after he made this remark!! Good for me!). Bill Clinton vouches that HRC is the most electable person in this race. I believe him, and totally agree with him.

3. I don't like tax, tax and spend and spend bleeding liberals like BHO. He represents the FAR LEFT of the political spectrum. I believe that most American electorate is in the middle, spread between Center Left (Clintons) and Center Right (McCain). The FAR LEFT (20%) and FAR RIGHT (20%) are political minority. Therefore, BHO is NOT electable.

4. The current "Top Dog" status that BHO enjoys is artificial and not legitimate. This is partly because of the bogus proportional methodology that the Dems use. This is NOT what we use in the GE, nor is what the Republicans use in the Primary. He has NOT won many of the MUST WIN large States for any Democrat. He won mostly small Caucus Red States which normally go to a Republican in the GE.

When we use the GE Methodology of Winner Takes ALL, HRC has so far 1427 delegates to BHO's 1260 (Rasmussen Reports). If you use the Electoral College Map, she has 263 to his 198 (270towin.com). Therefore, BHO is enjoying an artificial front-runner status. This mirage will clear very soon.

5. BHO is NOT Electable because of the THREE Scandals stuck around his neck besides the ideological problems I mentioned above. These Scandals are not made by Rove. These are his own, thus relate to his character, judgment, credibility and inexperience.

Anyway, the Democratic Party is divided in the middle. The Final Nominee will be known only by the actions of the SDs in mid June.

As the polls suggest, McCain could be the President in 2009. All because of the protracted primary among Dems required by the Proportional Delegate Methodology of the Democratic Party. This could have been avoided.

I believe that BHO is a Manchurian Candidate sponsored by a liberal money bag like Soros.

I will NEVER vote for him!

Is he not also the Trojan Horse sent by pastor Wright to wreck the "US of KKKA?". Atrocious audacity.

Cheers.; April 16, 2008 6:39 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Yamaka blathered:

Point 1 - Not an argument that will sway my vote. Why? I'm also a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I also know that sometimes you have to spend a bit at first to make dramatic savings later on, so I'm not one of the 'don't spend anything at all' fiscal conservatives.

Point 2 - Taking Barak Obama's words out of context will not sway my vote.

Point 3 - So you like spend, spend, spend and more spend GOOPers like Bush and McSame? Tax breaks only for the rich. And since when was McSame 'center-right'? More like mainstream right, as defined by today's GOOPers, which 30 or more years ago was considered far, far fringe right, even by the GOOPers of the day.

Point 4 - The delegate selection rules were agreed upon prior to the primaries. If you and Clinton don't like them now, why did she agree to them then? Oh, and the whole Electoral College issue is specious - the rules are the rules are the rules, so live with them.

Point 5 - You stated "BHO is NOT Electable because of the THREE Scandals stuck around his neck besides the ideological problems I mentioned above. These Scandals are not made by Rove. These are his own, thus relate to his character, judgment, credibility and inexperience."

And then how do you explain this Washington Post/ABC News poll?:

"Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards."

Honesty and being trustworthy is something that will come up in the General Election. And Clinton loses in those areas, no matter what the economy does, what anyone says about the war in Iraq, or any other issue. If people don't trust a candidate's honesty and trustworthiness, they will not vote for that candidate, no matter if they agree with their positions or not. After all, they can't be assured that what the candidate says one day is what policy they'll try to get instituted the next. And part of the reason Clinton has lost the issue of honesty and trustworthiness is her constant changing of the goal posts on how to win the nomination. She gave her word when she agreed to to rules, then broke them again and again and again and again and again and again . . .

Yamaka, since you didn't even get close to convincing me to consider reconsidering my support for Obama on that try, no need to continue to try to sway me. You lost the argument, have no idea how to win it, and therefore can't.

Mike; April 16, 2008 7:37 PM
dwit said...: OK Tony. You made me do it. I had to dredge up this old post. What is up with this Columbian outfit, Gold Service Int'l? They don't have a web site in English and I don't speak or read Spanish. Anybody help me out here. Seems very mysterious.

Check out all of these donors to the Clinton "Foundation"

America Israel Chamber of Commerce $125,000

Aventura-Turnberry Jewish Center $150,000

Beth El Synagogue
$125,000

Antwerp Diamond High Council $200,000

Citigroup
$550,000

CLSA Ltd.
$700,000

Gold Service International
$800,000

Walmart Foundation
$1,000,000

So we have several Pro-Israel groups, a blood diamond broker, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, a consultancy that helps other companies relocate to China (CSLA), a very mysterious Columbian organization that doesn't even have a web page in English (Gold Service Int'l) and our ethical friends at Walmart.

I'm not making this stuff up. This is just the tip of the iceberg folks! Have look at the Salon.com article.

http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources
/2007/10/11/clinton/index1.html

Can you imagine what McCain surrogates would do with this information in a general?

It would be pretty funny, I admit, given old "straight talk" John's seedy past and current associations.; April 16, 2008 7:42 PM
jpsedona said...: Yamaka,

As a Hillary supporter, you do realize that the reason that there's a protracted campaign going on is because her organization ran a horrible campaign. With the advantages she had in January (including tremendous number of SD's), she blew it. If she was so convincing and is the only hope for the Dems, then why is she behind 2-1 in the contests?

As for: "As the polls suggest, McCain could be the President in 2009. All because of the protracted primary among Dems required by the Proportional Delegate Methodology of the Democratic Party. This could have been avoided."

True! Well, the party just outsmarted itself and is now paying the price. Conventional wisdom would indicate that the Dem nominee should have a tremendous advantage. Instead, the polls show a tight race shaping up in the Fall.

You have to think that the whole process will be revisted after the election. The mismanagement by the DNC and party insiders sure makes the Republicans look well organized.; April 16, 2008 7:42 PM
jpsedona said...: Mike,

Don't forget that the poll showed that Obama had a 31% lead in electability. There's a reason why Rush & others want to see Hillary as the candidate.; April 16, 2008 7:45 PM
jpsedona said...: dwit,

By "John's seedy past" are you referring to the Keaton 5 and the S&L scandal?

If so, not a good example considering the other 4 were all high ranking Democratic Senators. Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle were all signficantly involved. John Glenn and John McCain were minimally involved. Only Cranston was censured. The others including McCain were criticized.; April 16, 2008 7:58 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: JP,

Yes, I could have included a lot more information from the Post poll, but the message was getting too long as it was.

So my thanks go to you for bringing up the electability portion of the poll. It's appreciated.

Mike; April 16, 2008 10:54 PM
Yamaka said...: "since you didn't even get close to convincing me to consider reconsidering my support for Obama on that try, no need to continue to try to sway me"-mike.

Mike,

Please re-read my post; I did not try to convince you.

Rather, I told you why I like HRC and NOT BHO!!

Your choice is your business!

As I said, the Democratic Party is torn between two major constituencies:

1. FAR LEFT Vs Central Left.

2. Blacks, young, inexperienced hyper-educated affluent White men Vs Latinos, old ordinary White men and Women.

I belong to the Center Left and matured men. We have to wait and see how this plays out.

Rules must help us as a sword to win the General Election; but the Party is falling on our own sword!! That's pathetic, and suicidal.

Count me as one of the 28% who will vote for McCain if BHO is the Nominee of the Democratic Party.

Tell me Mike:

Is there a difference between BHO and Jesse Jackson? Very Little.

Both are Black Politicians from Chicago. Both are FAR LEFT liberals.

BHO has a liberal sponsor moneybag, and Jesse did not have one.

At least, I admire Jesse because he is from Civil Right Movement.

But, BHO never had even a trace of Civil Right Credential in his resume!

Please remember NO Far Left liberal has won the Presidency in the past 30 years (since the failed Presidency of Jimmy Carter). 2008 will not be any different. Cheers.

sedona:

My belief: Had we adopted the GE Methodology, the Primary would have been nearly settled in Texas, as it happened for McCain.

On the PA Debate:

HRC won hands down as in most other debates.

BHO, the man with the silver tongue was tongue-tied and came across stammering and stuttering!

The "mangled words" are the answer from his "bitterness"!

On Wright and Ayers, he looked like a thief caught red-handed!

His face showed his crime!!! He is a pathological liar.

On Bosnia, she was smiling and apologetic and convincing.

On Taxes and Cap Gain: She showed that she is for fiscal sanity.

He is for "TAX AND SPEND" FAR LEFT liberal solution.

PA will sure go to HRC by at least 10% margin. That would take her to the lead if you count ALL votes.

Stay tuned. Cheers.; April 16, 2008 11:06 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 16, 2008 11:31 PM
dwit said...: JP,

Regarding the Keating 5 fraud, I don't care which ones were democraps or republitards, I'm not affiliated with either party. They were crooks and they got caught. Generally Congress tries to protect its own and they all got slaps on the behind and sent on their merry way.

Trust me, there are plenty of other scandals, like military contractors getting special treatment in front of the Armed Services Committee for defective defense projects.

How about the telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman who may have exchanged sexual favors to advance her career?

The press is hard at work, stay tuned...; April 16, 2008 11:32 PM
Yamaka said...: Tony:

Thanks for showing how BHO gets all his money.

He is a pathological liar when he says he does NOT take money from PACs and lobbyists.

