Saturday, February 09, 2008

Weekend Delegate Tracker

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

State Delegates
Left
% Vote In
% Clinton %Obama
Delegates Clinton
Delegates Obama
Louisiana0
100%
36%
57%
22
34
Nebraska0
99%
32%
68%
8
16
Washington20
96%
31%
68%
15
43
Virgin Islands
0
100%
8%
90%

3
Maine0
79%
41%
59%
9
15
Weekend Total20



54
111
Previously Pledged Delegates (AP)




841
857
Total Pledged Delegates



895
968
Superdelegate Endorsements



223
126
Total



1109
1079
Delegates Still Needed to Win Nomination




907
931
Total
4863
Last updated Sunday7:50 PM EST. Obama sweeps all 5 Weekend contests.
Kos says a source says Washington will go 52-26 for Obama, a net gain of 2 for Clinton over the numbers above.

We'll update with Maine numbers tonight when they come in.

Winners (popular vote) of each state have their percentage in bold.
Sources: CNN, CBS. Numbers are not final, and are subject to change.

Next is Dems Abroad, DC, MD and VA on Tuesday

192 comments:

Jamie said...

Anyone notice the lack of polling data available for the next several primary states?

Mark said...

Only thing important is to be have most pledged delegates. It would be very hard for the super delegates and democratic party leadership to go against the leader in voters' delegate, especially just a few months before general elections. So, dont worry about unpledged, super delegates, we need to win in peoples vote.

YES WE CAN

DELEGATE COUNT: http://milosh4change.blogspot.com/

NiceGuy1951 said...

What happened to Super Tuesday Table?

Matt said...

Its still there. You can find a link for it in the archives. See the note there, it is no longer being updated.

Dave said...

I'm sure you have these, but if you wanted to update the Delegates Available column...

Louisiana: 56
Nebraska: 24
Washington: 78
VI: 3
Maine: 24

Total: 185

Anonymous said...

There seem to be a discrepancy between the main table (which has Obama at 831) and the table on the left which has Obama at 821. Which one is correct?

Anonymous said...

Why are both candidates' totals lower than what you had on the super tuesday tracker?

Andrew said...

The Weekend Delegate Tracker shows 831 pledged delegates for Obama. Shouldn't it be 821 Pledged delegates. (831 and 119 do not add up to 940)

Anonymous said...

Mark's claim is interesting, but wrong. The whole point of the "superdelegate" system is to provide an override for Dem party bosses, to avoid a repetition of the 1968 and 1972 fiascos. Even if Obama manages to exceed Hillary's pledged delegate count by June, therefore, party elders may still decide that to beat, say, a McCain/Romney ticket, Hillary has to lead the ticket. Of course next time around, the system may be changed. Til then, tough cookies. Eg, Obama's supporters should start thinking "VP 'o8" and "Pres 16".

Get a Mac said...

"Tough cookies"? That's how you expect to get young Democrats and independents (whose votes were just thrown out) to support Hillary in the general election? Congratulations on winning us 4 more years of Republican rule.

Slippery Slope said...

Given that national polls show Obama to be the stronger candidate against McCain, does anyone think that the super delegates will choose Obama even if he is slightly behind Clinton in pledged delegates?

Get a Mac said...

I'm an Obama supporter, but I don't think Obama should be the nominee if he loses the pledged delegates (of course, the same applies to Hillary). Such a move would simply be too divisive for the party and will cause people who were "betrayed" to stay home on Election Day.

CAdemocrat said...

Slippery Slope:
These Polls are not accurate and does not reflect anything until the real votes are cast.

BHO was supposed to win NH and come close or even beat HRC is NJ,CA,NV and MA. It was not close.
HRC was shown to beat BHO in MO and CT. See Polls are not accurate.

The Repub machine will all unite under Mccain with their PAC attacking the democratic candidate

With Hillary, everyone knows her negatives and what more can they bring.

Latinos are not going to vote for BHO. The independent vote which carried BHO is going to be split with McCain. I dont know BHO - he has not done much to get my vote.
I like his stump speeches but is terrible during debates ---> McCain is also not much of a speaker ( except for speaking about the IRAQ War). So that is a wash.

I hope it is a Clinton-Obama ticket and this will unite the party. Praying for that- otherwise it will McCain--> 4 more years of Bush --- Bush on steroids

Anonymous said...

I will not vote for an Obama-Clinton ticket...Clinton-Obama is doable.

But if it's Obama-Clinton, I'll go for McCain-Huckabee and so will ALOT of moderate democrats.

Independent4BHO said...

Do you honestly think If HRC ran against JM she would be able to attract the Moderate and Independent vote? Not to mention the Conservative base igniting to rally against her.

The Nineties are over, Clinton represents a step backward and is part of the problem not the solution.

Running HRC against McCain would guarantee 4 more Republican years.

Anonymous said...

I think Clinton-Obama is a winning ticket if they both can agree to this and Clinton agree to serve only one term, so Obama can run in 2012.

Anonymous said...

But if it's Obama-Clinton, I'll go for McCain-Huckabee and so will ALOT of moderate democrats.

If you prefer the war last another 100 years, want safe legal abortions threatened for another four years, thats your vote.
HRC/BHO or BHO/HRC either way it is a strong historical change.

Ravi said...

my friend and i are tracking delegates here:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pKbT3CfreIXaxiQ6WLXDPKw

feel free to use this data or link to! we're trying to keep this as up to date as possible.

cbsmith42 said...

Jamie, www.pollster.com and www.realclearpolitics.com now have polls, if you haven't seen them yet.

Anonymous said...

For Rave:
Your Excel spreadsheet is not complete, you may updated from here, Obama-08 Web site
http://origin.barackobama.com/resultscenter/

Anonymous said...

For Rave,

You Excel spreadsheet is not up-to-date.
you can compare it to there numbers from Obama web site
http://origin.barackobama.com/resultscenter/

Ravi said...

isn't that a biased source? heh

NiceGuy1951 said...

For anyone who keeps track of the democratic delegates numbers.

I have an Excel Worksheet, that consist of 5 spreadsheet, which includes all democratic delegates broken down by presidential candidates and by state as well as super delegates with name, position, state and their endorsements.

You can open it with Excel and sort and manipulate the data anyway you want.


Here is the URL
http://home.cfl.rr.com/yousri/vote.xls

krebzy said...

A Clinton-Obama ticket will be foolish. Hill's got too many negs and if it takes "superdelegates" to make her the Prez...there will be people in the streets.
Party bosses choosing the President? brrrrrrrring, brrrrrring...Stalin's on the phone. He'd like to congratulate us for proving Lenin and the Bolsheviks had it right all along.
idiots

Matt said...

Someone asked above: Why are both candidates' totals lower than what you had on the super tuesday tracker?

Because the Super Tuesday numbers were from a combination of sources, and I tended to use the ones with the largest numbers. For a baseline, however, we're using the AP numbers, and they were a bit lower, although they've shot up today.

Anonymous said...

You Dems have poor memories. In 1984, Gary Hart led Mondale in delegates going into the convention, but the party bosses (Super Delegates) gave the nomination to Mondale.

Gary Hart was actually very much like Obama (except for being half black).. had charisma, said vague platitudes like "I have new ideas" (but would never say what those ideas were)

Matt said...

You're the one with the faulty memory. Mondale had more pledged delegates than Hart, he just didn't have 50%+1 until the superdelegates were added. On June 7, 1984, the article below says Mondale led Hart by over 700 delegates, and since there were 556 superdelegates, Mondale clearly had a lead in pledged delegates also.


http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50616FB395F0C748CDDAF0894DC484D81

Anonymous said...

Super delegates are the hopefully "wiser" members, who from "experience", keep the enthusiastic newbie candidate with a great stump speech from accidentally destroying the Party. Obama, unlike JFK, is not a veteran, or 12 yr. federal legistlator. Unlike Bill Clinton, he does not have 8 yrs of executive experience behind him as a Governor. By the time Bill ran, he was a recognized leader of the centrist movement in the DP. Obama will be qualified one day soon, but is not yet qualified to be President. Really just a Fact. The super delegates nod to Hillary will represent the proverbial "pat on the head" for a young Obama not quite ready to fulfill his great ambitions. The fact that he and his supporters obliquely threaten mass defections points to immaturity and lack of statesmanship - a "must" in the next President.

karry said...

February 09, 2008 12:26 AM
Anonymous said...

Super delegates are the hopefully "wiser" members, who from "experience", keep the enthusiastic newbie candidate with a great stump speech from accidentally destroying the Party. Obama, unlike JFK, is not a veteran, or 12 yr. federal legistlator. Unlike Bill Clinton, he does not have 8 yrs of executive experience behind him as a Governor. By the time Bill ran, he was a recognized leader of the centrist movement in the DP. Obama will be qualified one day soon, but is not yet qualified to be President. Really just a Fact. The super delegates nod to Hillary will represent the proverbial "pat on the head" for a young Obama not quite ready to fulfill his great ambitions. The fact that he and his supporters obliquely threaten mass defections points to immaturity and lack of statesmanship - a "must" in the next President.

###################################

Thank you for your words of wisdom. This is what I have been trying to say for some time.

though as a hillary supporter some have taken offense and my old lady points of view.

it is delightful that someone has put it so clearly in this forum.

now I can retire to FL and get registered for the GE in November.

but I am sure to keep dave updated on the Electoral College Count and I am sure ben will ensure I don't tout the experience.

later folks.

Karry

Anonymous said...

To all of you who are praising the Super Delegate system using the argument that wise party elders know more, deciding what is better for us, thus saving us from ourselves.

Well I just had eight years of lying, manipulation of facts, misinformation, blatant disregard for the constitution all under the guise that it was for my security, and the arrogant bastards that perpetrator these atrocities tell me they know what is better for me, and that they are not accountable to the same laws we all abide everyday, and as I recall there was a lot of noise back in 2000 when the supreme court took the election out of the voters hands, and gave them the White House.

I say

"NOT NOW, NOT AGAIN!!!"

Anonymous said...

Do you have a feeling that we will know the result of the general election in Nov. 2008, before we will know the final result from Super Tuseday??? LOL

RMJ said...

The DNC is providing the bulk of Hillary's advantage in Super Delegates. Approximately 110 vs 30. Since Super Tuesday new DNC commitments have broken 8 to Hillary vs 3 for Barack

RMJ said...

The DNC is providing the bulk of Hillary's advantage in Super Delegates. Approximately 110 vs 30. Since Super Tuesday new DNC commitments have broken 8 to Hillary vs 3 for Barack

Matt said...

NiceGuy51 - Please send me an email at the email address in the sidebar. Have a question about your spreadsheet.

Njeanous said...

Listen my fellow Americans...here are a few basics which the majority of us no doubt agree:
1) After 8 years of George W. Bush there is no way in hades that the American people will "elect" (coups not counted) a Republican to the White House. They are only participating in the process to keep the notion of a two-party system alive.
2) Therefore the next President will be a Democrat.
3) The entire country is sick of war and anyone who has ever supported it. Corporate and Special interests groups will implode before they allow socialized medicine to take hold in this decade. Proponents of amnesty for illegal immigrants will be out-voted by those who believe that like every other ethnicity in this country who has been born here, became naturalized, pay taxes, speak English and make contributions to the general good beyond shoddy labor, so must people coming here to take without giving...if you build it they will come and if you tear it down they will leave. There are many hispanics who want illegals out of here as well.
4) This is AMERICA not England, no more nepotists in the WHITE HOUSE!

NiceGuy1951 said...

Matt,

I have sent the email, let me know if you get it.

Gary said...

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts frmm the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy

Sophie said...

Obama is very statesmanlike and mature. I think if he gets that the "proverbial pat on the head" from party elders, it will be a great dissapointment to us and to him, but he will accept it, and with his natural grace and humility he will inpsire his supporters to back Hillary. That man is the authentic deal, and will reamin on the high ground wherever he is- but it just may not be VP.

ian said...

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/131513.asp?from=blog_last3

Results from Washington State are rolling in. Washington seems to be OBAMA country!

Anonymous said...

I'm a registered republican who will support HRC, but not BHO. It's an insult to HRC and her 35 years expereience. Let BHO pay his dues. We need the experience, not charisma.

Anonymous said...

From Hillary Clinton's Speech at Maine - I like it especially the comment about Ted and Kerry

Superdelegates are, by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment. That is the way the system works. But, of course, if Sen. Obama and his campaign continue to push this position, which is really contrary to what the definition of a superdelegate has historically been, I will look forward to receiving the support of Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Kerry," she said in Maine. Both senators are from Massachusetts, a state Clinton won on Super Tuesday.

(Here, she's trying to tie Obama to the first version of his position on the issue; his current position is that superdelegates should more or less follow the pledged delegates.)

Anonymous said...

You know, we should all launch a campaign on Facebook...and just by the college party bingers we can become the president of the USA. :D

Anonymous said...

Your current percentage is off for Obama in Nebraska (currently states 84%....lol)

Just an FYI

clbergl said...

You might have switched the numbers for Nebraska.
Over 100% totals.

Anonymous said...

It looks like the columns for %reporting and %Obama are reversed.

Anonymous said...

LOL, now Clinton has 8453 delegates....LOL

Anonymous said...

Looks like 16-8 Obama for Nebraska.

Ben said...

A sweep for Obama and Huckabee tonight. Lol, Republicans.

Jamie said...

Chuck Todd, MSNBC reported at 8:05PM Mountain time that Virgin Islands incomplete voting suggests an Obama 2-1 delegate win, but that Obama's people still hoping for a sweep there.

Anonymous said...

Politico's reporting a 3-0 obama win in the USVI:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obama_sweeps_in_the_Virgin_Islands.html#comments

Matt said...

sorry about all the data entry problems. Should be OK now. Holding off on virgin islands results until something more official comes in.

Jamie said...

AP reporting VI is a 3-0 sweep for Obama with more than 90% of vote (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/5528393.html)

Anonymous said...

there's an addition error in pledged delegates for clinton. i'm pretty sure she doesn't have > 8000 pledges delegates. but what do i know...?

BMS said...

Based on the Nebraska Democratic Party's results at http://www.nebraskademocrats.org/content/1391/2008-Presidential-Caucus-Results, it will be 16-8 Obama in Nebraska.

CD1 will be 4-2.
CD2 will be 5-1.
CD3 will be 2-2.
At large will be 5-3.

jana said...

From DailyKos
Obama takes all VI delegates

US Virgin Islands

3 delegates
3 Obama
0 Hillary
0 still unassigned

Obama's projection was for a 2-1 take in the USVI.