In fact, his entire campaign is run by former/current K Street Operatives.

Since he is so inexperienced in Washington Politics, these lobbyists and special interest groups will call the shots from the first minute if he moves into WH.

How could he get the Nomination w/o winning the large traditional Blue States?

Stop this Manchurian Candidate, Now. Cheers.; April 17, 2008 12:26 AM
Subodh said...: That is the best debate that I saw & Hillary won hands down
Theres WAY to many UNKNOWNS with Obama. The charges of the slumlord (Rezko)relationship which he tried to deny , the REV.TWENTY years he didn't HEAR those hateful Anti-American words. The 26 bills Obama , in the IL. state senate ( state senate maj. leader Emil Jones, GAVE them to Obama & Obama NEVER objected) he knew they belonged to his fellow senators, one of which is Sen. Herndon Il. state senate, that today Obama BRAGS about ( much like Bush) on the campaign trail saying what great work he did in the state senate. Obama did not pass ONE bill of his own in the state senate. Last but not least...Obama RATIONALIZED being a friend of Mr. Ayers who bombed the NYC police dept. in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 & the Pentagon in 1972 saying "I didn't know him THEN.' like the Reverand "I never heard him". This lACK of JUDGMENT is something we do NOT need in the White House, we have it NOW & look were it took us! Sen. Clinton we get good long term experience, 8 yrs First Lady, 7 yrs US Senator, in those 15 yrs. she has been to over 75 countries, met over 80 world leaders( including middle East leaders), they RESPECT & KNOW her. Obama has a scant 3 yrs as a US Senator & 1 1/2 yrs of that they have been out of senate & campaigning so he is very GREEN in the senate, let alone in the White House. Theres way to many unknowns with him & he NEVER fesses up UNTIL he is cornered.We can not & should not give anyone the Presidency UNTILL we truly KNOW them & we do NOT know Sen. Obama, not at all, not yet. But if only half of these issues are true there are way too many for our President to have.Sen.Clinton WILL turn this mess around AND give us Universal HEALTH Care for all of us, men, women & Children. Obamas HC plan does NOT cover one adult & only some children. Hillary puts a mandate on insurance Co's ending their POWER over us AND our doctors. They can not discriminate on pre-existing conditions! Obama does NOT put a mandate on in insurance co's. leaving them in charge.; April 17, 2008 12:38 AM
Yamaka said...: "Obama RATIONALIZED being a friend of Mr. Ayers who bombed the NYC police dept. in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 & the Pentagon in 1972 saying "I didn't know him THEN.' like the Reverand "I never heard him". This lACK of JUDGMENT is something we do NOT need in the White House, we have it NOW & look were it took us!"

Subodh: Amen, well said.

Also, I believe BHO is a liar regarding who is financing his campaign: he gets plenty of funds from all sorts of Corporations, lobbyists and interest groups (see Tony's post above).

He is again a liar regarding what pastor Wright preaches at his TUCC. He knows exactly what Wright and Ayers did, but ideologically he loves them all.

By being friends with these two people, he raised his credibility as a "Black" (Wright) and as a bleeding FAR LEFT Liberal (Ayers).

The facade is coming down.

BHO is just NOT Electable, period.; April 17, 2008 12:56 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Yamaka,

I see you can't read.

From my post of April 16: "Give me reasons to support her, and stop giving us the talking points of her lies."

Give me reasons why I should support her, not reasons YOU support her. You didn't even try to convince me that she had any strong points.

You state that you are a Clinton delegate. You might consider that your ineptness at getting other fellow Democrats to even consider supporting her if they don't do so already, let alone switch their support TO her, you might not be a good campaigner for her when trying to get GOOPers to support her.

In fact, your ineptness might drive people away FROM her.

Please quit while you are only a mile behind, as at the rate you're going, you'll only get further and further behind.

Mike; April 17, 2008 1:14 AM
Unknown said...: Yamaka- you are a racist scumbag. I bet you have not a single friend who is an African-American. You live in your pristine world and have no concept of reality. Not sure if you are a male or a female- but I bet you would not tolerate it if an African-American was dating your sister...you would come up with some sort of a rationale for why you did not like this person, but at the end of the day, your decision would be motivated completely by race....Take a hard look at yourself and your associates and you will realize that you are no different than David Duke or Archie Bunker...you just have more liberal political views, but at the end of the day, you are every bit the racist.; April 17, 2008 1:18 AM
MSMWatch2008 said...: Mike in Maryland blathered:

1. GIVE ME A REASON TO VOTE FOR CLINTON.

This is nonsense and you know it. Just go to http://hillaryclinton.com/ to find the answers to your litany of pseudo-questions. You already know the answers, so what is your agenda with this ridiculous “challenge”? In fact, why do you -- NEVER -- GIVE ME A REASON TO VOTE FOR OBAMA??

2. WHEN WILL SHE STOP TELLING LIES?
- Don't give me the Obama smear machine talking points – it’s tired already. Hillary’s “lies” do not even approach Obama’s, yet the media plays your hand. And please don’t give me pathetic nonsense about good American whiskey

Next: She has NEVER claimed that she came from a poor to middle-class background, unless you want to go back a generation or two. In fact, she has often claimed that she has felt so privileged, and therefore compelled to give back to this country. Maybe you’ve had a touch too much of that good ol’ American whiskey.

More blather:
- How can she be ready from Day One in the White House when she can't run a campaign?

This is not about having no post-February plan, or about expecting an anointment. The truth is far worse than that. Possibly she now has learned a good (but unexpected) lesson: She now has learned to be prepared for Republican-like ‘suppress the vote’ tactics in caucuses. She now has learned not to expect fair treatment from the anti-Clinton media and their acolytes. She now has learned it is acceptable to be labeled a racist if she dared to point out her opponent’s errors or flaws (normally not the regular Democratic way.)

Mike, you’re full of it, you are no more looking for “reasons to support her,” than you are looking for the truth about Obama’s “talking points” and “lies.” Keep tickling your keyboard with your anti-Clinton propaganda, because a lot of Americans don't buy into the bull that has so taken hold of you.
Peace.; April 17, 2008 1:18 AM
MSMWatch2008 said...: jcaesar just called it, like I said.
If you talk truth about Obama, you are racist.

Forget the facts, forget that he sends emails full of lies about Hillary, do not talk the truth, or you are racist.

And that, my friend, is why Hillary's campaign was hog-tied; kudos to Axelrod for figuring that out from NH on.; April 17, 2008 1:22 AM
Unknown said...: Again as I have said before- Obama needs only around 323 superdelegates to win this- assuming he carries a reasonable number of pledged delegates in the remaining contests. Given the fact that each side has carved out their constituents- it is hard to see how one can argue that the remaining pledged delegates will not be reasonably close. Obama is pushing 230 in pledged delegates right now- and figures to get at least 44 additional from ad-ons where he will control the convention. When you take the 8 or so in the Pelosi club, that means he needs only around another 40 supers to end this....given there are 75 undeclared house members- and virtually none have declared recently- one can ony assume that most of these will follow the speaker's lead....This of course doesn't even count the numerous African-American superdelegates aligned with HRC who in my opinion will switch their vote if Obama is perceived to be getting screwed....Given this math, it is difficult to see HRC's efforts as anything but a kamikaze act.; April 17, 2008 1:41 AM
dwit said...: Yamaka said...

"As I said, the Democratic Party is torn between two major constituencies:

1. FAR LEFT Vs Central Left.

2. Blacks, young, inexperienced hyper-educated affluent White men Vs Latinos, old ordinary White men and Women."

Yamaka, I beg to differ. Hillary does not represent the "far left".

I have a hard time believing she is even a REAL democrat. I'm actually a little worried that if she doesn't get the nomination she may join the McCain camp along with old Jump Ship Joe Lieberman.; April 17, 2008 2:20 AM
dwit said...: Jcaesar,

I have to disagree with your characterization of anyone who disagrees with Obama as "racist". That is a tired tactic that has been waaaay over played.

Its just as bad as those who accuse anyone who questions the legitimacy of the "state" of Israel (i.e.Jimmy Carter) as "anti-semitic".

Its just not very convincing.; April 17, 2008 2:29 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I am beginning to think that America does not deserve Senator Obama to be our president.

There are too many hateful people in America.

When on earth have Americans started to judge and convict a person for the sins and crimes of people that they know? What on earth has America become?
Where has understanding and compassion gone?

Reverend Wright defended our country in the military as a United States Marine. He defended Americans and the rights and liberties of Americans - and one of the rights of Americans is the freedom of speech - but apparently many in America do not believe HE has the right of speech - to speak out regarding the injustices he has witnessed.

Mr. Ayers did some things in his past that were not legal and he paid the price and now is a professor in a college... but now anyone that speaks with him, including Senator is under apparently under suspicion?

When did wearing a flag pin become the test of being a patriotic American? Why doesn't Hillary wear a flag pin? Where are flag pins made? China? Is that what being an American is? NO!

We have 4000+ American soldiers dead because of Iraq and because of lies told that got us in there in the first place - now we have a candidate that LIES (Hillary) and people are trying to say that she is better because her opponent (Obama) doesn't wear a flag pin every day? Has America gone insane?

The world is watching us and probably laughing at us because of our stupidity!; April 17, 2008 2:40 AM
dwit said...: leah,

PROBABLY laughing?; April 17, 2008 2:46 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: MSMWatch2008,

How many messages have you left here at DemConWatch?

Are you Yamaka in a different guise? Subodh? One of the other desperate Clintonistas?

All of your talking points are the same. Take away the name, and it's not possible to tell the messages apart.

As to your point, I challenged Yamaka to convince me to vote for Clinton. I didn't ask YOU to convince me. I didn't ask Subodh to convice me. I asked Yamaka to do so.

So unless you are Yamaka, butt out.

Mike; April 17, 2008 2:47 AM
Amot said...: PROBABLY laughing!?!
Most old-type politicians are scared to death of Obama winning! I mean outside the USA. McCain, Clinton - they know the style and everything they can expect from them. Obama is scary, he is not conventional! Ordinary people look mostly with hope toward Obama. Hope that USA can play differently, can bring peace and change and stability to the world. Maybe Clinton can bring stability to USA economy, actually I am sure she can do it perfectly. But she can't bring peace to the country and the world. Few people know how really USA influences the world's politics and way of life. People abroad look at Obama with hope, hope for USA and the world we all live in. Not surprisingly Obama won DA with a landslide in Europe and Asia - things are seen differently outside the country.
One more thing - Clinton is not seen as unique candidate! I mean outside the USA so many women have been leaders in the past and present that no one is looking at Clinton as new era coming. Obama... I am sorry to say that but when I mention Obama I get one immediate response "USA will never elect black man!" They say Americans ARE racists. I hope those Americans will prove them wrong in November!; April 17, 2008 3:55 AM
ed iglehart said...: Amot,

Well said! And Dwit, well called on the racist/antisemitic point.

meanwhile Israweli Army killed FIVE Palestinian children yesterday, and the USA continues to provide unconditional support (sadly including that of BHO)

Salaam, etc.
ed; April 17, 2008 8:35 AM
Yousri said...: Just I want to mention 2 points about last night debate:
1. After weeks of Sen. Clinton saying that Sen. Obama is not-electable in Nov., she admits now that Sen. Obama can WIN.
Clinton changes course on Obama's electability

2. The real loser of the debate is ABC. They have more than 11500+ comments from the readers, and the vast majority of them very upset and condemned ABS very strongly. In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC; April 17, 2008 9:04 AM
MSMWatch2008 said...: Mike in Maryland blathered:
How many messages have you left here at DemConWatch? . . . All of your talking points are the same. Take away the name, and it's not possible to tell the messages apart.. . .

Sorry to add more fuel to your current meltdown, but there really are more than a handful of reasonable people who are supporting Clinton in this race. I have not posted, usually just like to check the numbers on this site (great job, guys). This has seemed to be an open forum, and except for you and Leah, who simply cannot accept that anyone with a different opinion is worthy of an iota of respect, most of the posters seem rational to me.

more blather:
As to your point, I challenged Yamaka to convince me to vote for Clinton. I didn't ask YOU to convince me. I didn't ask Subodh to convice me. I asked Yamaka to do so. . .So unless you are Yamaka, butt out.

Actually, you had written:
You, and just about every other Clintonista, has not done two things you need to do to convince me to think about changing my allegiance from Obama to Clinton.

I apologize for misreading that as an open call to all who support HRC, but not for pointing out your underlying nonsense. I’ve read all of your posts, and have seen how you have a meltdown whenever you feel like it, something you should have outgrown by now. You have said that you had a professor in the early 70’s, making you pretty much my age. Surprising, then, that you haven’t matured yet beyond the use of terms like “blathered” or monikers like Obamanista when engaged in public discourse.

I know, this ruffles your feathers, and I probably get a charge out of that, but mostly because you have this disgusting tendency to roll over anyone who disagrees with your POV.

And don’t bother labeling me, as is your habit, because you haven’t a clue about me. For the record, in the 60’s and the 70’s, I marched for civil rights, against war, for women’s liberation, and for black liberation. My first campaign work was for Gene McCarthy, then McGovern. After Kent State, I wondered if I needed to take up arms to protect myself against a government gone mad; instead I went to Canada for a breather. I lived through 911 in a lock-down area of NYC, and I’m still here. I was there for each and every march against the Iraq war, including hauling my butt to DC. I am still engaged in activities that help those who need it, and my child is even more engaged than I. So keep you condemnation of me, and my brethren, where it belongs; you are not better than we.

What you are is a bully.; April 17, 2008 9:19 AM
Amot said...: That debate made me really sleepy at the end :)
But, Ed, I was very carefully listening to Sen. Obama when he was talking about Israel. He did not give support to Israel's activities, nor he did say that war against Israel is a war against USA. I think Israel must be really afraid that USA will stop the unquestionable support. I hope Barack will start asking questions - it seems like he will!; April 17, 2008 9:27 AM
jpsedona said...: I think that Hillary was a clear winner in the debate last night. I thought her "I'm not stupid" remark would get a lot of play by the McCain campaign if she were to win the nomination. I thought Obama stumbled all over the place on questions he should have known were coming. He was not well prepared, responded poorly and was wandering in hise responses.

If I were to provide grades, I would say that Hillary deserves a C and Obama deserves a D.

I am interested to see if this has any effect whatsoever in the PA polls. I suspect that after 6 weeks in PA that there was not much to convince voters to switch preferences from one candidate to the other. However, I think that a signififcant number of answers by both candidates were tailored to the superdelegates.; April 17, 2008 9:52 AM
UUbuntu said...: Sigh. We're all getting nasty again. I repeat myself

Anyway, Mike in Maryland said this:

"1. GIVE ME A REASON TO VOTE FOR CLINTON."

It seems that others on this board are unable to do so without talking about "the evils of her opponent", so I guess I'll have to do this. I posted a statement on my own blog. Please post angry retorts here on this DCW open thread page (I will read them). You're welcome to post on my blog too, and don't take this personally, but I will delete any post I don't like for any reason, without explanation. Respectful disagreements (or agreements) are, of course, welcome.

As to the Clinton "supporters" here, I suspect that most (subdoh, Tony, Nancy, Joy Kapur and now MSMWatch2008, among others) are the same person and have little interest in her candidacy. Their posts say the same things in the same way, complete with cut and past talking points from conservative websites, and they all have newly created blogger accounts. Jim and gloria1129 (and maybe yamaka) seem to be different people, whose posts are individually authored and are worth reading. But they seem to be more anti-Obama than pro-Clinton.

The anti-Clinton and anti-Obama tones to many of our posts seems sad to me, as if we are devoid of ideas for our candidate so all we do is disqualify the opponent and "win" by default. These posts (which turn personal) goad others on this board into uncivil discourse and do nothing to promote the fact that the Democrats have two excellent choices in this nominating process.; April 17, 2008 10:14 AM
RobH said...: Look at these exchanges. Where are we going, folks? This is SAD.

Every single bit of this discourse is about personal smear, who ya' knew when, what they said, how you must be responsible for that, who lies. BLECH!

It's DISTRACTING us folks. That debate last night was symptomatic of where this process has devolved to. NOTHING on how to solve the real problems we have.

I recomend STRONGLY the book

"Freedom From Oil: How the Next President Can End the United States Oil Addiction".

It's a brilliant construction by the former Asst. Sec'y of State under B. Clinton, David Sandalow. It weaves together political process, political will, credible technical and financial and diplomatic solutions. More importantly it establishes the connections between our Middle East/Energy policies, environmental/global warming threats, and long term financial/economic prospects.

PLEASE: go to your library, read it, and share it with everybody you know. Let's get these ISSUES to the front of the debate.

PLEASE.; April 17, 2008 10:20 AM
ed iglehart said...: Amot,

I hope you're right, but why condemn Carter for meeting with the democratically elected Palestinian leadership?

I know any criticism of Israel may be toxic to electability, but what a G-ddamned shame that is.

So far in 2008, the IDF has killed 48 Palestinian minors.
B'Tselem

Most of them were just in the wrong place (in their homes, playing football, etc.) at the time, the rest were throwing stones when shot from a helicopter.....and Israel plays the victim...GRRRRR!; April 17, 2008 10:26 AM
RobH said...: I'm gonna repeat myself, because I feel its that important:

"Freedom From Oil" is the title.
Sandalow, David is the author.

It is a PRESCRIPTIVE. It suggests a positive, credible, and actually acheivable approach (even within our poison/partisan political environment) to ultimately:

a) extracte us from hostile geopolitical environments,

b) relieve the stress on mother earth, and

c) resolve seemingly insoluable economic/energy risks that we're staring down the barrel at.

Now, isn't that worth some of your time instead of the personalized bickering going on here?; April 17, 2008 10:30 AM
RobH said...: Hey msmwatch2008,

while I'm certain we're in different camps mostly, the purpose of this post is not to get in a tussle with you, but really intended as a good natured shot a humor (something in real short supply here.)

I read your post of 9:19 with interest. Particularly the last paragraph. Your background is amazing! As I read it I kept thinking that you must be - OK here's the shot at humor and it's not a personal jibe - either Forrest Gump (for all the experiences you had), or actually, the Stones 'Sympathy for the Devil' kept rising in me. "Please allow me to introduce myself......"