Anonymous said...

Virgin Islands

Obama 89.9
Clinton 7.6

Anonymous said...

Virgin Islands
Obama 89.9
Clinton 7.6

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obama_sweeps_in_the_Virgin_Islands.html

Slippery Slope said...

Does anyone else think that Obama's speech this evening in Virginia is not only his best, but the one that will win the nomination?

I was pleased that although that CNN cut off Clinton's speech, they did cover Obama from the rope line handshaking all the way to his stage exit. CNN is so clearly for Obama - what would you expect, they are main stream media and college educated.

deflorist said...

In response to the controversy of the superdelegates, beyond the fact that the delegate system, as well as the electoral college system of elections has become archaic. The latter two were established because communications were so poor in colonial days we lacked the knowledge to understand the candidates, and so entrusted a delegate to deliver the final decision. We have outgrown this by hemispheres of tech~knowledgy!! The system needs to be changed.

Superdelegates were established during a time that it solved a problem, but the realization that the power of the superdelegate pool could be soooo determinate in a situation such as we are in, as democrats today, was bound to come along.
I personally feel the "selection" system of the superdelegates is unconstitutional. The power of the DNC, of Dean, as a method to smooth out an election is not an elected, nor a constitutional method of determining an outome of a closely contested primary election. Morally, supers should be elected representatves only, and should only represent their constituancy. Who gave who the power to affect this otherwise?? I do not understand. Well I remain hopefull, tonight rocked!!

Mrs. Palsgraff said...

What I don't understand is why CNN includes CNN in delgate counts without calling attention to the speculative nature of their predictions.

Are you sick of CNN's RIDICULOUSLY biased coverage in favor of Senator Clinton? Come check out my new blog and let me know what you think.

http://heardonkeysroar.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

CNN is very obviously for Obama...the problem is that thanks to this, CNN is losing Obama many moderate democrat votes.

Everyone should deserve their victory, and Obama is doing that with CNN's preferential treatement, therefore it's highly undeserved.

And as such, he will lose my vote to McCain, and there are MILLIONS just like me.

And you know what else he'll lose? Well, he's already lost them.....but good luck beating McCain with the latinos, and yes, that means Florida. :)

Meanwhile he can keep on getting hard over wins like Utah and Idaho, who he is probably winning just by republicans voting for him so that Clinton doesn't win.

All democrats should not be shocked if the entire US map looks red in November.

deflorist said...

Yes Slipperyslope, It was indeed his BEST. Well timed and delivered. A great example of how he can handle himself diplomatically in the white house. My lids need a tuck from the tears shed, as I was fully bouncing around the room. It was better than Iowa, and S. Carolina. It was Chinese new year, Christmas, Valentines day, et al..

protactinium said...

Well the voters have spoken today.

I see the Hilarys people have almost gone soley to "experince" issue.

This experince issue is the biggest crock i have ever heard.

Would you not have supported billgates when he was 20 years old, and just invented basic, and bought Ms dos?

Would you not have supported Martin Luther King Junior who started his civil right carrier at the age of 24, and was dead by 39.

There are many great young leaders in all throughout history. So i really wish people would start using there brains and really look up what the issues really are, instead of just touting the party lines.

Slippery Slope said...

OK, Deflorist agrees Barak Obama gave his best speech in Virgina, clearly better than Hillary Clinton's just a couple of hours earlier.

What about Maine on Sunday. Its a caucus, advantage Obama right? Or will older women give the nod to Clinton? Does anyone have polling or any other info?

DaxDiamond said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Get a Mac said...

Hillary is now touting experience, but don't forget that Bill Clinton was younger than Obama when he was first elected president.

Just because Hillary is older, it doesn't mean she has more experience. Corporate lawyer and first lady does not count as experience.

Obama has been a legislator in Illinois and Washington for longer than Hillary, and Obama accomplished all this without having a Bill to do it for him.

Anonymous said...

Bill Clinton may have been younger but had 12 years as a state executive on his resume.

Obama has 4 years in the US Senate and however many years in the Illinois state legislature.

Hillarys time as First Lady is relevent because she represented the United States on overseas trips.

What kind of foreign relations experience does Obama have?

Ben said...

What kind of foreign relations experience did Bill Clinton have?

What kind of foreign relations experience leads you to vote for the Iraq war while Obama was giving a speech against it?

Ben said...

And yes, it was Obama's best speech by far. The ending section on hope was very powerful, and his policy points were well articulated.

Get a Mac said...

Obama is not weak on foreign relations. Obama serves on the foreign relations committee in the US Senate. Hillary Clinton does not.

From Wikipedia: As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In August 2005, he traveled to Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan. The trip focused on strategies to control the world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction as a first defense against potential terrorist attacks. Following meetings with U.S. military in Kuwait and Iraq in January 2006, Obama visited Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories. At a meeting with Palestinian students two weeks before Hamas won the legislative election, Obama warned that "the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel." He left for his third official trip in August 2006, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. In a nationally televised speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke forcefully on the influence of ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.

By the way, Obama also spent 5 years in Indonesia and speaks Indonesian, which will significantly improve our relations with the world's most populous Muslim nation.

Anonymous said...

The math for Obama is simple:

NO LATINOS = NO FLORIDA = NO WHITE HOUSE

Now that's MATH I CAN BELIEVE IN!

Johhtfd said...

Obama also has a degree in Political Science with a specialization in International Relations from Columbia University. He wrote his senior thesis on international relations. Clinton's senior thesis was on community organizing.

Looks very good for Barack in Virginia. It's an open primary, which will help and the only recent poll data I could find shows Obama leading 59% to 39%.

Anonymous said...

The Florida Latinos are Cubans who vote Republican, and have a vivid memory of a Clinton administration that led a raid of storm troopers with machine guns into their community to snatch a little boy whose mother died trying to get him to America and a better life, then sent him back to Cuba where Castro used him in anti U.S. propaganda.

Do you think they would vote for Clinton?

Safia said...

We're all talking too comfortably about racism without identifying it as such: "Latinos are not going to vote for BHO." It's unfair to accuse an entire people of racism so easily, thank you very much. In any case, check out some stats: http://www.alternet.org/election08/76201/ Clinton isn't running with all the Latino votes at all.

Regarding Super Delegates, when the system was created in the 1980s, it was done to restore the power to political insiders and the elites, power that was lost after '68. It is, sadly, not the purpose of Super Delegates to represent the popular vote, but to ensure that party insiders have the power of the nomination in close races, the last word so to speak. Essentially, it enables elites to reign in the process in a manner they see fit. They have the freedom to cast their votes for primary winners (as Boxer promised she would) -- and they also have the freedom to go the other way. They can change their positions and are pledged to nobody. If the race is close and it comes down to the wire, they'll have it out until enough of them are won over to appoint (or anoint) the nominee.

Obama is running a different kind of campaign. For those who seek evidence of change, his respect for us as voters is immediate evidence of change in itself.

Regarding his experience, one only has to look at his track record and his unbelievably long list of accomplishments. People talk about his age -- but what's amazing is how much he has accomplished by 46: as a community organizer and activist for the poor, a practicing civil rights attorney, an Illinois State Senator, a U.S. Senator, a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, an advocate of national security and world peace, and on and on. He fights corruption and champions the people, we the people -- and he has the skills and experience to back it up. Lack of experience? No.

Safia said...

anon ...
The math for Obama is simple:

NO LATINOS = NO FLORIDA = NO WHITE HOUSE

Now that's MATH I CAN BELIEVE IN!

Well, that's cynicism I don't believe in. By that logic, we should all just go ahead and throw ourselves right back into the pit of the 1950s or further back. Why not the 1850s?

A change is gonna come --
like it or not
a change has come, long overdue.

Ben said...

Obama is not running such a weak campaign that relies on the wonderful, idiotic state of Florida to win the election. This stands in stark contrast to the campaigns of Gore, Kerry, and the proposed plan of Clinton.

The latinos of Florida are fully Republican and will not be voting for any Democrat.

burton00 said...

Based on the complete precinct data from Louisiana, I get a delegate breakdown of 34-22 for Obama (excludes absentee and provisional votes from split parishes at CD level).

at-large: 7-5
PLEO: 4-3
CD1: 2-2
CD2: 4-1
CD3: 4-2
CD4: 3-2
CD5: 4-2
CD6: 3-2
CD7: 3-3

AnnMarie said...

According to the delegate tracker, there are still 26 unallocated delegates from WA and LA.

But what seems to be missing is there is also unallocated delegates from Super Tuesday, I think 27 of are from CO, 8 from IL, and other states too.

Should these be included in the totals?

Also, wonderful site and great job keeping track of the delegates!

Kim said...

Under Hillary she will charge people money if they cant afford health care.

Obama belives that people want health care but they just cant afford it.

I cant afford Hillary as a president.

So I will NEVER vote for ANY ticket with Hillary on it.

burton00 said...

Including the states that voted tonight, I estimate the pledged delegate count is 1013-940 in favor of Obama (other 26 delegates are the erstwhile Edwards delegates). This allocates everything, shouldn't be off from final numbers by more than a handful of delegates pending better data from a handful of Feb. 5 states. The reason this is so far off from most media estimates is that they have not allocated many delegates from states that have not released complete precinct or CD data (these states tended to be Obama states).

S.R.S. in Washington State said...

Just need to set the stage here.

1. I'm a near lifelong Green party member. Though most of the time I do vote, many times I have felt disenfranchised by our political system.

2. For years I've voted Democratic partly after being bombarded by Democrats saying I should vote for someone who could win who holds at least some of my Green party ideals verses voting for someone I felt was a much better choice but had no or much less chance of winning. Basically the lesser of two evils approach. I hate it, but with our entrenched Two Party system, it’s unfortunately a fact of life.

3. With Obama, I finally have a candidate who I know isn't perfect but who I would actually feel good voting for. He will be good for our country. Thankfully this time I'm not alone with those thoughts as today has yet again shown. Also, I don't believe I will hear people saying they are voting for the lesser of two evils if Obama is a choice.

So, with that, I'm appealing to all of the Clinton supporters who want to go with her regardless of all of the additional damage this infighting iscausing the Democratic party. Who needs the Republicans when many people in the party and many are in the Clinton camp are willing to win the Democratic nomination at any cost. Like I tell my kids, the end NEVER justifies the means. I believe it is clear right now that Obama has a much better chance of winning against McCain than Clinton. What I'm appealing for is for these Clinton supporters to realize and accept this fact and vote for Obama in the primaries and convention. I've had to accept this fact for too many years and the same people who told me I should accept that in the years past appear unwilling to do it themselves.

I was at the Washington State Democratic Caucus today and swore to vote Democratic in the upcoming elections. I was blown away by the sheer number of voters at the caucus. The existing power base in Washington, which Clinton and McCain are deeply part of had their chance to fix things. They failed, and perhaps you can also say Obama in a way failed too since he's been there for three years, but he is much less a part of that. I believe a lot of voters showed up today at the caucuses because of the positive messages of Obama and they not only want change, it's clear they NEED change.

I know it must be hard to finally have a woman candidate get this far and then not support her. I've wanted a woman president for nearly as long as I've been able to vote, but now we need to make the choice of going with the candidate with the best odds of winning against the Republicans. Read my lips, I Do Not Want Another Republican President for the next one to two terms. I would much rather have a Green president, but that isn't going to happen, so Obama is my hope.

You know I really like Obama. I mentioned he is the first Presidential candidate who I actually feel extremely positive about, so yes, I'm biased. But now I ask all of you who have told your friends, family and me to be pragmatic and vote for the Democrat with the best odds of winning to do the same thing this time for Obama. Let's lay down the arms and focus on taking the Whitehouse. There's a long road ahead to get Obama in the Whitehouse and it shouldn't be littered with pieces of the Clinton and Obama, ripped apart by their own party. We need to bag this decision ASAP and MoveOn.

Just in case you think I don't like the Clintons, I was one of the first members in Oct 1998 of what has now become MoveOn.org. It was then named, Censure and Move On, and was formed to end the impeachment process against then President Bill Clinton. I am proud that MoveOn.org has endorsed Obama.

I always liked the Clintons. It was Hillary's few lapses of judgment and failure to accept the responsibilities of being a Senator that soured it for me. She is in congress to protect and serve the Constitution of the United States by carefully guarding and using its system of checks and balances. She and a few other Democrats clearly failed to do that with their vote for the Iraq Resolution and handed the decision to start a conflict (though not war) to President Bush that had no merit. For me, it immediately called into question her integrity. Voting for that Resolution (and a somewhat similar one recently on Iran) was a pure political move and for that I question everything about her. Sorry. She really should have been the first woman President, it was hers to lose, but blind political ambition has done her in.

Let me also be clear that I don’t believe we should pull out of Iraq without fixing the mess we made. I’m for winning in Iraq only if it means we fixed our mistake and withdrew. The Republicans talk of winning in Iraq but never explain what that really means. No matter how morally wrong it was to start the Iraq conflict in the first place, it’s now our moral obligation as occupiers of Iraq to secure the country and make sure its citizens are protected by their own leaders before leaving. Unfortunately this will take some time. I hope with Obama’s positive approach we can achieve that in two years, but I will not hold Obama to getting out when he says wants to get out. Certain goals should be set even if they can’t always be achieved.

A Green for Obama
S.R.S, Fall City, WA

Publius for Hillary said...