In that classic, as Mick tells all the places he is, at all times, and at same times....it just resonated. And, no, I don't think you're the devil......; April 17, 2008 10:48 AM
cbsmith42 said...: Thank you for the book suggestion, Robh. I will see if I can't find a copy.; April 17, 2008 11:09 AM
Amot said...: RobH, I am strong supporter of new energy sources, actually I am helping with some projects in that direction. My company is now reconstructing a hotel that will use for its 15 rooms less energy than a normal four members household. I am glad we had Obama and Gore both strong on that issue. I think Obama will willingly pay the price for Gore's endorsement - strong new energy and clear enviroment policy.

We are talking backgrounds? I guess most of the people here have a very solid one - maybe we are some sort of 'elitists' (joking)!

I have some relatives living in Israel - the situation there is nightmare for both nations. Israeli government uses the fact that there are conflicts in the region and they are needed. They know no one dares to get involved in their inferior activities. But I guess if/when peace in Middle East is established, Israel will be forced to a peacefull solution of their problem.
On the other side USA should not decide the destiny of the world. I think Israel should be forced to a solution by UN!
I know 3 out of 4 Americans supports Kosovo's independence. And I think it is because they don't have the real look at the situation. MSM misleads them all the time. I live in Europe and we see things here differently. USA has never faced a problem like that. And because a handful of Americans have been in those regions, MSM shapes the public opinion. Just like they are saying now the race is very very close when it is 95% over. I think most of you will agree that in the USA people don't know enough about the rest of the world. When we talk about foreign policy I think we must first rethink the role of USA and add fairness to the real situation abroad. I believe Obama will contribute a lot to such an effort!; April 17, 2008 11:34 AM
Yamaka said...: Dear Super Delegates of the Democratic Party:

Our Party is careening towards a man-made disaster in the Fall.

Bush has a lowly pathetic 28% approval rating (by comparison Bill Clinton enjoyed a 65% even at the height of the Sex Scandal!)and the Republican Party is in disarray. But, John McCain is beating our candidates in recent polls. How did this incredible development happen? I hypothesize that it is because of the prolonged Primary Fight between our candidates.

We have a well known brand name, HRC and an unknown inexperienced personality BHO whose character, judgment, credibility and experience is at serious peril, as you witnessed from the Debate, last night.

Supposedly a man with silver tongue was wilting, withering and gasping for air when asked about his fond associations with the 1960s terrorist Ayers and anti-American bigot Wright. Leave the slumlord Rezko alone for now.

Your job as SDs is to see the big picture and elect the Most Electable Candidate for the Fall. You must discourage and eliminate the Insurgent Candidate BHO.

In the GE, about 66 million Left-leaning voters will go to the polls. In this Primary, we have heard barely the voices of 27 millions who are nearly equally divided between the Insurgent Manchurian Candidate BHO and the well tested HRC.

Thus a good 39 million (majority) are not tuning in and participating in the last four months of Primary. But they will in the next 6 months.

These people will ask who this Manchurian Insurgent Candidate is:

He is a Black politician from Chicago. His political philosophy is "TAX,TAX and more TAX and Spend, Spend and more Spend". His supporters are big money bags from Hollywood, Big Corp and Lobbyists. He is a pathological liar: Ask about his long time friends and mentors like Wright, Rezko, he will lie outright that he does NOT know them. Ask about Ayers, he will say "He is a Prof of English, I didn't get his endorsement" etc. His campaign is manned by former lobbyists and K Street Operatives. He will lie about it. He is an elite who went to Columbia and Harvard on perhaps "Affirmative Action" as his wife is who went to Princeton and Harvard. Then he would again lie about his tony Mansion in the Hyde Park.

He is quite UN-Electable in the Fall.

On the other hand, HRC is very experienced, a well tested prudent candidate - a moderate and a centrist philosophically, and a fiscal conservative.

SDs: Do you want the 39 million Left-leaning voters hear bigot Wright, terrorist Ayers and slumlord Rezko in endless loop in our TV, Radio and Internet?

We will lose the White House and the Congress if you nominate BHO!

Please think hard, and act fast.

Nominate HRC and save our Party from humiliating defeat in the Fall.

Yamaka
A delegate from TX.; April 17, 2008 12:25 PM
UUbuntu said...: Yamaka -- We are both Clinton supporters. Have you read my posts? What did you think of them?; April 17, 2008 12:51 PM
ed iglehart said...: Yamaka,

If you think Reverend Wright is a bigot, you haven't taken the trouble to watch even one of his sermons beyond the highly selective soundbytes. In that case, I have little interest in anything you might say.

Trinity United Church of Christ celebrates diversity. One man shares his experiences with Rev. Wright

AND,
the "Chickens comin' home" sermon

AFTER you've had a chance to experience this man of Peace and Love, then come back and apologise.

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed; April 17, 2008 12:56 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: Tyler wrote:

As to the Clinton "supporters" here, I suspect that most (subdoh, Tony, Nancy, Joy Kapur and now MSMWatch2008, among others) are the same person and have little interest in her candidacy. Their posts say the same things in the same way, complete with cut and past talking points from conservative websites, . . .
……
Tyler, I am not anyone but myself, and possibly if you are wrong about me you are wrong about others on that count as well. Mainly I was so irritated by M-in-M’s rough behavior, and his “blather” mean-spiritedness, that I had to have a say. I did not feel any real need to iterate “reasons to vote for HRC” but I am glad to know of another forum to check them out. The questions posed by MinM are all answered on the hillaryclinton.com website, so it is obvious that was not what he really was after. (BTW, he still hasn’t iterated his reasons for supporting BO.)

On the other hand, I have seen evidence of what you refer to as cut and paste, on both sides, but I do not believe you see that in my posts. Please read it again. My responses were directly to what I perceive as MinM’s “talking points.” (Actually, his post was the only ‘cut & paste’ that I used, to stay on track.)

I don’t believe you need to cut and paste to know about the behavior at some caucuses (well-covered in the media), or the free pass given to Obama by the media (seemingly now ending, except Matthews and Olbermann.) If those are the current “cut and past (sic) talking points from conservative websites” then we libs have finally prevailed!

Regarding . . . “and they all have newly created blogger accounts.”

Well, that’s just because it was my first post, and the site made me do it!

Robh:

I appreciated your “efforts” - cute.
However, there is nothing at all amazing about my background; if you’re of a certain age, and you were in the right place at the right time, with the right amount of intelligence, it’s your story. It’s pretty much the story of most of my peers. (That and an abundance of drugs, actually.) We are pretty full of ourselves, but we try to keep working on that. And those of us who do not follow lockstep with the “change” and “hope” drill (don’t get me wrong, we are all for change AND hope, but we do not think that is what we are really seeing), are getting pretty annoyed, in that we have spent lifetimes trying to leave this country and this earth, somewhat better than we found it (mostly to no avail), and then we are called blatherers – or much worse - by people who disagree with us.

And by the way, believe it or not, but I personally know gloria1129 – go figure! Another NYC denizen. In fact, it was the mostly (but not entirely) unreasonable dismissal of her posts that got me started.; April 17, 2008 1:07 PM
dwit said...: For those of you who think the "super" delegates may actually be reading this, you probably should go lay down for a while. Maybe even make an appointment with your shrink.; April 17, 2008 1:10 PM
Yamaka said...: Tylor:

I agree with you on the experience and the electability of HRC. She has earned the Nomination in my opinion:

She has won most of the large primaries of Blues States that any Democrat MUST win.

She has won the battle-ground States of OH, FL, TX (primary) and most likely PA and IN.

If we use the General Election Methodology (the most relevant and sensible) she has already 263 delegates, and with PA and IN she will have more than 300 delegates in the Electoral College.

What more do you need from a Nominee?

It is the artificial aberration of the DNC Rules that make BHO a leader by barely 20 delegates, if you include ALL votes polled. Another 950 delegates outstanding. I believe it is the SDs who would Nominate the candidate this year.

My opinion is We must bring out both the good and the bad of both candidates and openly talk about. Otherwise, Rep Attack Machine will do the job, when it will be too late.

Ed and other Obama-Crowd:

I don't want to see the video clips of Wright or the views of Ayers and the lies of BHO anymore. Enough is enough.

They are all anti-American bigots to me. A candidate's friends and foes will determine their character, judgment and credibility.

I love my country, my God and my family. I am a very happy person.

I am NOT a women-hater like many of the BHO supporters are. They all should learn to love and respect their mother, sisters and wife.

Smile and Laugh. Cheers.; April 17, 2008 1:19 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: amot wrote:
I think most of you will agree that in the USA people don't know enough about the rest of the world.
. . .
I agree with you there, and confess to my own shortcomings. Sure, we've travelled the world quite a bit, but we are less than well-informed on all sides of the questions out there. Many of us use foreign media to at least attempt to get all sides.

I can only say that my child is forcing the issue, and together we are trying to learn more, about all sides of the issues. Not an easy task, and any easy answer is suspect.