Congratulations to Obama and his supporters! After tonight's speech by Obama ( yes, his best), I am still a supporter of HRC, but could accept Obama as President. But, I would need HOPE. It would be the hope of someone in a lifeboat after a wreck in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, in a fog. As the onboard statistician I could see myself getting thrown overboard as I announce the dim probabilities surrounding our chances of survival. I would deserve it.
Still, I am amazed that the Obama supporters don't think that HRC's experience as First Lady counts as a type of preparatory experience for the Presidency. What matters here is that she was a confidante to Bill, someone uniquely positioned to observe his decisionmaking in both foreign and domestic crises. Hardly a grad school seminar at Columbia. Maybe even capable of learning from his "mistakes"? If that isn't experience for the Presidency, what is? Also, the difference between a state legistlator and a State Governor; or, a state legistlator and a federal legistlator is germane. Obviously. You probably need to be either a State Governor or a Federal legistlator who has real depth of experience with making FEDERAL laws - yes, in Washington. Obama has run for President for about 2 out of his 4 years as a FEDERAL legistlator. Finally, neither the 20 yo Bill Gates nor the late thirty MLK ran for President of the United States, the man with "his finger" on the Bomb! Please Obama don't press the wrong button this time! By the way, I called in "present" at work yesterday, I HOPE it works.
Does Obama really think if HRC had been President we would have launched a war into Iraq? Really?
I am also surprised about the indignation over super delegates. Let's be clear. The U.S. Constitution is SILENT on the subject, as it is on primaries. The supporters of the Constitution supported natural political aristocracies as one, and only one of the checks within government, and equally on the tyranny of the mob. No one ever died from reading the Federalist Papers. The super delegates are a "check" on the rule of the mob not a replacement for rule by the people. Maybe, just maybe, they have more time to study the relevant questions and meet the candidates. You think? Remember that HRC is polarizing because she has had so much time with a Republican bull's-eye on her back. The first piece of threatening legistlation proposed by a newbie Obama will introduce him to the meaning of partisianship and the horrors, oh the horror of Politics in Washington. He can orate, but can Obama negotiate? We'll see. Until then, there is always HOPE ( for TX/OH/Penn ).
Thanks to the folks keeping us updated. No arguments there.

Get a Mac said...

Publius, being first lady does not grant you a security clearance. Spouses of CIA agents don't get classified information, and neither does the spouse of the president.

Obama never said that Hillary would have attacked Iraq. His argument was that she was in a position to (at least try to) prevent the war. By authorizing the war, Hillary either displayed poor judgment or was too weak to stand up to Bush.

If you were not aware, presidents do not submit "legislation." Nevertheless, "Newbie Obama" has been a legislator for longer than Hillary. Moreover, Obama has proven he can work with the other side, while Hillary has proven she can NOT work with the other side. Hillary's health plan will die unless Democrats have enough seats to avoid a filibuster.

Finally, if you believe that voters cannot be trusted and need "guidance" by the elite, then you simply do not believe in democracy.

Carrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carrie said...

Two thoughts, in no particular order:

1) Anyone else want to believe that the nom loser would and could rally his or her support behind the winner? Making either electability argument moot? Fantasy, maybe, but it would be nice.

2) I have a new found appreciation for just how much work this site must be to maintain! I'm looking for a table with the following candidates:

- State
- Candidate (both dem and repub)
- Vote count
- Vote count as % of all registered voters
- Vote count as % of all people who voted in the Bush/Kerry election (could be >100%), ideally adjusted for pop change by state

I think this will have to come from a variety of sources. I was trying to do it myself because it's a bit much to ask for, and pretty much was able to fill in state and candidate.

Can you point me to some resources?

Thanks!

Publius for Hillary said...

Well Mac, it looks like you poured some goo in my claims. No, Presidents don't submit legislation,technically. They have legislators do that, yup. Here's a nice little snipet from the net:
"Two sources speaking on condition of anonymity said Bush would outline a set of principles rather than a detailed piece of legislation, and that the policy statement would draw on bills already pending in Congress."
Well, guess what, both HRC and BHO might end up doing stuff like that too. OK?!??!Sometimes Presidents present legislation through legislators, they do, oh boy do they.
Now, the security clearance stuff is quaint. Neither Bill nor Hillary would be foolish enough to admit to the disclosure of "classified info" by Bill; BUT, guess what, methinks they talked about stuff.
Your war argument is a problem for you because it falsifies your claim that Hillary can't "work with the other side". This is a case for you folks where she did work with the other side and now you're mad! Admittedly her justification of her vote is nuanced and as such looks suspect to those who hate nuance ( moderation?), but it is prima facie evidence of bi-partisanship.
The "don't like democracy" barb hurts. Or not. Please read The Federalist Papers. Many were written by James Madison the "author" of the U.S. Constitution. It's a start. See especially "Federalist 10 pp. 16" It should begin to clear up the difference between a representative republic which we have and a democracy which we don't have. Hey ask Barack about this one. I think he knows the answer. He taught ConLaw.
Now, the whose got more time as a legislator thing is perhaps a MAC problem. I looked at my post on my MAC and it says "FEDERAL" legislator on my computer. What about yours? Having said all of this, nice post.

Carrie said...

Re: party elites having free will and a voice over the hoi palloi

This is a democracy in which anyone with enough support can get onto the ballot. The DNC and the RNC have the power to get someone on every time. In a wise strategic move, they ask for potential GE voters' opinions - even those who aren't actually committed to the party.

The more I've thought about it, the more I've come to the conclusion that it is fair. The party elite got there b/c they were either elected by the people, or by the most active and committed members of the party.

So, one argument for the fairness and justice of their voting their free will and holding more control and power in the nomination process is that they're there to act as stewards of the party - they're "true blue" and are there to make sure the party maintains its core values, that the direction of the party isn't overwhelmed by independents or meddling or x-over republicans.

Publius for Hillary said...

Excellent comment Carrie. It just doesn't get any clearer than that. It reminds me of something I think Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except every other form of government".

Anonymous said...

What is happening with the "unallocated" delegates in the various states? Can someone do the math and give us a grand total assuming how these will be allocated? I'm tired of the media telling me "Clinton is in the lead" when in fact, I don't believe that is true...if all are counted.

Matt said...

Above, Carrie asked for:

- State
- Candidate (both dem and repub)
- Vote count
- Vote count as % of all registered voters
- Vote count as % of all people who voted in the Bush/Kerry election (could be >100%), ideally adjusted for pop change by state

The Green Papers http://www.thegreenpapers.com/ should have the 2004 information. Current registered voters? Probably have to go to each state to find that. good luck!

Safia said...

I can understand some of your very salient points, but "overwhelmed by independents?" So, if the voice of the country is calling for a change in course, it needs to be cut off at the pass? (The "independents" can't do that alone; they can only do it with one of the other parties). You're right about the SDs being "stewards" of the party (stewards are usually appointed), and that isn't very democratic because although many of these SDs no longer hold the offices they were once elected to, they have a lot of power over the final decision. It isn't even very "representative republic" since term limits have no place (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore are all SDs). It's very... aristocratic, and troubling.

If Clinton wins, we will have had TWO families in the White House for nearly 30 years. Imagine that. Who needs the popular vote? Isn't Jeb looking to run next time around?

Rather than tipping our hats to the elites with the notion that they have more "time" to understand the issues, (when, in fact, many of them probably have less time and some of them are totally out of touch with the majority of the country), we need to be sure that WE understand the issues, not just at home but abroad, and cast our votes accordingly. Abdicating that responsibility is no different than the responsibility to the country and the Constitution that Congress abdicated in 2002.

and to anon who "will personally feel great" because whoever s/he votes for "will still win...", huh? What is that? We are not "romantic wishful thinkers" who have been "carried away by preacher-styled campaign." We are voters who believe in social agency and striving for much-needed change. We don't believe in sitting back and letting the momentum of the power-elites or arcane bias make all the decisions for us.

(Delegates: The media isn't breaking down the delegate count on the front pages.

One of the latest counts shows Clinton with 1,108 --
Pledged: 885
Superdelegates: 223

and Obama with 1,049 --
Pledged: 918
Superdelegates: 131.

She's ahead with the SuperDelegates.

The SDs will have a say in this until the midnight hour -- they can vote for whoever they want; it isn't a reflection of the popular vote.

Matt said...

Florida is not a requirement for the Democrats. With McCain running, I think it will be hard for either Obama or Clinton to take it. As in 2004, Ohio, and maybe states like Iowa and some purple southwest states like Colorado and New Mexico, and hopefully Virginia will bring this home for the Democrats.

Da Weaz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

You just fail to see the fact that the states Obama won in will not turn blue without a HUGE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

You think that the republicans will allow Utaha and Kansas and what not to turn blue? I'll tell you what...you'll be lucky if you see Obama's name in the ballots in those states.

And the independents are more fickle than the superdelegates themselves! The independents don't exactly hate McCain, so he will still get a nice chunk of them!

But you know what else McCain will get? Yes, that's right, LATINOS.

It all boils down to who has the latinos. Because latinos mean FLORIDA, and FLORIDA IS A SWING STATE WITH BIG ELECTORAL PTS.

Clinton has women and latinos.

And since when are we being so riskey to go along with the independents. Independents are not reliable! At the very last minute they can switch the vote, preacher or no preacher. And knowing the republican machine, I'm sure the ads we'll see about Obama...they won't be simple "slumlord" accusations.

Clinton has always beaten the republicans, she's safe, she got women and latinos, she has moderate democrats still under her turf...and with Obama you face huge risks. You have fickle independents, you have moderate democrats who relate better to McCain and will switch their vote for him, McCain is better with latinos than Obama so he'll get Florida.....and that's just the facts!

Sure, if you see the delegate numbers, you'll see that Obama has won alot of pledged delegates, but if you look at the potential of who can win in November, you might as well start subtracting delegates from his count because no one cares about delegates in the general elections.

The game becomes WINNER-TAKE-ALL.

That's why I have concluded that Obama is a very dangerous and capricious person for not withdrawing, despite the fact that he has lost the BASIS for a victory in November. LATINOS AND WOMEN.

He's dividing our party with riskey "independents" or college party animal strategies that are not enough to give him a firm foot on the ground. He's putting our road to the White House at risk!

And a side note, don't discount insurgent republicans voting for Obama in red states just to make sure that Hillary is not the nominee. They act as if Obama is a much tougher person to beat in November.....that's the biggest desperate lie I have ever heard. If Clinton can't set the republicans straight, no one will. Certainly not some newbie by the name of Barack Obama!

Anonymous said...

Let's just do the math:

If Hillary gets the nomination she'll have BLACKS, LATINOS AND WOMEN.

If Obama gets the nomination, he'll only have the BLACKS, because latinos go for McCain and women will be split, just like independents.

Wake up America before you make a huge mistake!

Carrie said...

I came to this site very, very angry at Obama. I'm certainly still irritated...miffed, even. But the conversations here have helped bring me back to reason. It's here I first stated I would vote for either in the GE because my values lie with them, because I'm more dedicated to my convictions than to my candidate.

Together, these two candidates have turned out amazing numbers of voters - new now enchanted, and previously disillusioned are reinvigorated. If all of their supporters could get behind either candidate, WE would be unstoppable. I have a hard time believing that either of these two people who have dedicated so much of their lives contributing to the common good have egoes so large that they'd sacrifice their values to spite the other once the nomination is made. Why should any of us?

Will people suddenly switch from being
- pro choice to committing to overturn RvW?
- antiwar to promoting a policy of "bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran" & staying in Iraq "for 1,000 years for all I care"
- in support of universal health coverage to advocating a health reform that smells a lot like "no child left behind"

Do people feel Hillary is so rotten that they'd rather vote for the, um, man who would attack her innocent teenage daughter with a joke like this:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno". (1998)

I appreciate that independents need a place to be heard, and I agree that our 2-party system stinks, and I'd like to see it change. HOWEVER, I do NOT think that the type of change independents who would prefer McCain over Clinton (or vice versa) should drive the nomination.

This brings me to the topic of the SDs - these are people who have been in it longer than many of us could vote. Their efforts laid the groundwork for us. You act as though Jimmy Carter is somehow insignificant now because he's no longer an elected official. What?!? You think he's out of step with today's democrats?!? HE first was green WAY before it was hip. In '77 Carter
- initiated the Department of Energy
- conserved energy by wearing sweaters and turning down thermostats
- had solar hot water panels installed on the roof of the White House
He isn't out of step - he's the sole of the shoe. He took his licks and earned his cred. If and when I ever get out and start programs like Habitat or the US Legal Svcs Corp, maybe I'll feel ok about demanding my vote count just as much as his in party decisions. To those who want to shift the party's direction, get involved in 2009 - reform the party, earn the respect of the leadership and the rank-and-file. The SDs are only a surprise to those who hadn't paid much attention to the party rules until it was having a negative influence. Get educated, get involved. That's how change is made.

On age and the idea that the seasoned should step aside so the young can drive progress - I guess I sit on the cusp.I believe that Clinton's long record of civil service and driving positive change positions her better for making the types of changes we're all eager for. I was a young voter in 1992, so I KNOW how fantastic it feels to be so invested and enthralled with your first presidential candidate. I don't discount that enthusiasm. Clinton left office with the highest popularity rating in history (65%) - still inspiring many at the end of his tenure. I can certainly appreciate how impatient you feel, how you can't imagine waiting 4 or 8 more years to have this amazing person take the white house because I was there, in that same place, 16 years ago. And, since that same time in my youth, I've been chomping at the bit to see Hillary follow. Yes, it's true, it'll be another member of the same family in the white house. However, while Bill was in office, Hillary made it quite clear that his agenda was not always the same as hers. What I believe about nepitism is that voting against someone because their mother, father, spouse was successful in preceding them is just as short-sighted as voting for them for the very same reason.

If you really believe Obama is the best candidate - that he has better ideas and is better equipped to see them through, fantastic! Do everything ethical and possible to see him nominated. If you're voting for him because he is young, or you are young, or you have some notion about nepitism, well, I don't know what more I can say about that.

Carrie said...

Matt - Thanks for the pointer to Green Pages. It looks like their site is down for renovation. Do you know if this is a long-term thing?

Thanks!

protactinium said...

Wow the Hilary supporters still seem to make false comments.

First the saying Obama=No Latinos=No genral election.

This is just racist. I will admit that Hilary has taken more of the Hispanic vote, but to say that all hispanics will vote for one person because they dont have a brain of there own and will all vote for the same canidite is just ridiclous. Maybe the prefer Mccain because of the immigration reform? What a concept. People vote for issues. I mean how could they there just Hispanic, they cant speak english RIGHT? Please keep this type of dividing racism to yourself.

Also the comment that Bill Gates, and MLK dont count because they didnt have there finger on the bomb. Are you implying the Obama will drop the nuke on someone if hes president? Where in the world are you getting these ideas from. NO one is saying any of the candites will drop the bomb. He may accidently hit it? Are you serious? This is a rediclous comment. Please think out your thought before posting.

Carrie said...

What false statement did I make?

Carrie said...

Safia - I hope you read my long post (if verbosity = passion, man, we've got passion in spades :)

I reread your post and I wanted to ask that you consider respecting the position of some (like me) who value experience and history in addition to merits. Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but your statment that, "We don't believe in sitting back and letting the momentum of the power-elites or arcane bias make all the decisions for us," seemed to imply that those of us who disagree with you on the ideal candidate are somehow lazy or complacent to the whims of a few bad people. I'm really trying to rein in my generalizations about supporters of both candidates. Hopefully that was apparent in the 1st 2 paragraphs in my novel of a post.