So although I do not expect any easy answers, not even from our next President, I do support raising these questions, again and again. Thanks.; April 17, 2008 1:21 PM
dwit said...: Ed,

I got a kick out of how the mayor of Sderot tried to sway Carter by showing him the mangled casings of Qassam rockets. Oddly enough, Israeli missiles launched from gunships at civilians in Gaza are so powerful, any casings would be indistinguishable in the rubble.

Also notice how Carter was snubbed by Olmert and Likudnik Netanyahu for meeting with the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leader of Gaza?

What a couple of goons. Carter met with terrorist, Menachem Begin, in the 70's and nobody batted an eye then.

Let's not forget, as leader of the Irgun, Begin was the one who gave the order to bomb innocent civilians in the King David Hotel.

He didn't even mind that 17 Jews were killed along with the British and Arabs. Talk about coldblooded killers!

How they have managed to pull the wool over the collective American eye is astounding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing; April 17, 2008 1:45 PM
ed iglehart said...: Dwit,

From the UN, On qassams

11 Israeli civilians, including four children, have died since 2004, from the 2,696 Qassam rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups from the Gaza Strip into nearby Israeli towns, particularly Sderot.

...the total number of Israelis,both civilians and Israeli Defence Force (IDF) combatants, killed by Palestinian armed groups and individuals, is declining. In contrast the total number of Palestinians, both civilians and combatants killed by the Israeli security forces or Israeli individuals, remains relatively high. In 2007, for example, for every one Israeli death there were 25 Palestinian deaths compared to 2002 when the ratio was 1:2.5.

Yamaha (or whatever), Glad to see you've got an open mind...
If you want to see a comprehensive poll on electability, try this
(pdf)

xx
ed

Salaam, etc. ed; April 17, 2008 2:17 PM
jpsedona said...: Yamaka,

You said:

"If we use the General Election Methodology (the most relevant and sensible) she has already 263 delegates, and with PA and IN she will have more than 300 delegates in the Electoral College.

What more do you need from a Nominee?

It is the artificial aberration of the DNC Rules that make BHO a leader by barely 20 delegates, if you include ALL votes polled. Another 950 delegates outstanding. I believe it is the SDs who would Nominate the candidate this year."

1) There is no such thing as a "General Election Methodology" based on primary results. I think it's unlikely that the Dems take FL (especially based on the uproar over the delegates to the Dem convention). Additionally, with a Rep Gov in FL who has extremely high popularity across all demographics, I don't see FL in the Dem column. You also allude to TX as a battle ground state... neither Dem can carry Texas. If she's such a great candidate and has political operations savy, why didn't SHE blow away Obama in the caucuses???

2) What more do we need? How about a candidate that isn't a habitual liar? I agree that Hillary is a political veteran. However, she makes her decisions on what's politically expedient. That's why she voted for the war. Why she flip flopped later. It's why she moved to NY to run as a Senator. She's indeed a fighter... she will do anything to win. She will turn on anyone if it's to her benefit to do it. She is not well liked because she is just not a likeable person. Voters want someone they can like. If people liked her, why are her unfavorable ratings higher than they've been since her healthcare debacle? Voters want someone they can trust. This is why McCain is neck-and-neck with both Dem candidates right now.

3) As far as being an abboration that Obama is ahead, the CLINTONS controlled the DNC for 8 years. They had every opportunity to change the rules with respect to delegates / superdelegates. Why didn't they? Because Bill & Hillary assumed that when she ran for President, all of the political insiders (SD's) would support Hillary. With a majority of the SD's, she wasn't supposed to have to run as hard and it would all be over by Super Tuesday.

4) Obama ahead by only 20 delegates? That is laughable. There is no way anyone with a shred of sense would count Hillary's delegates from MI with Obama getting zero. Never going to happen.

Independent of how badly you want her to win, her chances are quickly approaching zero. Obama is picking up one or two SD's a day vs. almost none for Clinton. If there's anyone to blame, she only needs to look in the mirror and at Bill.; April 17, 2008 2:19 PM
Yousri said...: Poll Shows Obama Ahead as Candidate Dems See as Most Likely to Win in November
POLL: Obama Surges on Electability; April 17, 2008 2:23 PM
dwit said...: Strong arguments JP!; April 17, 2008 2:35 PM
Yousri said...: For anyone interested in Popular Votes, Electibilty, Experience, Caucuses vs Primaries, Electoral Votes, Winner takes all Rule and Big State - Swing States etc. see this post:
Analyzing Sen. Clinton's Campaign Talking Points.; April 17, 2008 2:37 PM
Anonymous said...: The Pennsylvania Democratic Primary may soon be known as the Best primary money can't buy.
Obama has spent over $5 million there and if he can't take it, he is in deep crap in the general.; April 17, 2008 2:50 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka said:"I am NOT a women-hater like many of the BHO supporters are."
_________________

Yamaka-
What factual evidence do you have to support that statement? I am a woman and an Obama supporter and I am NOT a woman-hater. I dislike Hillary because of her character not because of her gender.

I personally know 100's of Obama supporters and not one of them are not voting for her because of gender. Her character and baggage are more than enough to use as deciding factors in choosing not to vote for her.

I am a 48 year old woman and I hope that some day in my lifetime that I will be able to vote for a woman for president - but Hillary is the WRONG woman.

I do NOT believe there are 'many' people out there that hate women.; April 17, 2008 2:54 PM
RobH said...: Always, when you can lay two pieces of video side by side of a single individual saying two absolutely contrary things, it is very powerful.

And, in fact, if the pieces themselves are on the subject of people seeking honesty and consistency in their public officials, and the speaker is the one exposed, it is even more powerful.

And finally, if they are presented in an unbiased manner, with no shrill position taking by the "exposer", it is most effective.

For 3:15 seconds of good claen American fun, check out this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exsmFDYyK4U; April 17, 2008 2:58 PM
UUbuntu said...: Yamaka --

Glad to see you read my blog entry. What was your favorite part and why?

I missed the part where you talk about her experience. What about her experience gives you such hope about her future presidency?; April 17, 2008 2:59 PM
Amot said...: Leah is the RIGTH woman!
Vote LEAH!!!
Leah I suggest you run as Obama's VP :)

MSM, I am glad to read your comment and about the way you try to stay well informed!!! Congrat's!

Jim, $5M should be enough to win a primary? What about Clinton spending $150M and winning only a dozen of states? She should have 30 in her pocket by that measure! I offer you another challange - give her 10$M to spend in Hawaii and we shall see if she can win there! Jim, you can be more reasonable!

All of you - don't take numbers out of the contests! I know you want to twist the numbers in favor of your beloved candidate, but let's debate with real arguments !; April 17, 2008 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Amot,
Name one state where hillary outspent Obama and lost. Then see how many he outspent her and lost.; April 17, 2008 3:16 PM
jpsedona said...: Jim,

I honestly don't believe that the results of a primary directly relate to the general election. I find in inconceivable that McCain could win NY or CA, even though Obama lost in those states in the primaries. Similarly, the chances of Obama winning Utah or Texas are zero to none.

I think that with Rendell & Casey supporting Obama in the general election, he'd have a good shot at PA. The difficulty for either Dem candidate in PA for the general election is that McCain really has a very broad appeal to Independents and more moderate voters. People genuinely like his maverick style. You can denounce his position on the war and other issues, but the boy sure has a track record of working across the aisle with Dems.; April 17, 2008 3:17 PM
UUbuntu said...: Robh -- Ouch!

That YouTube link is cute and very funny. Not very complementary and a bit Micheal Moore-ish, but I'm glad you posted the link. Thanks.; April 17, 2008 3:24 PM
Amot said...: They spent equally on Super Tuesday, I don't have the figures for each states but obviously she lost several when she outspended him! BTW no one stops her from spending in PA.. it is just she is broke. For a glorious candidate she pretends she is it's a bad omen. McCain won the nomination with lesser amount she spend for a week on Super Tuesday. It looks to me her money can't persuade the voters. Were it not the old white women afraid of change, she would be out long time ago (I think the same about Obama and black men though he has much larger base).; April 17, 2008 3:24 PM
ed iglehart said...: Amot,

I reckon thjere are quite a few white gals who also like Obama! :-)
ed; April 17, 2008 3:31 PM
dwit said...: JP,

I used to think McCain was unstoppable with independents, but my two Libertarian-independent buds hate the guy. They were very disappointed when Ron Paul dropped out, but immediately went for Obama. They are ready for some new ideas.

I suspect that many conservative-independents will break for Obama. Most independent liberals have, despite the conventional wisdom that ALL progressives love the Clintons.; April 17, 2008 3:32 PM
jpsedona said...: dwit,

You may be correct about conservative-independents breaking for Obama. It really depends upon the nature of the general election.

As for Libertarian-independents; I hardly think that they are moderates if they support Ron Paul. I am not sure that conventional labels work for Ron Paul, but he is certainly not a moderate by any stretch.; April 17, 2008 3:41 PM
UUbuntu said...: Jim: "Name one state where hillary outspent Obama and lost. Then see how many he outspent her and lost."

Aside from the fact that I don't have that information at my fingertips (do you have a link for the state-level spending figures?), your point strikes me as a red herring. To me the issue is that her organization isn't generating the income it needs to outspend his campaign.

For better of for worse, Obama's campaign is generating a LOT of money. This allows his campaign to outspend hers.