Protactinium said...

Carrie I was not refering to you when i said Hilary supported are making false statements. You are actually one of the most educated people on here posting. I was really refering to the people saying Obama=no Hispanics. Or that Obama may "accidently" hit the button. Those comments are non sense.

Also as for this 5% issue. Look at Mccains Issues, and hes not 2 much farther the other direction. Hes very moderate. I am an indepent, and look at all candites very seriously. I will vote for Mccain over Hilary not becaue I hate Hilary. I will vote for Mccain because he is moderate enough, and is just being honest with being in Iraq for 100 years. If we plan on making Iraq a peaceful country it takes a generation typically to shore it all up. Once its peaceful no one will cry about us having troops there.

Reason I support Mccain over Hilary is because we will be in Iraq no matter what president we have. If we pull out we will leave a pool of blood from a civil war, so bad it will make America look like monsters (which helps the terriosts) Mccain is going to be a better war preisdent.

Also Hilarys healthcare mandate will destroy small buisness across america. It also would be better for many middle class workers to quit there job and go to a welfate state. This in turn will destroy our economy. I wont support any candite that I truly belive will destroy our countries economy.

coffee said...

I believe that both sides of the argument concerning the validity of the role of superdelegates have their merits. I only hope that no one who believes they should ultimately have more a role in selecting the candidate than the average person did not argue after the second Bush election that there was anything wrong with him losing the popular vote but still winning the presidency due to the electoral college. If there are such people, they really need to think through their beliefs about democracy and determine once and for all if they are popularist in their views or something else.

Carrie said...

Protactinium -
Thanks. I'm really trying to get away from the us vs. them mentality. Hopefully it's obvious that I disagreed about the statements about race in the GE. I've pretty much scrapped the whole topic of electability b/c I think there are valid comments on both sides. If you could refrain from making broad sweeps about Hillary supporters, I'd appreciate it - I am very much a HIllary supporter.

I'm a bit flummoxed your Clinton vs. McCain reasoning. I agree that an immediate pull-out is not in our best interest. Clinton and Obama both believe we should get out. Clinton has been criticized for not committing to an immediate timeframe and her intentions of leaving specialized brigades as necessary. Obama has committed to 1-2 brigades per month with complete withdrawl in ~16 months. On healthcare, Clinton/Obama plans are nearly identical, particularly wrt small business - both would offer tax credits to small businesses to help them compete while contributing to the healthcare of their employees. People will, no doubt, still be better off with their private plans if they have them. Most people don't really want to sacrifice their pride and their opportunities to lift themselves up just to get free healthcare. Sure, a small minority may take advantage - as a small minority often does, but I don't think stopping them is worth sacrificing the other benefits of universal coverage. I design software used by plans, purchasers, providers, consumers, and Medicaid agencies to measure and improve quality and efficiency in the healthcare system. My hubby's also a new doc at the only public ER in Detroit, so I have that perspective as well. Clinton's commitment to coverage stems 1st from her commitment to the health and well-being of the underserved (I assume, based on where's she's spent her time), and 2nd in sound economics. People w/o coverage make incredibly inefficient use of healthcare resources. They use ERs rather than office visits - a difference of hundreds each encounter. They try to wait it out until their condition has progressed and requires more intensive treatment. They often can't pay their high costs, so we all do. It's killing us here, I'm betting it's clobbering you there as well. If you think about it like car insurance, it might make more sense. I have to have car insurance - not to cover the damage I might do to my car, but to cover the expense of damage and injury I might cause and subsequently not be able to afford. Health coverage is needed universally so we can better plan for and allocate resources - so that everyone is contributing (if on a sliding scale) to the shared risk pool. Odd, maybe, but I really think this is the most fiscally responsible goal.

Please reconsider. It sounds like we're actually on the same side in terms of policy priorities - it'd be nice to know we'll be working together in the general campaign regardless which candidate gets the nod!
(comparisons to McCain based on info in NPR's know the candidates page)

Carrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carrie said...

Coffee -
Well, I did complain in 2004, but I see two distinctions:

1) That was a government election to which we have a constitutionally protected right - party is a private entity beholden to its own rules

2) I don't think Bush won either vote - Ohio was a total mess, whether or not it was a conspiracy doesn't matter. Yuck. :)

OK - my own soap box here - if the party rules are deemed unreasonable, then they should also be deemed unreasonable on setting primary dates - there's no reason IA and NH should have so, so, so much power - talk about the few having more control than the many! If the system is flawed, and we're going to change midstream, then MI and FL primary results should be counted. In this case, Clinton has a lead of 62 pledged delegates.

I have to say, I'm really trying to breath deeply and let my MI indignation go. It's hard, though, hearing people grumble about the super delegate rules. ARRRRHHHHHHHH!

Protactinium said...

One big differnce in Obama vs Hilary healthcare. MANDATE. Forcing people to get healthcare is socialism. Hilary healthcare is $225ish a month. This would be another drain out of the consumer pockets. I personally know people that do not have health insurance, instead they have these health accounts that they have been dumping money into for years now. So these people would be forced to get healthcare? Why? They have been investing it, as well as have there company adding to it. (which i belive all companys should start offering) There not there to leech of the system, but instead they feel they have a better route to pay for there healthcare.

This idea that any president is going to pull us out of Iraq is a LIE! Obama actually almost lost my vote over this issue at one time. Then i heard him say on more then one occasion that he would listen to the boots on the ground first. This was him preety much saying that we where not pulling out of Iraq, and its all politcal retoric. Our genrals will never say that we should withdraw with the state Iraq is in.

RMJ said...

People can try to justify many things, but to say that Michigan and Florida should now count or to argue that super delegates are part of a democratic process is deceitful. The Clintons have no shame. It's all about them. The whole worldis watching.

Anonymous said...

This is not an issue of being racist at all, so don't use it as a "weapon", because it's made of plastic.

The numbers speak clearly. LATINOS FOR CLINTON. LATINOS = FLORIDA.

FLORIDA = WHITE HOUSE.

Enough said. No need to risk anything at such crucial times with some newcomer who could not win any of the big states, could not win over the latino vote, and could not win over the women vote.

You're saying "he has an edge on independents".

Big deal, McCain has an edge on latinos.

Independents are not reliable voters, latinos are! And latinos will give the vote to McCain, make no mistake about it. If Clinton is taken out of the equation, the latino vote will go to McCain. There's nothing racist about any of this.

And there's nothing racist in stating that Obama got 88% of the black vote.

You can state these things all you want. But if somehow you want to cover Obama's inability to create that "union" he talks about by using the "racist" card, you go sell that to some remote desert in Utah 'cuz it's not gonna fly around here.

Protactinium said...

LoL anyomous. No one is using it as a weapon. You are picking what states to choose. Obama carryed Hispanics in IL. In fact he is very popular with hispanics here. Obama dosent have to win the hispanic vote, he just has to split it.

Mccain will carry Flordia no matter what. IMO. The cubans have not forgeton the clintons Gonzoles issue.

and yes i hate to tell you that saying any race is all going to vote on direction is racist. Tell you self what you want to make yourself feel better.

Florida does not = white house. Go crunch the numbers.

Also for all black voters who voted for Obama simply because he is black is racist also. Im not sure where you have learned your ideas about racism.

coffee said...

Carrie,

If Ohio (my home state) was a total mess in 2004 and the results of questionable validity, then counting the delegates from the primaries in Florida and Michigan would definitely constitute an equal (or greater) injustice than the one already suffered by those states. The voters and candidates were NOT participating in a fair, democratic process. People didn't vote who would have, candidates didn't campaign who would have - heck, two of the candidates weren't even on the ballot. Imagine how we'd all react if we only had the Republican candidate on the ballots in our state for a general election and the Supreme Court ruled to count the state's votes in the election? Yes, I understand it's a primary and not an election, but the principles of justice still stand.

I believe the party needs reform. What's wrong with saying the primaries should be held on the same day, all votes should be fairly received and fairly counted, and all delegates should be determined by those votes? All the current process seems to be doing is upsetting everyone and pulling the party apart. I hope the embarassing mess that seems to be on the horizon will be avoided. As it looks now, I'm afraid it will all play into McCain's hands.

Carrie said...

3'fer coming: Protact first

1st - I'm really coming to appreciate our exchange. I'm learning from it and I appreciate that we're focusing on issues and cutting out the insulting junk.

On healthcare, very valid concerns. Let me see if I can help to alleviate them a little. The health savings account approach your friends have taken has really grown and is popularly know as a "consumer-driven health plan". I haven't heard Clinton address these specifically, but given their current boon, I imagine they fall into the "if you're happy with what you have" category. For them, nothing would change. $225 a month is less than I pay toward my employer-sponsored plan. At that I know I'm getting off easy - the average person costs ~$6,700 per year. The mandate is intended to hold us all accountable for those costs - for those who can't afford the $225, the mandate comes with a commitment to deep subsidies. The 15M people (each at $6k a year) who could opt not to have insurance w/Obama's plan would still be contribute to the cost side of the shared risk equation and would drive up the $225 you mention.
I'm confused on the Iraq argument - it seems like you're saying you almost didn't vote for Obama until he revised his position to align more closely with Clinton's. What am I missing?

Carrie said...

rmj - Your response to my post seems to come from a very angry place. I don't think I did or said anything to illicit a personal attack. I'm honestly trying to carry on a conversation about ideas. No deceit behind it.

So, I'm going to skip you and go on to Coffee.

Anonymous said...

I didn't say blacks voted for Obama because he's black. I just stated what the numbers are.

80-90% of blacks vote Obama!

And if you think Florida does not equal White House, you must have skipped the past 8 years of history in this country.

Facts are simple. Clinton, without even campaigning, got almost 200,000 more votes than McCain who campaigned hard in Florida.

Sure, you're gonna say...oh don't compare primaries with the general election. Well, with a huge vote margin like that, without even campaigning there, that's pretty hard not to notice.

And what do you think Obama will carry to compensate for Florida's loss? You think the republican machine will just let him turn blue all the red territories that he won?

Yeah, good luck with that!

The thing is simple, you follow the racial trends of voting, because this election did turn racial, and no one can deny it because the numbers spoke.

Let's say it's OBAMA VS. MCCAIN:

McCain carries racist vote, a good chunk of moderate democrats, latinos, asians, and splits women and independents. Obama carries blacks only and a chunk of risky independents.

Let's say it's CLINTON VS. MCCAIN:

Clinton carries blacks, latinos, asians, women, moderate democrats, and gets a chunk of independents. McCain is left with Ann Coulter voting for Clinton.

Just by doing the race and sex math you can see who's more likely to win in November.

And make no mistake about it, it's a sensitive issue to juggle this stuff like x and y in an equation, but it's just the simple math following the trends, averages and patterns up to now.

Carrie said...

Coffee -
Ours wasn't a party-sanctioned primary, but it was conducted fairly. *More than* two candidates filed paperwork to remove their names from the ballot to appease leaders in IA and NH. Clinton didn't, but she broke no rules.
At the risk of repeating myself again and being redundant, I'll point out that Obama's camp promoted "get out the uncommitted vote" rallies in MI. 35% of the vote was "uncommitted." If MI were to count, I would suggest all 35% go to him, as I believe that was the voters' intent.
If people slept through the primary, it wasn't because there wasn't enough advertisement, or because they didn't know enough about the candidates. We have radio, TV and the internet here. You couldn't get away from it!

That said, I believe that the rules of the game were laid out before it started and we need to follow them. I think MI's goal, though it won't (or shouldn't) benefit us this year, of illuminating the dysfunctional nomination process has been achieved. Kind of sucks to be a sacrificial lamb, but I think it'll benefit us all in the long run. I actually think it was a major gaffe for Clinton to call for the MI and FL dems to be seated before the compliant states went to the polls, along the lines of saying she'd garnish wages the week before 2/5 - I think it only served to alienate voters in other states. I appreciated the sentiment, but I groaned when I heard it.

I love your ideas for reform. Maybe we'll run into eachother next year at some party event after we've elected a dem pres and we're ready to move on to improving our party. :)

Matt said...

Carrie, Green Papers was working fine when I posted the original comments, and its working fine now. Sure you have the URL correct? Here's their '04 page: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/

coffee said...

Carrie,

Yes, it would be nice knowing everyone's votes counted, and that all votes counted equally. If that were the case, we'd all be busy discussing issues and not processes. Somehow, I'm thinking this would be a hard sell to the DNC!

Carrie said...

Anonymous -

While I appreciate your ardent defense of Hillary's electability, I want to distinguish my position from yours as a Hillary supporter.

I, too, think the large Clinton support in FL and MI shouldn't be overlooked in conversations of electability. You are probably right that the republican machine would overcome Obama's popularity in many of the red states. This election isn't a gimme for either candidate, and I appreciate that you're making that point.

However, I am an ardent Clinton supporter - a lily-white and (usually) straight-ticket dem. I am loyal to Clinton, but if it comes down to it I will suck it up and vote for the next best thing.

Protactinium said...

For my position on Iraq. I am against a pull out. I was against the war, however now that we are in it. We can not leave. We have created a huge power vaccume, and as soon as we pull out of Iraq there will be so much blood shed. We will be talking about the genocides of Iraq.

Also I have no Idea why we are fighting with Iraq, and Iran in the first place. Afganistan was a terroist country no question. But the other two really arnt that bad. Syria is the country we really need to worry about. Syria is a terriostic country, and no one wants to talk about. Bush for some reason seems hell bent on Iraq, and Iran who are really arn't terriosts. I think we have a culture issue more then anything, and I belive Obama will do with hardest to try and get past this. Obama said he would talk to your enemies and Hilary said she would not until everything was in place. Whatever that is im not sure.

Also Iran hates America because due to us Herion is now being produced in Afgainstan. The taliban really did stop this production all together. Iran has one of the highest per captia herion addictions in the world. America help them address some of these issues i belive tensions would drop.

For the other guy. Look at the polls. Hilary ties with Mccain, Obama is up by 6 points in head to head nation wide polls.

And 8 years does not make history. California will offset Flordia if they split. Cali is going to be a vital swing state.

The reason the primarys are not all on one day is to show that the candites can campign for a prolonged period of time. It was meant to really expose the candites to really public eye for a signifigant period of time. The first few states all have much diffrent demographics, as to give an idea how each demographic may vote.

Also im all for a popular vote election. With modern technology there is no reason for us to have delegetes anymore.

ps. Hilary is the only candite NOT campigning for Lobby reform. This does bother me also

Carrie said...