Frankly, while I believe that Clinton will make a slightly better President than Obama, the quality of the campaign organizations is miles apart, and the Obama campaign's money-generating and resource-allocating ability shows this difference.

In many ways, it comes down to this: If Obama wins PA, the race is over. Period. If Clinton wins PA by less than 10-12 points, the race is almost over, pending some miracle in NC. If Clinton wins by 20 points or more, then the race is on, as she'll have a point she can use to persuade superdelegates for their support.

Right now, I see a 10 (+/- 3) point victory for Clinton in PA. That will be the same margin she had in OH. It won't be enough to secure her superdelegate case, and the door will start to close on her campaign.

Both campaigns know this, and that's why there's so much money being spent right now.; April 17, 2008 3:42 PM
Anonymous said...: amot,
I really wasn't asking for assumptions, Just facts.
We all know Obama has the bucks now and it appears he may not be able to buy PA.; April 17, 2008 3:46 PM
UUbuntu said...: To MSMWatch2008:

For possibly lumping your identity with others, I apologize if I am incorrect.

Let's make our future interactions only about about this post and this link. I'd like to know what you think of them.; April 17, 2008 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...: I realize that no supporter of either Clinton or Obama will be swayed or turned by the other side
using reason or facts and surely not opinion.
I do see attacks of a demeaning or vicious nature on one candidate actually causing people from the opposite persuasion to switch.
These spiteful attacks on Clinton
you see on many blogs probably garner her more support, not less; April 17, 2008 4:07 PM
jpsedona said...: Tyler,

I think you pretty much hit the point when you said:

"Right now, I see a 10 (+/- 3) point victory for Clinton in PA. That will be the same margin she had in OH. It won't be enough to secure her superdelegate case, and the door will start to close on her campaign.

Both campaigns know this, and that's why there's so much money being spent right now."

I'm sure Obama would like to win PA, but I think the real strategy is minimize Hillary's margin of victory. If he wins, it's a bonus. But I think it's all about delegates. The districtwide numbers are not going to change much (she should pick up a net margin of +3). But unless she scores massive numbers in the statewide margin, she's barely going to dent his lead. If she wins by 15%, she will pick up a net 10 delegates or so.

The Obama strategy at this point is to run out the clock (to use a baseketball analogy). He'll win a subtantial margin of delegaes in in NC (20-25) and even if Hillary wins IN, the delegates from those three primaries will be a wash.

If Obama continues to gain one or two SD's a day for the next few weeks, it will be all over after May 6. He'll have locked up the win in pledged delegates, victories, pand opular vote (including FL & excluding MI). He'll also have overtaken Hillary in superdelegates.; April 17, 2008 4:16 PM
dwit said...: JP,

Who said anything about moderates? I said ALL historically disenfranchised groups are and will break for Obama. Independents of both stripes are very much on board with "change" of any kind at this point.

BTW, I make no distinction between Libertarian and Conservative independents. That demographic is roughly the same. I use the term interchangeably. If they are "end-timers" they are not independents. They are sheep!

Heck, I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for fiscally. I just have to part ways with his silly evangelical streak.

If Bob Barr comes into the race, he will peel independents off of both Obama and McCain. Probably more from "Baghdad John" in my estimation.; April 17, 2008 4:48 PM
RobH said...: Jim, I couldn't have said it any better than you did:

"I do see attacks of a demeaning or vicious nature on one candidate actually causing people from the opposite persuasion to switch."

That explains precisely why every time Hill goes negative (and by that I mean using Rove tactics) people do switch from her to him.
They're genuinely disheartened by by that approach. Check out the trend lines in RCP for PA. She overbeat the 'bitter' drum, and people walk away to the other side.; April 17, 2008 4:52 PM
Dave in NC said...: Greetings from the front.

Today is the first day of early voting in North Carolina. I voted today and, in fact cast the first provisional ballot in Mecklenburg County. That's what happens when you switch parties near the deadline and then try to vote early. They tell me that people were switching parties at the rate of over 3,000 per day in Mecklenburg County alone and they are a week behind getting the data entered into the system.

I can safely say that Obama was ahead 1-0 in paper ballots earlier today, but by the activity I saw as I patiently waited for my issue to be resolved, I would guess that he was ahead by about 100-0. Everyone in line had on an Obama button. It was as much of an Obamafest as his campaign office was a few minutes later when I went in there for some buttons and yard signs.

There is a growing sense that North Carolina will be Obama's coronation and the excitement is palpable. Although the polls put him ahead by 21-24 points, I believe he is going to win in NC by at least 30 points.

It's good to see our NC Supers are
breaking his way too!

Gobama!; April 17, 2008 5:01 PM
Yamaka said...: I was once a BHO supporter, till I read in his book Dreams From My Father, where he wrote,

"I found a solace in nursing the pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race".

BHO: Why so much animosity against Whites? Your White mother and grandparents raised you in a comfortable middle class family. Your forefathers did not have the scars of slavery or discrimination.

I know what you will say. Some more lies about your intent. One of those "mangled thoughts of bitterness"!

You also wrote,

"Never emulate White men and Brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father''s image, the Black man, the son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself".

Now I know why you went to join the anti-White militant Black church of TUCC of Wright, where Farrahkhan is a favorite. Don't start rationalizing your thoughts. You are full of lies - a pathological liar.

Folks, this site is often visited by SDs, I know. They read our posts.

Many of the Oba supporters are from dis-functional families, where they hate their mothers, sisters and wives. Yes, for them it is the "Women Thing" - the gender. Their lives are failures, they cannot see a woman breaking out the glass ceiling!

They have to see a shrink!

Yes, MI and FL matter the most at this close contest. Their delegates WILL be seated.

PA and IN will give HRC the lead she deserves! NC is a Black State. BHO will win there. Where else his Blackness matters more?

Stay tuned. Cheers.; April 17, 2008 5:04 PM
countjellybean said...: Yamaka wrote:

PA and IN will give HRC the lead she deserves! NC is a Black State. BHO will win there. Where else his Blackness matters more?

Jim and MSMwatch, care to comment?; April 17, 2008 5:30 PM
Anonymous said...: countjellybean
"Jim and MSMwatch, care to comment? "

Comment on what? That you quote another post which you solicit comments for without addressing it for yourself.; April 17, 2008 5:48 PM
RobH said...: Yamaka,

you are a complete hoot.....

reading your post, I felt the way Hillary must have when she dismissed that reporter's question re Bills $800K from Columbian trade advocates. Just totally laughing. Where do you even begin......

But anyway, with no animosity behind this, could you tell me where you got your secondary education?

I'm not dissing. See my post to msmwach2008 earlier. I'm being friendly. I just gotta know. Please answer seriously.

Thanks.; April 17, 2008 5:49 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Everyone watch this one!

White Haired Women for Obama

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tpDTvlSd0x4

Go ahead and try to spin that one ;p

:); April 17, 2008 6:05 PM
Anonymous said...: The IQ of people who post on UTube is fairly high, the IQ of people who view the videos is in the middle and the IQ of people who believe that stuff it is fairly low.; April 17, 2008 6:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Some anti-Obama stuff, ie Rev Wright and the Weather Undergroung, is fodder for fools.
Some stuff on Clinton is equally dumb.

Use your brain and Google, then make a reasoned and intelligent decision; April 17, 2008 6:33 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Yamaka said:
"She has won the battle-ground States of OH, FL, TX (primary) and most likely PA and IN.

"If we use the General Election Methodology (the most relevant and sensible) she has already 263 delegates, and with PA and IN she will have more than 300 delegates in the Electoral College."

Again it is asked of you, where in the delegate selection rules does it discuss "General Election Methodology"? Cite the EXACT place where "General Election Methodology" is discussed.

Hint - the Democratic Party nominee is selected by delegate count, and no other method is used. None. So shut up about the "General Election Methodology". Maybe you should campaign to include that in the 2012 selection process (and see how fast you get laughed out of the discussion), but it's not in there now.

As to your "General Election Methodology", do you think that Clinton will win Texas and Indiana in the General Election? Please explain why.

FYI - Do you know the last time Indiana voted for the Democratic Party nominee for President? Try 1964, when LBJ got 55.98% to Goldwater's 43.56% of the vote.

The time before that? 1936, when FDR got 56.63% of the Hoosier state's vote to Landon's 41.89% of the vote.