Coffee - I hear ya! I'm actually really enjoying the healthcare exchange that sprung from my post about the phenomenon of people saying they'd rather turn to McCain than vote for the other dem. I know a lot about the topic, as I've worked in the field for over 10 years, and it's nice to finally use the knowledge in such an important decision.

So, here's an honest question - let's say, just suppose, Obama gets the nod. What do you think I need to know to fall back in love with him as a candidate?
Let me know if you're interested in any positive Clinton info.

Anonymous said...

I am a life-long Democratic voter, active participant, repeat donor, fundraiser, volunteer.

If the Democratic party goes against the popular vote, they will lose my support forever. Nomination of Hillary will do the same thing.

It would be a violation of trust and an irrevocable destruction of our party, and any denial of that is deluded.

Hillary is a divider and will lose. I will violate my party and campaign for McCain, despite my hate of the man.

Carrie said...

Anonymous - Do you remember why you became a democrat? McCain's a pretty dispicable cat himself, but that's not really the point. I don't like Obama as a person, and I have some specific concerns about him as a leader and a politician. That said, I really can't see letting that outweigh my commitment to the democratic platform.

safia said...

delayed response to anon ... saying that something is so, doesn't make it so, and using faulty logic aggressively doesn't make it persuasive. Clinton didn't win all the Latino votes in CA for instance, but 2/3. "Do the math." Obama won 1/3 -- and that without key endorsements. How is saying that Latino voters are all racist not racist in itself? It's double time racism, not a card. and ...

"Obama carries blacks only and a chunk of risky independents." Where are you getting your information? You're saying that everyone who is voting for Clinton would switch to McCain if Obama was nominated? Are you kidding?

Elections are never "simple" or mathematical because it's PEOPLE voting, not machines. You're right about Florida being a risk -- sort of. When Gore didn't win in 2000, they threw out enough black votes to make the numbers. Florida did the same thing in 1876 -- handing the election to Hayes when Tilden had won. It was called "THE SECRET DEAL" and it gave rise to 100 years of civil rights abuses and Jim Crow laws. Yeah, sure, racism is an issue -- nobody denies that. But your math is part of that problem.

and on the Latino vote:

"Exit poll results also demolished widely-held notions that Latinos are unwilling to support a black candidate. Obama succeeded in cutting Clinton's 4-to-1 Latino advantage to 3-2 [on Tuesday.]

Analysis of Latino voting patterns indicates that Latinos did not, as predicted, march monolithically into the voting booths to vote according to the candidate's skin color. Instead, the Latino vote segmented along other vectors, the most interesting of which is the regional vector.

In what appears to be the development of a Latino voter regionalism, the vote varied depending on what part of the country (and in some cases what part of a state) the vote was cast. For example, while Clinton secured 74 percent of the Latino vote in her home state of New York, available data also indicates that Obama won 59 percent of the 30- to 44-year-olds, the largest age bloc, in his home state of Illinois' Latino electorate."

sidenote: Regarding red and blue states, that's a shorthand dismissal of sometimes nearly half of the voting population of each state. Calling states simply "red" or "blue" is inaccurate although it's a useful tool for the media to dumb down real analysis. There are a lot of "blue" votes in red states and vice versa. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

S.R.S. in Washington State said...

I do just want to make two things clear, one, Clinton has in general done a great service to our country. I respect her for the time she has dedicated to public service. Two, if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, unless it turns out she did it underhandedly, I will vote for her. Unfortunately for me it will be business as usual again. She will be the lesser of two evils option and the hope and joy for a brighter future will be yet again have to be postponed for a future date perhaps four to eight years down the line.

The apology I’ve given to my kids for the prior generation’s mishandling and squandering of their future will again need to be made to them four to eight years from now. They will be older and wiser and will probably think it’s disingenuous since they heard it before and nothing changed. I’ve let my kids know that they have a bright future, a future where they can do anything, and I will fully support them if they do what is in their hearts and it’s something they are passionate about. I’m saddened to think they will also be burdened by the debt and ill will that will be passed to them by a generation of “me” and “I” voters and politicians. Those same people will be the voters 10-20-30 years from now complaining THEY don’t get enough money from Social Security and the veterans offices and that health care for THEM is deficient. Of course, it was THEIR fault for the mess in the first place, for bankrupting Social Security and running up the deficit to trillions of dollars. However, they will be the savvy ones and get more laws, initiatives and propositions passed to keep THEIR ways of life going while our kids continue to be further burdened by those people’s mistakes. Their YEARS of experience in politics and business deceiving people to get short term political and economic gains for themselves will come handy. The I/me voters and politicians only care about themselves; their actions prove that all too well. The indirect effect of not getting any real campaign reform will give that voting bloc more power in the future since they will have the money for lobbyists to get favorable legislation passed for THEIR generation.

Just to jump off the cliff with an interesting conspiracy theory perhaps that’s why the I/me generation wants to stem legal immigration and eliminate the possibility of hardworking illegal immigrants from becoming citizens. If you have too many new citizens who tend to be younger, it will reduce the collective voting strength of the older generations. If that happens, the I/me generation will have a harder time getting legislation passed for THEM that burdens future generations. Ah, aren’t conspiracy theories fun. Too bad I don’t believe in them.

I’m sorry, I see Obama as the only bright spark right now that will get this country moving in a positive and bright future. He may fail, but at least he’s out there trying rather than rationalizing why a positive and bright future is unobtainable and idealistic.

Best wishes,
S.R.S. in Washington

karry said...

carrie, i am a proud moderate democrat, but I can assure you if obama wins, I will vote any other party, even republican, or not at all before I voted for someone who will destroy this country.

people are voting for hope, and hope alone. the atmosphere reminds me of what my mother once told me when she was alive and lived during the 1920's and 1930's and the movement for hope was strong. look what happened in the world, a recession the world took nearly 10 years to recover from. A recession we are heading into. my mother told me about the long queues for food, and how hard it was to work, the conditions that workers lost and how people had to sell everything they had.

whilst I am an old lady, I don't have that long a future ahead of me, but I worry deeply for the future that comes after I am gone. for every bad president we have it takes at least 1 if not 2 terms of a new president to bring us recovery.

whilst i love the democratic party, and no matter how much people moan and whinge at me, I cannot in all due considerations vote for inexperience to lead this country in the time of great peril that it finds itself in today.

obama has not foriegn policy, he has no defined long term economic policy for recovery.

I am not a sour old women unhappy with the present state of affairs in this primary season. What I am going to do with my vote is vote for experience, and if that means McCain, then I will. I have a responsiblity to ensure that our future is not left in the hands of inexperience.

I am sure that there will be many conservative democrats that feel the same as I do if Obama gets the nod.

I think that in the end, people will choose someone who really knows the economy, foriegn policy and someone who can work with all sides. Yes I know your arguement re: the courts, but in the end, I would rather live in security and have someone that has genuine control of the economy.

Good luck with your debating Carrie, I think you are going to need as much of it as you can.

I am not coping out, I am voting with my head not my heart, and as painful as that may seem to you, I am sorry.

safia said...

carrie --

thanks for the thoughtful response. i respect your position; i just don't agree with all of it (details, details). I have a great deal of respect for people like J. Carter. I was only pointing out that SDs are NOT currently in office -- that they were, rather, once "elected." I think it's important that we recognize that. Many people don't even know who the SDs are, and yet, they may be decided the fate of the party very soon.

i don't support Obama because he's young, but because I believe in his integrity. I'm sad that I don't believe in Clinton's. As far as I can tell she career politician of the most well-entrenched kind. She may have some very good ideas and abilities to recommend her, but she is more subject to special interests and lobbies than Obama by virtue of her position within the status quo--and her long-lasting connections. That was part of the problem for the last 8 years. I don't want to see a blue re-run of a red reel. I don't dislike Clinton, but I believe in Obama. However, I respect Clinton's supporters and their opinions.

Protactinium said...

Super delegetes are not just former elected officals. It also includes DNC members. Which seem to be full of union leaders, high fundraisers as well Nancy Palosi's daughter. The best comparison of the SD are the house of lords.

Carrie said...

SRS - I mentioned 2 Clinton gaffes (MI/FL and garnishing wages). I forgot to mention the BIGGEST, which was accusing Obama of offering *false* hope. I think I know what she was trying to say...that they are both for change and hope, and that she was the one to deliver it - that she didn't think he could. Unfortunately, that's not what she said. That was a bad, bad, bad move - not only politically, but in the grander scheme of creating a culture of social change.

I think the reason I looked past that was because how much Obama reminds me of her. I'm sure that will spark some ire, but back in the '90s, she lit that fire in me, and it never died.

You just articulated a very understandable & compelling reason for your preference. I think I was able to hear your point because it was delivered with respect to Clinton and her supporters. Well put. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Safia...see, your explanations just beat around the bush when it comes to the mainstream calculations.

Sure, Obama might have done a little better on Super Tuesday, but still...66% of the latinos did not vote for him! That's deep. And you don't know how many latinos also voted for McCain. Besides, Obama had the Ted Kennedy endorsement...wasn't that gonna help with the latinos? Well, it did, but it was a very very very small help, which underlines the resistance of latinos to vote for him. We can't ignore this trend going into California and Florida in November. Yes, it would be nice if we didn't talk about race and politics in such an abrupt manner, but this is absolutely necessary at this point. We cannot ignore the trend! It has to be articulated and calculated somehow.

McCain has Arnold on his side in California. As soon as this primary stuff is over, you can bet that there will be a huge war over California...just because Schwartzeneger has endorsed him. We know very well how the republican machine is.

Clinton is the only person who can secure us the big southern states. I even think she could turn Texas into a swing state because her latino and woman combo has always proven SUPER SUCCESSFUL. She has shattered polls in all of those states!

Red states ARE very riskey, and no one can deny them. Why take this huge risk at such crucial times, when we have the recipe for success right in our own hands.

And as far as my fellow Hillary supporter who is a life-long democrat. Well, that is great that you will stick to the party platform, but I happen to be a moderate democrat and Hillary Clinton is the furthest I can stretch myself into voting. If you take her out, I am much closer to hugging McCain than Obama...who I would need a spaceship to reach.

And a good part of the Hillary supporters will do this too. Maybe it won't be all of them, but you can bet on up to 25% of the Hillary people going for McCain.....and that would screw Obama even worse.

He just has no chance. He did not win any of the big states, that's enough already. Hillary is the highway candidate, Obama goes about it around the dark alleys.

When everything is said and done, Clinton's car (the democratic party) is still shiny...while Obama's is in hideous condition. And that's where our party will be if he keeps dividing the voters this way just because of his stubborness or blindness, I dunno which one it is!

Even if he was to get more delegates than Clinton he'd withdraw because he failed sky high with key demographics that are MANDATORY for November.

safia said...

karry,

I respectfully but adamantly disagree with you. My grandfather, now 97, lived through the times you refer to and has a very different perspective. We all do -- the beauty of democracy.

A vote for Obama is not just a vote for hope, but a commitment to the direction our country should be taking -- wants to be taking, and has not been taking for the past 8 years. While I have some serious reservations about Clinton, I believe that this election is not just about us but about the entire world. I would support her if she won the nomination. I wasn't sure of that until reading all of these thoughtful and articulate discussions.

I would never, however, vote for McCain --. The world is watching, and a vote for McCain will only send a message that we like the way things have been going and all of the current policies and decisions involved over the past 8 years. A vote for McCain sends a powerful message that we're O.K. with this mess -- not only for ourselves but for everyone, and for future generations to come all around the world. Voting with our hearts is not sentimentalism, it's compassion -- a sorely lacking "commodity" these days. We can no longer afford to

Good luck to all of you
to all of us ... and thanks for the insight and conversation.

C. Good call on the "false" hope remark. That was unfortunate, but perhaps, too, that was her belief. I understand what you mean about lighting a spark. The same thing happened to me almost four years ago when I first heard Obama speak.

Protactinium said...

Anoym first if the Women/latino combo was so powerful. Why is Hilary losing in plegded delegetes?

Why is nation wide polls saying Hilary will tie Mccain, and Obama beats Mccain by 6 points?

As for Arnold his wife, (whos name i will not mutilate here)whos considered a Kennedy supports Obama.

Also the "25%" of people that will run away from Obama. There is an equal amount of people that will run from Hilary. Also if Hilary does it through super delegtes if Obama wins the pleged delegetes will tear the party apart.

This race talk is just hocus pocus. As well as saying youth voters and independent voters dont matter. That may be true in the past but that is not true this time.

One thing we can thank Bush for is a very energized election this year.

I also do love everyones point of views and is nice to get more then my local views. Its also a wonderful thing that a republican is our second choice for alot of people. Its means we may be finally breaking this red vs blue stuff and voting on the real issues!!

Ben said...


Anonymous said...

This is not an issue of being racist at all, so don't use it as a "weapon", because it's made of plastic.

The numbers speak clearly. LATINOS FOR CLINTON. LATINOS = FLORIDA.

FLORIDA = WHITE HOUSE.


For the last time, the latinos of Florida will vote for the Republican NO MATTER WHAT. Cubans are Republicans. Looks like, by your logic, we then won't have Hillary or "THE MONKEY FACE", to quote your ignorance, but the "bulldog jowls" instead. Shut up.

coffee said...

Carrie,

I'm afraid neither candidate is really going to be able to fix healthcare to any great extent.
Individual mandates simply come across as using the government to beat us up more to make sure everyone is giving more money to the insurance companies. It reminds me of the Elizabethan Poor Laws in history. I'm insured by my employer and have very good coverage, but still almost went under financially when medical disaster struck eight years ago. No one is really talking about serious cost containment and single-payer reform (unless I'm missing something). Nominally, Americans should not be paying income tax for the wages they spend on health insurance and healthcare (I had to write a big check to the IRS after I'd given almost every penny of my wages to healthcare the year before)! It's just too expensive whether we are insured or not insured. With the Baby Boomers all leaving work in the next few years and handing our society a larger healthcare tab than we've ever seen through Medicare and cost-shifting in other areas, we need to learn to take care of ourselves in an efficient, inexpensive manner. You are in the industry. What changes could make the care more affordable BEFORE the bills are printed?