A history lesson for you - here's how Indiana voted in the last 25 Presidential elections (with the Democratic winner highlighted in bold:
1908: Taft - 48.40%, Bryan - 46.91%
1912: Wilson - 43.07%, Roosevelt (Bull Moose) - 24.75%, Taft 23.11%
1916: Hughes - 47.44%, Wilson - 46.47%
1920: Harding - 55.14%, Cox - 40.49%
1924: Coolidge - 55.25%, Davis - 38.69%
1928: Hoover - 59.68%, Smith - 39.59%
1932: FDR - 54.67%, Hoover - 42.94%
1936: FDR - 60.80%, Landon - 36.54
1940: Willkie - 50.45%, FDR - 49.03%
1944: Dewey - 52.38%, FDR - 46.73%
1948: Dewey - 49.58%, Truman - 48.78%
1952: Eisenhower - 58.11%, Stevenson - 40.99%
1956: Eisenhower - 59.90%, Stevenson - 39.70%
1960: Nixon - 55.03%, Kennedy - 44.60%
1964: Johnson - 55.98%, Goldwater - 43.56%
1968: Nixon - 50.29%, Humphrey, 37.99% (Wallace got 11.45% of the vote)
1972: Nixon - 66.11%, McGovern - 33.34%
1976: Ford - 53.32%, Carter - 45.70%
1980: Reagan - 56.01%, Carter - 37.65%
1984: Reagan - 61.67%, Mondale - 37.68%
1988: Bush - 59.84%, Dukakis - 39.69%
1992: Bush - 42.91%, Clinton - 36.79% (Perot got 19.77% of the vote)
1996: Dole - 47.13%, Clinton - 41.55% (Perot got 10.50% of the vote)
2000: Bush - 56.65%, Gore - 41.01%
2004: Bush - 59.94%, Kerry - 39.26%

Four wins by the Democratic nominee in the state of Indiana in the last 100 years. And it appears that you think Clinton will have any chance of winning Indiana in the General Election? Whatever it is you are drinking, smoking and/or eating, it must be some REAL powerful stuff.

Back to the primary - What margin, in delegates, do you think Clinton will win in the state of Indiana? With 72 pledged delegates at stake, do you think she will win 24 more than Obama? To do that, she will have to win by a 60-40 margin in the state.

Won't happen. Latest polls show she's ahead by about 6% points (approx 53-47).

If she wins Indiana by 10% (55-45), then she nets 4 (+/-2) pledged delegates from the state.

Even if she wins Indiana by 16% (58-42), she still only nets 4 (+/-4) pledged delegates from the state.

When you show that you have at least a basic understanding of politics and delegate selection in the primaries, then I might discuss things with you. At the current time, you show that you have NO understanding of politics.

Mike; April 17, 2008 6:43 PM
RobH said...: Wow Jim, you surprise me. On April 12, 5:36, your own words, to me, cut and pasted here:

"I never get nasty or mean. I leave that the candidates and thier more ardent supporters."

But today at 2:50PM:

"...the Best primary money can't buy. Obama has spent over $5 million there and if he can't take it, he is in deep crap..."

And going after Leah like that at 6:26PM tonight:

"...the IQ of people who believe that stuff it is fairly low..."

What changed your mind, young man?

(WOW, this GOTCHA stuff is pretty cool.); April 17, 2008 7:18 PM
Anonymous said...: RobH,
I haven't changed my mind, even though it is old and feeble.
I did not go after leah.
I simply posted an opinion and did noty mention her. She can pick her catagory if she wishes, then be offended or not.
As for the buying of PA. Again an opinion, which refered to no individual.
Anyone can embrace "If the shoe fits, wear it" term if they wish
I am kinda like a shoe store. I just offer footwear for thin skinned people.
Was there a shoe you liked in my comments?; April 17, 2008 7:38 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I posted the link to the video:

White Haired Women for Obama

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tpDTvlSd0x4

Because I thought it was very uplifting and sincere. And gave an insight to 'some' viewpoints of older southern white women.

Anyone that wants to stereotype people that go to YouTube to me seems very close-minded. Jim's words had no affect on me whatsoever.

"No one can make you feel inferior without your permission." --Eleanor Roosevelt; April 17, 2008 8:12 PM
ed iglehart said...: Go Leah!

xxxx
ed; April 17, 2008 8:18 PM
Yamaka said...: Folks, good evening.

I just heard that Obama-maniacs are angry at George and Charlie for asking tough questions last Debate Night!

What a pathetic complaint!

HRC answered the Bosnia qn gracefully, completely and honestly.

Why didn't BHO answer all the "character and judgment" qns that way?

Oh, no he is just inexperienced. He "mangles words", but has no "mangled thoughts"! No, don't ask tough questions, leave him alone! He is a novice to the National Lime Light!!

BHO, the Insurgent Manchurian Candidate: Whoever sent you, your sponsors want you to earn your bread! Sweat harder. You looked pale and drained out during the Debate. You were stammering and stuttering. What happened to your silver tongue?

Be a man, stand up and box! This is only the early rounds in the boxing!

Kitchen will be very hot now onwards. Don't cry for help.

If you think the kitchen is intolerably hot, just run away from the town! Go to your Mansion in the tony Hyde Park!!

Seriously, the first 45 min the questions were on character and judgment. Later, it moved to the "policy", where there is not much of a difference.

He wants to lift the cap on SS TAX, she does NOT.

He wants to give drivers' license to illegals, she does NOT.

BHO, where is the Beef? A front-runner with 20 delegate lead should have answers to basic questions.

Yes, my magic number is 2208.

Yes, Count ALL Votes in Democracy.

Yes, seat delegates from FL and MI.

Cheers. Enjoy the evening.; April 17, 2008 8:24 PM
dwit said...: jim said...

"These spiteful attacks on Clinton
you see on many blogs probably garner her more support, not less"

Jim I totally agree with the point that negative attacks actually hurt the mud slinger and not the receiver. At least in this election.

What you have failed to grasp is that most of the negativity toward Clinton is generally lobbed by the electorate. The nastiness being lobbed at Mr. Obama is coming directly from Hillary and Bill and people associated with her staff.

There will be no backlash against the electorate, but there certainly seems to be much against Hillary.

As I have said before, its the old "cry wolf" phenomenon. The right has worn that tact down and it seems to be bouncing off Obama.; April 17, 2008 8:28 PM
Anonymous said...: leah,
First of all, glad my words had no effect on you. As it should be,
You daid:
"Because I thought it was very uplifting and sincere. And gave an insight to 'some' viewpoints of older southern white women."
Could it be only because it favors Obama?
How does he measure up with this group, when you look at exit poll data?
I don't have a quarrel with you posting links to pro Obama stuff.
I just don't swallow your stated motivation for doing so.
It would be "uplifting" to some, so I guess it has some merit.; April 17, 2008 8:33 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 17, 2008 8:34 PM
dwit said...: Yamaka,

Nobody's angry at George and Charlie for asking "tough" questions. We are just puzzled as to why they didn't
ask relevant questions.

As I've said before, I give Pennsylvanians a little more credit than most of the media and you Clinton diehards.; April 17, 2008 8:36 PM
Amot said...: jpsedona, brilliant knowledge of PA sitiation!
No matter if he lose by 10% or wind by 1-2% CD delegates will split the same way. I think Obama's goal is one ballot under 5% margin. You only missed one point - Obama is not willing to make a great campaign in PA - he could stay there 4 weeks ans spend $20M, because if by some dirty last minute trick (3AM - TX, NAFTA - OH) she wins he could be blamed he is not able to take a state even with enormous efforts. Now he can pretend he is campaigning in all states and there is no special attention to PA. So all he needs to do is lose by one digit, better less than five, best - narrow win. I actually calculated that lose with less than 5% will split the delegates!; April 17, 2008 8:36 PM
Judy Bienvenu said...: To Demconwatch folks (Matt or Oreo)...

...just curious if y'all have any plans to publish addresses or phone numbers for the uncommitted super delegates. If not, would you happen to know of somewhere (like a link) I could find this info without looking it up for each individual super del??; April 17, 2008 8:40 PM
dwit said...: Judy,

Thom Hartmann (air America?) has such a list. I don't have it handy, but I've seen it.; April 17, 2008 8:41 PM
Judy Bienvenu said...: Yamaka said...

HRC answered the Bosnia qn gracefully, completely and honestly.

Cow-Poop! How do you mis-remember running from sniper fire? Did she accidentally confuse it with all the other times she was under sniper fire?; April 17, 2008 8:44 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Cheney had a comment about Clinton's sniper fire in Bosnia.

"She mixed up her Bosnia trip with the hunting trip she took with me."

:ast night was the first time I heard HRC EXPLICLTY state that she was mistaken on that incident. She still hasn't admitted that she spoke at least three times on that subject, twice at 9:00 AM (as in the morning). So much for Bill Clinton's 'late at night' flippant comment.

Says a lot, doesn't it?

Mike; April 17, 2008 9:08 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka said: "George and Charlie for asking tough questions last Debate Night!"
____________

The problem was that the first 52 minutes of questions were not on 'issues', they were 'tabloid' questions that have already been picked apart by the media already. The one question that the lady on the video asked was ridiculous (and disrespectful) if Obama believes in the American flag - Good God lady, HE IS A SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA!

Also, I find it funny that every time Hillary tries to throw mud it boomerangs back at her.
1) Rezko picture with Bill and Hill
2) Rev.Wright photo with the Clintons and lunch/dinner with the Clintons at the White House during the Monica fiasco
3) Bill Ayers two llweathermen friends were pardoned by President Clinton

If I was Hillary I would do some research before trying to bash Obama using the names of people the Clintons know - as someone else said 'the kitchen sink fell on her foot last night'; April 17, 2008 9:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! Someone finally had the courage to ask Obama real questions instead of seeing "if he needed another pillow"! Since January we've been seeing the annihilation of Hillary Clinton by the media because they have the power to sway millions of viewers to their points of view. Clearly Senator Clinton is the more powerful and knowledgable Democratic Candidate and many people in the news media cannot accept that a woman could actually run this country better than a man. I am not a feminist. I am a middle income, middle aged woman with 3 grown children who would like to see this country taken in a different direction. I am actually a registered Republican who will most likely vote for Hillary if she runs and John McCain if she doesn't. I say BRAVO to Charlie and George for a job well done and for finally asking the right questions; April 17, 2008 9:45 PM
dwit said...: Nice one Tony Snow!