My problem with Clinton is I'm still pretty sore over the trade deals we entered with China in the 1990s. I'm certain that this was a bullet wound to the chest of the American economy in what it has cost us in jobs, debt, weakened currency, international environmental issues, etc. I was thrilled that she took this issue on a year ago for a while, but quickly dropped it. I was also happy to see her call John Edwards on his voting record with trade policy not too long ago. At the end of the day, while the Clintons certainly aren't responsible for the mess we are all in now, some of their trade policies opened doors far too wide (she was directly involved in negotiations with China). I constantly get the sense that corporate special interests owe Hillary and that Hillary owes them. Although this isn't a big issue right now leading up to the election, I think it certainly will be within four years. I'd rather have Obama in office dealing with this as a fresh problem then someone who has been involved in it for 15 years who has little chance of addressing trade policies as an ousider.

I think we are in for a very rough ride for the next few years. Although I'm not a huge Obama supporter, I'm even less a Clinton supporter. What puts me over the edge is I think he doesn't have as much history with all the things from the past that now desperately need to be reformed. All this talk about "change" is not just superficial platitudes, I think we really need a lot of it.

S.R.S. in Washington State said...

It's interesting to note that I'm effectively an independent (a Green) who has stated I will still vote Democratic in November even if my favorite, Obama, isn’t chosen. I’m surprised that some lifelong Democrats say they are going to jump ship if Obama is the nominee. I can understand if it was Kucinich, but Obama? Come on. Are you serious? This sounds like the voices of independents who are still undecided than lifelong Democrats.

The only key reasons I hear for some Democrats saying they will jump ship to McCain if Obama is the Democrat choice is experience and Obama’s desire to give people hope. I guess they will jump too if Huckabee is the Republican choice. Aside from certain people’s view of experience, Obama and Clinton have a lot more similar views than McCain and Clinton. Perhaps these people don’t want to give Obama a chance because he might prove them wrong if he’s elected.

Carrie, thanks for your remarks. Trust me, I had that spark with Clinton years ago too but I guess some of her actions have reduced the spark to a flicker. I believe right now that Obama will not let political ambitions overtake his sensibilities. Perhaps I thought the same thing of Clinton years ago or perhaps I was blind to the possibility, but her actions have exposed it. Even if I’m wrong about Obama’s ambitions, then he will shift to become something like Clinton. While I’m quite certain it won’t happen to Obama, if it does happen, the spark I feel for him will also reduce to a flicker, but at least he will still be better than what the Republicans have to offer.

S.R.S. in Washington State

Anonymous said...

Someone said "You think that the republicans will allow Utaha and Kansas and what not to turn blue? I'll tell you what...you'll be lucky if you see Obama's name in the ballots in those states."


You are kidding right? You do realize that Obama got MORE votes in Kansas than ALL the Republicans combined! Alabama (another red state as of 2000 & 2004) Obama took 70,000 more than the closest Republican. Another Red state in 2004 - South Caroline - Obama got more than DOUBLE the closet Republican. Colorado, ALSO A RED STATE - he got more than DOUBLE the closest Republican. Georgia, ANOTHER RED STATE - he got nearly DOUBLE the closest Republican (Combined more than 100,000 Dems voted in GA primary than Republicans). Louisiana (ANOTHER RED STATE) He received nearly DOUBLE the closest Republican which was almost MORE than all Republicans combined.

So your argument that he won't be getting any red states is bogus.

Carrie said...

Karry - thanks for explaining your reasons for stating you'd vote McCain over Obama. I completely understand and respect it. I think it's crucial we all set priorities and vote accordingly. Your argument re: the economy and experience is definitely compelling. It doesn't change my position, but it does give me a new, positive way to look at the choice you've made. Thanks!

karry said...

For those younger people who want to exploit race, do you remember what it was like in the 1940's and 50's when we had a segregated society? I know the black vote is out for obama, and many whites are voting for mrs clinton, and there are many hispanics that are voting for clinton and not obama because he is has chosen to identify as black.

If this election comes down to the color of a persons skin, then as a nation have we moved passed the days of segregation?

Experience should determine a candidates ability to do the job that is needed.

For those who are caught up in the color of persons skin and name calling, (how sad) then maybe you are either to young to vote or to bigot of segregation.

This goes for all voters.

Should I vote for mccain it would not be because he is white, or looks like a bulldog jowls, it would be if he is more experienced to lead this country.

Safia, I respectfully acknowledge your grandfathers more fortunate life, and acknowledge that of my mothers. Maybe your grandfather was fortunate, but my mother was not fortunate, and we did not grow up on the richer side of the tracks, but in saying that it does not mean that we are any less poorer for doing so. I believe with all these years I have lived, I have learned a great deal about opportunities and I have lived much of the american dream because I worked for what I have achieved.

Samcmbr said...

Can anyone tell me why Colorado has 20 delegates left? Why Washington still has 20 left? There are numerous others from Super Tuesday that have some left as well.. this isn't rocket science... what is the hold up?

Anonymous said...

First of all, a vote for McCain, if Obama is the opponent...is not necessarily a vote that we approve this Bush mess.

It just means that Obama in not qualified enough to earn our vote, and there's serious doubts that he could do EVEN WORSE! See, not everyone is inspired by this big hype.

As far as Obama winning more than the republican counterpart in the red states, well...the opposite could also be true. How about republicans actually voting for Obama just so that they don't have to be squashed by Clinton when it comes to power. Every thought of that?

As far as the 25% going away from Clinton...that's a funny one, because there's more voters on the right side of Clinton than on her left side, where Obama falls.

But even so, the latino/women vote is a guarantee for success for Clinton.

The national polls don't reflect the individual southern states with big latino communities. When you average in the farm states and the mountain states and the southern black states...then of course it offsets Clinton's advantage. But again, who cares about farms/mountain/south when you have all the traditionally blue states plus Florida.

And did you actually check out how much of the latino vote Clinton got in Florida? So much for your republican latinos bet.

Still you can't beat the simple math:

Clinton would get blacks, latinos, asians, moderates, women and a good chunk of independents.

Obama would lose latinos, asians and would split moderates, women and independents.

He can't beat McCain on key swing states with key demographics!

Keep wishing on Utah to turn blue, but careful you don't turn blue when you see the entire US map turn red in November.

Obama didn't even get one big state. What kind of candidate can he be when he doesn't have the approval of not even 1 of the big guys!

Kansas alone won't cut it.

Anonymous said...

This outstanding candidates mess is just ridiculous at this point...there's about 67 outstanding still.

And New Mexico still doesn't have a winner!

Anonymous said...

I believe the whole Latino argument for HRC is very overated. I am a latina and I am voting for Obama. I struggled with this decision mightily as I really wanted to vote for a woman president, but Hillary just doesn't inspire me the way Obama does. If she wins the nomination, I will vote for her, but Obama is my choice on Tuesday in Virginia.

Jamie said...

Using my projections of the outstanding pledged delegates, including superdelegates, and including Maine results, I have Obama ahead by 2 delegates overall.

demmom said...

Sorry to be picky, but your delegate tracker is completely off. Hillary should have 1118 and Obama should have 1094--according to your weekend tracker. (Add 9 to Obama for WA remainders, and it's 1103; 11 for Clinton and it's 1129.)

Matt said...

The weekend tracker is based on a combination of sources. The tracker in the sidebar is based on AP numbers only, so they may differ.

Dennis said...

This Super Delegate BS is just the kind of glad-handing cronyism that the masses are sick of. It would be nice to know what favors were promised or debts called in to secure these. I work in a job dominated by Fox News watching Conservatives. The mere mention of Clinton (either one) brings on a physical reaction in them. I have heard a great number og them say they are intrigued by Obama, with some of them openly supporting him. The "Swift Boat" machine will be at full throttle if Hillary is the nominee, either as Prez or VP. An Obama / Edwards ticket makes much more sense, or Obama / unknown. While I consider myself an independent, I have yet to vote for a Republican candidate. If the will of the people gets usurped by the Democratic Party insiders, I will vote straight Republican, no matter how repulsed I am. The Democrats will have lost all credibility and will not deserve the Office of President. I will slip once again in to cynicism. For now, I am truly hopeful.

S.R.S from Washington State said...

Karry, I think you partly addressed your last comment to me so I’ll address it. I want to make something clear since I get a feeling that you don’t realize this. I’m not voting for any candidate because of their race, sex, religion, age, etc. I don’t know if you are just assuming that I’m voting for Obama simply because he’s black. I’m not. I’m voting for Obama simply because I think he will do the best job for our country.

Experience is only one of many criteria I use when I made a choice. I work with many experienced, older, smart people in my job, but guess what, sometimes a younger, inexperienced person comes around and has certain insights and a style that blows all of us away. Do we simply put her in her place and say, oh, I’m sorry, we can’t use you on our team, you don’t have enough experience. Not. Yes, sometimes a driven, less experienced person needs some help, that’s when the other people with experience are essential. It seems some of us have forgotten that the Executive branch of our government is not just run by the President. The President has her cabinet and advisors who can be made up of a variety of different people including even more politically experienced people. What’s important, after other basic requirements for President have been met, is to have a President who is a true leader who can motivate, inspire and bring different factions together, a President who knows how to negotiate, be tactful and use diplomacy instead of immediately resorting to fists, positioning, framing and name calling. Right now, in my opinion, and I’m not alone on this, Obama is this sort of leader. The other candidates have proven in the past they will immediately resort to all kinds of methods to pound out their agenda. Look at what it has done to our country.

For some interesting reading, see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html

Now, don’t get me wrong, I will be very happy and proud of our country if a woman, black, Native American, Latino, Asian, gay, Mormon, Buddhist, etc is elected as President but I just want that person to be the best choice that we had at that time. If a white is better, so be it. I’m a male, middle-aged, middle-class white. Who cares? If you do, I’m sorry. I too have had an interesting and rough journey in my life to get to where I’m at. I think everyone has.

Now for Anonymous, I don’t see the point in arguing with you. You are going to be fine with voting for McCain so why fight so hard to get some of your misguided points across. Either way, according to your math, it’s a win-win for you since you believe the next President will definitely be either Clinton or McCain. Heck, you probably don’t even need to vote. What a joy it must be for you to know this. You can just stop being concerned with who’s going to be the President and just wait until after the November elections to turn on the tube and see which two made it. Now, perhaps you don’t want Obama on the ticket because you might just be proven wrong and you have to hammer into everyone’s head and convince one person at a time that it impossible for Obama to win. If you do that enough, you will be right and then I guess you can finally sleep well at night. Have fun…

Dennis, I can understand your frustration with the Democratic Party. I’ve been there numerous times too and I hope too that this will be an exception.

S.R.S from Washington State

Anonymous said...

I think it would be a mistake to discount the experience one gains as a community organizer. You can look at his campaign and see what a well organized, energized group of people can accomplish. This shows a great leader. The president does not make the laws. A great president energizes and leads the people to force congress to make the laws they want. Our democracy has been killed with apathy and I will vote for who ever can breath life back into our country.

I have a top 10 list of most hated corporations . Our current vice president is currently tied to one of them and Clinton sat on the board of another. For those of you who do not know she sat on Wal-Mart’s board. I am tired of corporations controlling our country and I will not trade one evil corporation for another. To me the question is of honesty and integrity. I will not vote for Clinton she scares me. The US should not be for sell even with a good ad campaign.

DaveAAA said...

Many of the arguments and half comments for Obama seem to be based on the idea that he will CHANGE things. His appeal in this way is strong to an American culture that feels cheated and bamboozled and made to look the fools these last 8 years. But I don't think idealistic promises that cater to our societal hunger is necessarily a strong enough argument for voting Obama into office, much less the ballot. So many of us are ill-educated to the way the ruling class functions.
He will not cleanup Washington, to try to do so will blowup in his face like how in Clintons first term Hils first assault on the HealthCare system blew up.

Maybe it won't matter that He or She is better qualified to actually rule our country wisely etc. The mob will finally have expressed their frustration and anger with the system.
Once in a while, though, I get the old HowardDean feeling about the Obama supporters, though Obama is certainly a better front than HD could ever be. But if the press hadn't bashed him on his voice, on a real Rovian cue, he might've rode the mob to the ballot.
Unfortunately, if Obama wins the nomination, I'll be torn on where I'll cast my meager vote. McCain is no slouch, and he's not a neocon tool.

safia said...

... Beyond party politics, the activities of the largely invisible world of economic politics is an important reason not to vote for a Republican candidate does because it would endorse the current administration and Milton Friedman economics. It was Keynesian economics that strengthened the economy after WWII and helped put the kind of infrastructure in place necessary to stave off the possibility of another Great Depression -- and it's the kind of Friedman-esque econ supported by the current admin. which may sink us.

The Republican party endorses the kind of wide-spread privatization of what should be social or federally-subsidized services at home and amidst multi-national corporations. Most of us know that we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place (and many of us less experienced folk opposed the war from the beginning), but what makes the tragic loss of lives even more diabolical are the enormous profits which have been made by a number of corporations over the course of the war. War should not be profitable.

Perhaps McCain is distancing himself from privacy piracy; I don't know. But as it stands, his party has not, and when war becomes a profiteering enterprise for multi-nationals like Blackwater and Halibuton, when high-ranking officers of the *military* !!! are upset with the injustices manifest in privatizing war, when a city and its inhabitants are left to drown because FEMA has been gutted -- and a devastating hurricane is considered "an opportunity," by some like Friedman before he died (see the Washington Post) to privatize the public schools in the wake of Katrina, well ... the party has a problem at the core.

Of course, the Democrats don't have clean hands either. Anybody remember the Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed under Clinton? It deregulated the airwaves to such an extent, in favor of privatization, that most local stations went bust.

There was a town which couldn't be warned of an approaching tornado because a local radio station had been bought out by Clear Channel, a corporation which uses automated pre-programmed shows, no DJs. There was nobody to pick up the phone.

Privatization benefits very few. They are usually already very wealthy. Just my opinion.

karry said...

S.R.S from Washington State said...

hello S.R.S :o)

no I am not singling out anyone in particular. I just find comments about race offensive, I have friends who fall into many groups.

this is 2008, and I have read comments about race and gender, and whilst I maybe an older women, I am not voting based on sex or race.

however some of the comments which are based on either race or gender I do find distressing and so should we all.

Yes I agree young people have fantastic ideas and (ARE) sorry for shouting (ben), should be proud of their contribution.

my concern is not based on (AGE) of the candidate, it is based on life experience, and experience in the corridors of power and a indepth knowledge of how to deal with particular issues.

S.R.S, please believe me, if Mr Obama was white and exciting as he is black and exciting, that would not make me want to vote for him.

I do not want another repeat of the Carter Administration and the disasters that followed. Carter was hopeless and look what he did to our standing in the world. It is my own personal opinion that it was Carters administration that was the true begining of the decline of the US in middle eastern affairs.

everytime I see that man I chringe. I do not want another repeat of those sorryful years that followed due to inexperience. Maybe you do not remember those years and maybe you do, but I am still haunted by those years of the Carter Administration.

S.R.S. I have great admiration for the younger generation and their contribution to this country both here and overseas and in both the war and in the peace corps. In business and in public service. The young give us a different viewpoint from which to look forward from and the older generation are a great reminder of the past from their knowledge of mistakes made and from a very different perspective.

So in relation to the race debate which has been festering here, I find that so very backwards looking, yet so many younger people seem to be raising it. Though that is from what I have read. If you ask older members of this forum, I am sure they will remember the past regarding issues of race.

Let us not make race and gender an issue but the politics should be policies.

karry

karry said...

Hi Carrie, thanks and how are the kids?

Carrie said...

On WalMart

I have a backlog of comments, but this one's easy because it requires no thought: The WalMart stuff came out in a debate. NPR did a story on it the next day. NY Times also reported. Fellow board members and company executives say she used her position to champion personal causes, like the need for more women in management and a comprehensive environmental program. Went in saying “that you can expect me to push on issues for women. You know that. I have a reputation of trying to improve the status of women generally, and I will do it here.”

She wasn't terribly successful on women, but was on environmental issues. At her request, Walton set up the environmental advisory group. Under her watch, the group drew up elaborate plans, most of which were putinto place. In 1993, they opened an experimental “eco-store” in Kansas, with skylights and wooden beams from forests that had not been clear cut.

One executive derided it as “Hillary’s store” because it was more expensive to build than the average Wal-Mart, but several of its features, like the skylights that cut energy bills by reducing the need for artificial lighting, were widely copied across the industry.

WalMart stinks on many fronts, but they've been leading their competitors in things environmental, and she had a lot to do with that.

Sometimes it's actually good to have friends in high places.

safia said...

Karry,

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I respect your experience and perspective --as well as your concerns regarding a candidate's ability to provide the leadership needed now. I believe that Obama is getting short-changed, and the media has had a great deal to do with that, even the friendly media. His opponents have had a hand in that as well. He isn't inexperienced, nor does he lack the negotiating and leadership skills needed to help put the country back on track. The man is a brilliant negotiator, a seasoned civil rights activist and constitutional expert and attorney, and becoming the head of the Harvard Law Review is next to impossible for anyone but the most highly qualified individual. He has worked hard, and he has accomplished much. Unlike our current president, nobody did him any favors. He is a strong, viable, and capable candidate.

You're right about race; it absolutely shouldn't be an issue. I whole-heartedly agree. It's troubling to hear people talk about "math" and "Latinos" because such talk fosters more talk.

(Regarding grandpa ... if by fortunate you mean financially fortunate, nah, he had to sleep in Central Park -- yes, on a bench, when he got canned-- but fortunate as in hopeful no matter what? Yes. His perspective has a lot to do with knowing the hardship of war, and his concerns about the environment and all of our futures. He fears that Clinton owes too much to the special interest groups and corporate donors while McCain, well, grpa doesn't support the war. Hard work, optimism, never giving up and always working toward change, yes -- I was fortunate that he taught me that. And THANK YOU for your perspective and insights. I really value everything you have said here; my perspective has been enriched by yours!).

karry said...

safia said...

I don't know what to say. your a treasure. our youth are treasures.

you have enriched my life this evening.

thank you !!

karry said...

Matt....

Barack Obama 2,079 59.5% Hillary Rodham Clinton 1,396 39.9
Uncommitted 18 0.5
Others 3 0.1

99% reporting | Updated 12:40 AM ET

do you have final figures based on this data?

S.R.S. in Washington State said...

Karry,

Thanks for the response. I do respect your feelings on this topic. Some of the views on Clinton that I’ve read on this blog have given me a little more hope if she does become President.

I do remember Carter and except for a few good things he did, he did make a mess of a lot of other things. In my opinion, the differences between Carter and Obama are huge though.

I believe that a lot of people's view of experience is a little misguided. Safia probably said it best. Obama does have a lot of relevant experiences, unique insights, leadership strengths and charisma that the other candidate just simply don't have. I guess I can hope that he will be given the chance to prove it. Also, I could easily argue that the person with the best and most recent experience of being President is George W. Does that mean he's qualified? Well, I think we all know the answer to that.

Though some people may disagree with me on this, Arnold Schwarzenegger compared to Obama had much less experience, less insights, less education but a lot of charisma like Obama before he became governor. Though Arnold hasn’t fixed up California very much, he has at least made some inroads in a state which was nearly helpless before and has gotten much further along than nearly anyone else would have been able to do.

The one thing I’m saddened about though is the constant messaging from the Clinton camp on their view of Obama’s lack of experience. They are like a bulldog, and they think they have found the one weak point on Obama they can latch onto and they tug and rip with all of their might. Even if they were remotely correct, this is a horrible thing to do to an outstanding person like Obama.

Regards,
S.R.S. in Washington State

protactinium said...

Hilary supporters have got to be careful with this experince issue. This seems to be her #1 issue as of late.

If she does win the nominee. Mccain gets a experinced VP, and nails Hilary on this issue all day long. Mccain has way more experince then Hilary. He will turn her arguement against her.

protactinium said...

Ok Carrie. I was rereading what you had to say. Your right. I just became upset by Hilarys campigns, and her supporters devisive nature.

Now a Hilary vs Mccain is my worst nightmare. But the reasons I did not want to vote for Hilary, are really the same reasons I shouden't vote for Mccain.

I really dont want a clinton or bush in office for 30 years. Im also hearing the Jeb may run after Hilary. To me Bill and Bush Sr have 2 many ties. (Tsunami charity)
However Mccain admits to being the same regime as Bush.

I will vote for Hilary - Obama ticket for sure. Also to say I wont vote Hilary period is not fair. I will really have to see who Mccain VP. (He could honstly croke any day) And hear the debates between the two if she is nominated. Hilary and Obama definatly have more in common then comparing them to Mccain.

Now for all the Naa sayers saying the Obama wont be able to change anything. Do you guys really think the Republicans will let Hilary get anything done? Espically if a Kennady/Obama voting block become very independant and does not always line up behind Hilary.

Now that being said I really do think the Super delegates should vote for whoever has the most delegates + the popular vote. If this is split. Well that partys screwed. It will anger many no matter what its desicion is.

S.R.S. in Washington State said...

I have to agree with protactinium. This supposed Obama experience issue that Clinton is pushing will come back to haunt her if she's the nominee. If Obama wins the nomination, McCain will probably be wise and not make much noise over this supposed issue.

It's rather interesting; I haven't seen much from the Clinton camp for a while about the primaries even at Clinton's website. I also think it’s odd there's nothing about Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's now prior campaign manager who recently left. This silence makes me feel the Clinton camp is spending a lot of time trying to massage the message perfectly. This is something I don't like about Clinton, everything seems so polished, so on target, so on message. Where is her soul in this? I just don't see/hear it except for that accident turned gold moment when that Obama supporter asked how she is doing a little while back. A few days later Clinton had carefully analyzed every possible political angle she could find to exploit her tears and even though I think they were heartfelt and real at the time, I’m turned off by it now since it has been so exploited.

Signing off for tonight,
S.R.S. from Washington

karry said...

February 10, 2008 3:48 PM
Ali-in-Jax said...
As a Florida Democrat, I demand that my vote count, this time. In 2000, in my county, Duval (Jacksonville), 25,000 ballots from predominantly Democratic precincts were rejected and went uncounted. This cannot be happening, again! The point needs to be made that the Republican-dominated Florida Legislature made the decision for all of Florida to move up the primary date—they knew what they were doing and hoped that Democrats wouldn’t show up to vote against a controversial amendment on the same ballot. Well, 1.7 MILLION Florida Democrats did turn out to vote. Just because the candidates didn’t campaign here is not a good reason to ignore us. There were ads on CNN for Obama the week before the primary and Hillary did show up after the polls closed, but BOTH were on the ballot. 1,700,000 voters should NOT be ignored!!



Did anyone else know about this? How sneaky..

If anyone knows anything about this please let me know :o)

AnnMarie said...

I'm disappointed by those who say they would rather vote for McCain than Obama if he is the nominee.

That kind of attitude is exactly why Bush won in 2000, because people decided they were going to vote for Nader instead. And because of that, we ended up with 8 years of people at the top benefitting at the expense of those at the bottom.

Some of you might not like Obama, fine. But to say you'll vote for McCain instead of Obama is basically approving of the past 8 years and asking it to continue for 4 more. Did any of you vote for Perot in 1992 over Clinton?

This argument that 'Obama doesn't have foreign policy experience'..what experience did Bill Clinton have in foreign policy in 1992? Less than Obama does now.

And most of this criticism is from older people. "He's inexperienced. He's too young. (despite that Obama at 47 would be older than Clinton in 1992).

Older people have always lamented younger people not getting involved in politics. "Younger people don't care" is whats common. Now they have, and a significant number of older people are like 'wait a second, you're supporting the wrong candidate'..!!??

The reason why younger people like Obama is because they look back over the past 20-30 years, and wonder what older generations have to show for themselves. Higher college costs? Higher gas prices, higher health care costs, lower wages? A higher national debt, war in Iraq?

You cannot expect younger people to go in the same direction as older people have wanted. Because when you look at the state of the world today, it is older generations responsible for making the decisions leading up to it.

Now if people want to vote to continue the past 8 years with McCain because of a 'hangup' over 'experience', then if McCain wins, you basically deserve what you'll get. Still in Iraq by 2012, college costs and health care costs continue to go up..and so on.

So by all means, those people who would take McCain over Obama can feel as proud as Nader voters must feel today. Oh wait, I'm sure some of them are still unrepentant.

Experience? Right. People with lots of experience got us in the mess we're in now.

All that said, I'll still vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. I'm not the arrogant or spoiled type to vote to continue 8 years of Bush with McCain because my preference in the primary didn't win.

Carrie said...

Diane Rehm's 10am slot is dedicated to the topic of delegates (super and otherwise). I'm skeptical about how unbiased it will be, as Donna Brazille has shown pretty strong bias in these types of appearances throughout the primary season. But, I wanted to let everyone know.

I unfortunately have a meeting and won't be able to listen live (or call in, which I wanted to).

*** ALI-IN-JAX - I think it would be great if you called in. This would be a good topic, and should be addressed. ***

-c

Carrie said...

Karry - thanks for asking about my kiddo (I only have 1, 18mo daughter). She's apparently very excited about Romney's drop-out. They played the clip of it this morning while we were in the car. When his crowd boo'ed at the announcement, she threw her arms up in the air and shouted, "HOORAAAAY!"

A bit of levity on a Monday morning...

I have to get back to work now...I have a healthcare system to improve (and health insurance to keep). :)

Anonymous said...

I WILL ONLY VOTE DEMOCRATIC IF THE DNC LETS THE CANDIDATE WITH MORE PLEDGED DELEGATES RUN. THERE IS NO POINT IN VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO GETS ON THE BALLOT BY RIGGING THE PRIMARIES. BTW CLINTON IS ALREADY SHOWN SIGNS OF HER DISHONESTY BY TRYING TO GER MI AND FL COUNTED AFTER AGREEING NOT TO CONTEST THERE.

IF SHE GETS MORE PLEDGED DELEGATES, I
WILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS LESS DISHONEST HRC OR JM ...

Anonymous said...

Hillary personifies everything that is wrong with our current political system. Voting for her feels icky. yikes.

Ally said...

If Obama was winning the super delegate count there would be no discussion on this topic. The media clearly favors Obama and the voters are falling right in step with them. Beware of buyer's remorse. I have no doubt that Obama has an important role to play in national/world politics, but that role is not the presidency. He is just not seasoned enough. We don't want to hire the best "candidate", rather, we want to hire the candidate that's best for the job. Just because Obama gives inspiring speeches doesn't qualify him to be President. Maybe he should be Clinton's speechwriter, now that would be a good job for him!

TexasGirl08 said...

Ally,

Thank you so,so, so much for that comment. Obama give good speeches, but that is not enough to run a Super Power. If, for some reason, Obama gets the nomination, I will Vote for MCcain.

Samcmbr said...

To all those people who feel "experience" is key, what experience are we talking about? Does being in Congress really prepare a President to make the right decision on Foreign Policy? To go to war? To know how to lead a people? To know how to inspire and unite?

I have an example of my own life that I would like to share and take it for what its worth. I worked in a large business out of Grad school, traveled the world, learned quickly and raised up the ranks very quickly. I became VP at 32 and President at 35. I was cocky enough to feel I could do the President's job when I was a Director at 30.

When I finally got that job, I became aware of ALL the other pressures associated with the job, responsibilites that I had to take on and spearhead etc. I also didn't have the buffer from the previous President on all the crap the CEO/Board wanted done that was almost always moronic. It was much easier to be Dir/VP than to be President (and the pay wasn't that much diff't !!) In the end, I left after 2 more years and started my own company, partly due to the job I had wanted and felt like I could do back when I was 30.

Now, you must be thinking that I would be for anyone but Obama.. But instead, I am for him. The reason is this; I could have stayed as a Director/VP for 10-20-30 more years and it still wouldn't have prepared me for what that final jump would be (granted, my CEO was a pyscho and had the board in his backpocket), so I can't give credit to Hillary for being First Lady or give Mccain credit for being in congress for x' yrs. Nothing prepares you for being thrown into the fire. I spoke to the President every day.. It didn't do jack for me. I could have done as good a job when I was 30 then when I was 35 or even now many yrs later.

Hillary would do an adequate job.. she would do wonders for women here in the US. McCain, so long as he sticks to his beliefs and doesn't pander to the conservatives too much.. he could be good as well. They are both very bright people who have been successful at everything they do.

Obama brings more to the table. Yes, he inspires, but more importantly, he is willing to try where others won't. I am voting Obama tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

IF the Super Delegates don’t follow the popular vote, the Democratic Party will explode. I'm tried of Bush, Clinton, Bush.

Chelse is an adult protected by mom and dad is she an adult or not?

sftreadway said...

It's my understanding VOTES counts. I could care less what super delagates do or say. Obama has taken states primarly white like Ohio, and Farm states like Ill,Nebraska. Obama took some thing like 16 states to her 8. Thats a lot of votes you seem to think don't count. There will be a up cry like you never heard-If super delagates don't vote with us voters.