Of course you loved it. I'm sure you, Dick, Sean and Karl had a great time at the circle jerk last night.; April 17, 2008 9:57 PM
Yamaka said...: Leah and others:

Pastor Wright has warned his disciple long time ago. He cautioned BHO,

"If the voters come to know your friendship with me, and my travel with Luis Farrakhan to Libya, your support will melt away like ice in a desert".

Is he not right, at least, on this in his view of America?

BHO knew this, and that's why he rescinded the invitation to Wright a year ago at Springfield.

Why is he not telling the truth? Oh, truth is a hard thing to bear!

Your assertion that that woman should ask nice kind simple question is quite laughable. The voters have the right to ask anything they deem appropriate. This is America, for God's sake!

In Obamaland, is it an "Obamination" to ask the right question! LOL.

Cheers.; April 17, 2008 10:04 PM
dwit said...: Oh Yamaka, I guess I missed your source on that quote. But, then again that's what Karl Rove and Hillary are all about.

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."—”

-George Bush; April 17, 2008 10:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Main streem America needed to hear those questions last night, the majority of them are not as involved as the bloggers are and Hundreds and hundreds of bloggers have been wanting to know the answer to those questions that were asked last night..Questions were fair, low key for what's to come when the other side gets going..if he can't handle what he was given last night then no way can he handle a 3 a.m. phone call...Jaws clinched, eyes dark, knuckles white, needed a pillow..I didn't hear all this outrage when Hillary got the short end of the stick, which was all the time...Remember who you CHOOSE to hang with is very important..We always asked our kids, who you going with, who's going to be there, remember the reason for that??Has anyone really read his book? I mean really read it? Most I think not, just wanted to look cool buying it..I think most will be shocked when they take it off the shelf, dust it off and actually open it and read some of the writings and rantings of this man...Look at the level of people endorsing him today..What's wrong with people today is the same thing that was wrong when the sheep went to the slaughter and voted for Bush..Wake Up..
Debates are supposed to reveal the bottom line positions of the candidates. With the overwhelming amount of them this election year asking questions on relevant topics that haven't been answered before is becoming impossible. Thank God this process has already long passed the two states I live in.The issue I see is this is again turning into a beauty contest, we could probably better resolve this with a show called "Presidential Idol" the way this is going. And the sad thing is if Obama is elected we are probably going be stuck with another unexperienced clown in office who will get us into an even greater maelstrom of foreign policy nightmare. What was good about the questions asked in this debate was the fact that it caught Obama off guard and he couldn't respond with the typical canned answers and charisma about subjects he knew little or nothing about and he frequently looked like the proverbial dear caught in the headlights. I hope the American people saw the relevance of this subtle but highly important fact and realise that the outcome of all of this will probably affect the next 8 years of their lives.Obama complained today about having other subjects being presented to them 45 minutes before the debate suggesting this was an ambush. Sorry Charlie, if you can't take a few tough questions in a debate how are you going to respond to a world crisis. Are we going to get another leader that sits reading a kiddy book for 17 minutes while it looks like Armageddon is on the rise because he's been ambushed by a hard decision. Who do you want answering the phone at 3am really comes into perspective here.
good for abc. In the debate, abc made up for the easy pass the media's given obama on important personal issues,to try to answer our question,could he beat mccain? I applaud abc for finally confronting obama on his peculiar, unexplained pastor and other associations. He can't explain these things adequately. I've never heard of any candidate in history with such questions on his basic attitude toward america, and unemployed workers. He must be grilled on his strange judgment and attitudes. What does obama take us for, idiots? Ask him what he told his kids after his pastor's sermons of hate? He thinks we should all just ignore his 20 years in rev wright's pew, and just believe anything he says is ok and for the best.
the Reverand wright issue is a real issue. He endorsed a man who is incendiary, anti-american, anti-semitic. We ought to be worried that he fraternizes with someone with radical views
Why don't we all use our brains this country has had no surplus in our budget since 1996 when Bill Clinton was in office doesn't that speak volumes to anyone. He left with a surplus and Bush has destroyed that don't we all lay in bed at night or at dinner time & consult our husbands, wives, and partners. Their advice and guidance impacts our decisions why not VOTE Clinton so we can get this country back on track...; April 17, 2008 10:14 PM
dwit said...: Joy,

I think, if you are the main "streem" then we all have much to worry about come November.

Problem with your "logic" is that most Americans are soooo over the wedge issues. We are looking for a candidate that can restore our reputation around the world and provide an economic environment where middle class Americans can reestablish themselves in numbers sufficient to maintain domestic stability.

Unfortunately Hillary has shown herself to be just another insider who will stop at nothing to maintain her power. Her sense of entitlement is just a huge turn off.

If Reverend Wright is so important then Hillary and Bill probably should not have had him as a guest at the White House.; April 17, 2008 10:26 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka said: "Your assertion that that woman should ask nice kind simple question is quite laughable. The voters have the right to ask anything they deem appropriate. This is America, for God's sake!"
__________________________

I did not assert that a nice kind simple question should have been asked - those are your words not mine.

I would say that an 'intelligent' 'issue based' question would have been more appropriate.

I will say that anyone that asks a U.S. Senator of the United States if he believes in the American flag is down right 'uneducated and ignorant' of our government. U.S. Senators take the oath of office (swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and the United States). THAT IS WHAT THE FLAG REPRESENTS!

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."; April 17, 2008 10:29 PM
RobH said...: Jim,

Disingenuous to fake you weren't going after Leah, when your post came immediately after hers and both were the only ones in the immediate thread to reference YouTube. Ditto that the proximity of "Obama/money can buy/he's in deep crap" don't constitute mean or nasty.

You're fooling yourself if you think you're being fair, but probably not the broader audience.

Glad to see Leah took no offense, too. But of course it's not because she buys your deception that you weren't really slamming her, it's just that your closed-mindedness removes you from her conciousness. A wise policy.

And no, are no shoes in your store that are worth trying on.; April 17, 2008 10:48 PM
RobH said...: Yamaka,

Glad to see you're back this evening, but sorry you haven't taken the opportunity to respond to my question. It really is innocent.

By the way 'you're a hoot' is a compliment where I come from, it means you're witty and funny.

Can you tell me where you went to school?; April 17, 2008 10:51 PM
Yamaka said...: "If Reverend Wright is so important then Hillary and Bill probably should not have had him as a guest at the White House".

Oops, did Clintons forget to attend the Church (TUCC) for the past 20 years?

Oh, ya the 9/11 comment of Wright happened when Bill was in the WH! Lol.

This is what my grades for the last Debate.

ABC (Charlie and George) A plus

HRC B

BHO D minus.

Most Debates in the past 4 months went to HRC. She is cheerful and clear headed during Debates.

On the other hand, BHO being the most inexperienced has never been comfortable in his Empty Suit during Debates! lol

"So help me God"- Leah

Which God are you referring to?

BHO was up until age 10 reading Koran and attending Mosque in Indonesia along with his stepfather Lolo, an Indonesian Muslim.

He learned/recited Koran before he read Bible, that's my point.

Between age 10 and age 26, he was like his mother Ann - very agnostic, up until he got baptized by the militant Black anti-American bigot pastor Wright at the TUCC Chicago.

I guess he invokes Allah and Jesus Christ. That's fine with me. For, God and religion are very private matters, in my view.

But BHO's assertion "I have never been a Muslim" is a cold calculated lie, flat wrong as per School Records in Indonesia!

Republican Attack Machine is doing the basic research to expose him on this!! Cheers.; April 17, 2008 11:12 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Joy-

I must say there are many things that I would like to respond to in your post above but I am not going to because I know that no matter what I say you will probably not hear my words with an open mind so I am not going to waste my time responding to each of your points, but...

but you said: "Jaws clinched, eyes dark, knuckles white, needed a pillow.."

Your 'eyes dark' comment has me perplexed. Do you have something against people with brown eyes? Do you prefer Hillary because she wears blue contact lenses?; April 17, 2008 11:15 PM
Unknown said...: Folks Obama just netted another two delegates in Ohio- based on the count in Cincinnati...Do you know what this means? This means that he is down to needing only around 45 more superdelegates to win this....if he performs as expected in the next primaries and gets his share of the ad-ons....

It is over....it has been over...

And the most non-reported story of them all-

HRC has NEVER at any point in this race been ahead in the PLEDGED delegate count....; April 17, 2008 11:15 PM
Yamaka said...: Joy Kapur:

Amen. Well Said. Keep writing.

Your logic is nice crisp and simple.; April 17, 2008 11:22 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka said: "So help me God"- Leah
Which God are you referring to?
_________________

I (personally) was not referring to any God. What was in the post above was a cut and paste of THE OATH OF OFFICE that the Senators of the United States of America take when they are sworn into office.; April 17, 2008 11:23 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 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