Anonymous said...

We must unite as a democratic party. Clinton will be the better candidate against McCain. She will get all the votes Obama is getting. Obama is a nice guy. He is not ready for this. He doesn't have the experience in the Senate or the experience in Washington. He is getting the racial vote and the young votes. Two groups as a rule who do not show up for elections. He is riding on a wave of excitement without clear thinking. VOTE CLINTON and do it now.

Wakeup75 said...

We must unite as a democratic party. Clinton will be the better candidate against McCain. She will get all the votes Obama is getting. Obama is a nice guy. He is not ready for this. He doesn't have the experience in the Senate or the experience in Washington. He is getting the racial vote and the young votes. Two groups as a rule who do not show up for elections. He is riding on a wave of excitement without clear thinking. VOTE CLINTON and do it now.

Anonymous, thank you for saying something REAL AND SPEAKING THE TRUTH about this whole election. I feel that the majority of votes Obama is getting in these rich white areas are from repulicians voting for him in order to HURT HILLARY CHANCES. I will not have to worry about voting for Obama if he gets the nomination because MCcain will SLAM him on election day.

S.R.S. in Washington State said...

I have to agree with AnnMarie. I'm a Green and voted Democratic in the many of the past Presidential elections and in the last two. I didn't vote for the Green candidate even though I was disappointed with the Democratic choice. I voted for the lesser of two evils.

I'm still amazed that a Green is appealing to longtime/lifelong Democrats to stay with their party on this. Obama and Clinton are far better choices than McCain. If you disagree, why not post your email addresses here and in a few years if McCain wins, I'll send you a nice, tactful, Told You So email.

Best wishes,
S.R.S. a Green in Washington State

protactinium said...

Ok. All you Hilary supporter who say you are voting purley on experince. You are all liars. If you are voting purley on experince you should vote for Mccain.

Also everyone say we need to unite the democratic party.

How is Hilary a uniter?

Haveing her husband compare Obama to Jesse Jackson? Hmm not looking like Jackson now that hes winnign the pledged delegtes.

By Hilary comming out and saying a bunch of state dont care for her vote. Such as ND?

Hilary is a divder, and Hilary will be able to get nothing done in the white house.

Hilary will single handly destroy the democratic party for decades to come.

All while she destroys our economy. Please people really look at the issues, and make a real judgement. Dont just tout the campaign lines.

S.R.S. in Washington State said...

Wakeup75, I have to disagree with you. At my caucus location in Washington State, all of the people I talked with who voted for Obama were not rogue Republicans trying to mess up Clinton's chances. They were passionate and excited about Obama. A lot of people knew each other there too and I didn't hear any say that they saw a rogue Republican in the mix. Note that 85% of the people in my Precinct voted for Obama. Even if by chance a few were shady Republicans, it wouldn't have changed that number by much, to say 80%.

These allegations are hogwash. Just stop it! It's part of a small set of Clinton supporters who are trying to push their version of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) to convince people to vote for Clinton.

S.R.S. a Green in Washington State

Carrie said...

I have a WHOLE new perspective on the Super Delegate/Pledged Delegate shenanigans. I listened to the Diane Rehm show today - highly recommend listening to it via WAMU.org's online archives.

My main realization is that we're all getting our panties up in a bunch very prematurely.
1) The super dels will vote the way they believe is right in the end, and they all care a great deal about the party.
2) There are a lot more pledged dels left to pull in over the next 2 months - currently nobody is poised to be the presumptive winner.

Will Ed Kennedy vote against Obama and w/his constituents who strongly favored Clinton? Maybe. Maybe not. Will the preponderance of at-large dels overrule the preponderance of pledged-del masses? Doubtful. Maybe a few at-larges will toss MI/FL a couple conciliatory Clinton votes. Maybe it'll make a difference.

Maybe there will be no *statistically significant* difference in pledged delegates heading out of April and into May, and maybe the super dels will, all together, decide to break the tie in favor of your candidate.

I now see it like this: Let the super dels endorse who they'd like. Let them tell everyone why they're backing that person, why they think it's in the country's best interest that they be nominated.

If we make it to the convention, one person has a clear lead - it was pretty clear the super dels wouldn't squash the pledged dels at the door. If it's very close, they may tip it slightly. They'll certainly be scrutinized, though...we'll all be watching pretty closely.

protactinium said...

Yep. All republicans are lining up behing Obama just to hurt Hilarys chances. ARE YOU JOKING ME??

Jezze desprate people will do desprate things.

Also anyone heard yet another Hilary gaffe today? That caucus states don't matter. You keep uniting Hilary

karry said...

The Dream of We have always wanted is finally starting to turn into the Nightmare that we ALL would prefer did not happen.

What is the Nightmare?

One the Obama side we have the opportunity to elect the first Black? President of the USA.

On the other side we have the opportunity to elect the first Women President of the USA.

Obviously we can’t have a Black and a Women President at the same time.

Yes I have been naughty and visited other blog sites and had a look at the war that is going on in the various camps.

This blog is no different in many respects. However we seem to be a little more civilized in this camp, even though we do have those who make comments re: race (across the board) and gender.

So the point of this is as follows –

Is the Dream that both camps are wanting so desperately going to happen?

One for sure is not going to be elected as the Nominee. That is certain.

If it is Mr Obama’s side that looses I can see outrage and the democrat vote going either to Obama the very die hard democrats in the Obama camp, and some of these questionable blow in Independents? Which I seriously believe are in the most part republicans and will not vote for Obama anyways but are there to destabilise the vote in favor of cracking the democratic party.

Then if Mrs Clinton looses, I can see at least 25% of the party voters that have voted for her going to the Republican camp. McCain.

So in a General Election who ever wins is going to be going up against a brick wall in both camps of the Democratic Party.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2884

Krugman claims “most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody.”

I am sure this is the case for those that support Mrs Clinton. I am sure of it. You know my position, and I will be sticking with the outcome of the Nomination Process.

The way the 2 camps are now, and by the time the Nominee is over the line it is going to be way to late to heal this party.

Howard Dean has a great deal to answer for in allowing the MI and FL votes to be invalidated. Voters will also remember this when it comes time to vote in the General Election.

Add that to the destruction which is going on in the Party now with Mr Obama’s supporters and Mrs Clinton’s supporters, we are paving the way to 4 years of McCain.

Whilst we might win absolute control in the Senate in Fall, I doubt that we will win the General Election for President.

The Party has to sort out MI & FL situation NOW!!

Both Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton need to sort out what is best for the Party NOW!!!

If this nomination process goes on for much longer it is going to be destruction for the party.

Don’t believe me, then read all the blogs in this DCW Blog. See the venom in it towards Mrs Clinton and vice a versa. This is an example of what is going to happen.

The press are having a field day and guess what, we are the ones who are giving them the field day.

Unless there is a Joint ticket and someone is going to have to give way, then the Presidency is going to go to the Republicans.

The hatred is so intense now, that nothing of real substance is going to bring the party together.

You have the super delegates which may vote in block for Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama’s supporters will go hell to leather over it if they see this happen.

If the Delegates go for Mr Obama, you will see long term Democrats either vote Independent candidates or will decline to vote in the Presidential Election part of the General Election.

It is too late, this nomination process has gone on too long.

Someone has to give way otherwise by June the party will be so fractured it will be too late.

Fence sitters need to get off their bums and make the decision that needs to be made now before it becomes totally broken.

I have never seen this sort of venom in my entire life.

Just something to think about folks. (SERIOUSLY FOLKS) sorry ben for shouting, now I will go in sit in the corner and do my penance for shouting. hehe

Nana Karry (a little humour for the evening)

S.R.S. in Washington State said...

Thanks Karry, though I have to disagree who is slinging mud the hardest since I’ve read and heard plenty of venom coming from Clinton’s camp. The sad thing is that this nomination process had to go negative. From what I can remember, Clinton decided it was time to get dirty and the moment that happened the mud started slinging harder. Very sad. Also note that it got much worse in the past few days since Clinton started losing more states.

This issue with MI and FL disenfranchised Democratic voters has got to get fixed. Until the DNC resolves this, the possible delegates that could come out of it is myth. There is no way they can take the current results, no matter how logical it may seem to the Clinton camp that the results are accurate.

I’m heartened the Republican camp is in a state of chaos too. The RNC is trying to make believe that it isn’t, but they have the evangelicals extremely mad right now. McCain is almost up there with the devil. Do I think he deserves that, no, of course not. At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if Huckabee goes independent. If that happens, unless this horrible infighting in the Democratic Party doesn’t stop, the Democrat candidate should easily win. McCain will not be able to pull enough independents to his side to make up for his loss of the religious right.

So, Dean needs to try to get the mudslinging to slow down between Clinton and Obama in their ads, talks and debates. This would probably help to get their supporters from spewing venom too. This is not healthy and nobody will win. How’s this for a wild prediction, if the in fighting in the Democratic party continues and fractures the party more, and Huckabee goes independent, I will predict Huckabee the winner in November. How’s that for some FUD? :-)

Good luck Democrats. I’m disheartened by all of this. I guess in the end a part of me hopes the Two Party structure fractures because of these issues in both parties and changes are made to the Constitution to make multiple parties viable in this country. Then, the Green Party could actually make headway in this country and I could vote with my party again. Of course, I’m not holding my breath that this will happen, the RNC and DNC couldn’t stand having to share their stage with any other parties. All I care about right now though is that Obama or Clinton moves into the Whitehouse for the next term. The other can wait.

S.R.S. a Green in Washington State

Ben said...

Karry,
I agree. I came to the conclusion before Super Tuesday that I could indeed by support and be excited by Sen. Clinton, despite my rabid Obama fan status for nearly four years. We need to realize that the only way McCain is getting into the White House is if we keep fighting and making threats not to vote, or go GOP against our favored candidate. I read that Op-ed with the 'venom' quote today, and I wholeheartedly agreed that Obama fans are too close-minded right now, but at the same time I was disappointed that the editor, a Clinton supporter, lacked the obvious insight to see that a large number of Clintonites are doing the same damn thing. Stop arguing about who will or won't get elected and come to the realization that BOTH of these candidates are in far superior positions to beat the hell out of McCain in the fall. No one is going to vote for a 71 year old man, one who can barely read a speech and one who wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. Good luck fixing our economy while we spend trillions on a country that has never lived under self rule without oppressing a majority of its people.


I also think that we could have a black and a woman president at the same time, just maybe not this year ;p.

I also don't think that FL or MI are really that vital to resolving this rift. Hopefully the DNC will get its stuff together and find a solution during the Texas/Ohio to Penn break.

Carrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
karry said...

Hello S.R.S. in Washington State and Ben.... thank you for your comments and thoughts. I agree we need to see both sides and yes we have some crazies in the Mrs Clinton camp as well. But we need to settle down for the good of the Party, and for the good of the Nation in the long term... If we do not Mr McCain will win.

So, I think what I have been trying to say is we need to start the healing now before it is too late. Obviously the Party can't do it and if they don't do it soon it is going to be tooo late.

In my retirement village it is already starting and people are starting to not talk to each other, so can you imagine in a few weeks what the tension is going to be like.

We need to start a 'Rave' I think it is called, to call upon the DNC Chairman Howard Dean to sort this out, and sort it out now.

How do you feel about this?

Have a good night.

Karry

Carrie said...

Carrie said...
Do you think Clinton & Obama read some of these posts and scream, "OH GOD! DON'T SAY THAT ON MY BEHALF!" I'm really glad I've had such positive exchanges with some Obama supporters here. I read It helps me remember that not every argument made on his behalf is one he would support.

Hillary C had to wretch a little each time Bill C made one of his inappropriate, if well-intended, pleas on her behalf, just as I would have to imagine Barack O groaned a little when Michelle O said she'd have to consider voting against the party in the GE if he didn't get the nomination.

Well, I've been trying to stay out of that kind of muck. Hopefully those of you who support Obama and who have read my previous posts know that my vote and my convictions lie with our platform, and I will call, canvas, cry, whatever it takes to see a dem elected in November. I have no desire to see either candidate torn down. However, I can't stand by and say nothing in response to the blatant double standards and *personal* venom I'm seeing slung FAR more often by Obama supporters - particularly the voices of what seem like young lemmings chanting, "Clinton's status quo. She's nothing but old politician. She's a horrible person. Barack supporters won't vote for her." (Several of you clearly don't fall into this pack, I keep coming back here for your balanced insights - I won't list you, because I'd probably forget someone).

SRS, you may remember - Karry, I'm sure you do and will appreciate the walk down memory lane, if not nostalgically.

Many of you can't remember the absolutely hateful CRAP the Clinton gals (Hillary and Chelsea) had to endure back in the 1990s. It disturbs me deeply that Obama is capitalizing on the hate train the republicans have been getting all fueled up for this moment, this time. You can't remember when Hillary came into the White House - how many repubs were outspoken in their concern that a first lady hold a position of value and significance. They felt she should be put in her place. They accused her of being a lesbian and rumored that the partnership between her and Bill was a mere front. They savored that little nugget again when Bill cheated on her and she and her daughter were already suffering. They hated her for the power she held and the fact that she CHALLENGED the status quo. They quickly made her the women they loved to hate. That is where the deep digging into her history began and the reason that her dirty laundry has been aired far more thoroughly than any other senator, governor, etc. You can't expect any surprises from her on that front. This history of hate and the subsequent digging have contributed to the outright IRE for her - and to the engrained suspicion of her every move and motive. Her pioneering role as a first lady with a political agenda for positive change is responsible for much of the hatred, and a HUGE chunk of the electability BULLSH#T. It is DISGUSTING to me that anyone with any memory of those times stands by and lets that slide. You so sure that you dislike her for the right reasons that you're willing to let the rotten republicans scare you into spewing the "well, the republicans will rally against her" bile to get your candidate nominated? If that tactic works, the sexist CRAP is why. If you are willing to let that stand, SHAME. On electability - I'm completely done with that topic.

As for spousal integrity: For Michelle Obama to be so low and dirty as to suggest that Clinton's marital hardships compromised her ability to lead, while Barack Obama is evoking images of JFK and MLK - two amazing leaders who were, in fact, major adulterers - is, well, I don't even know. Messed up. That really flies with you?

So what is it?

Is she a rotton socialist who brazenly expects us to all take responsibility for the health of all our citizens, or the type of rotton politician only a free market could buy? Yes, she has lobyist bundlers 20 of them. You know what? Obama has them, too. 10 of them - two of whom represent serious conflicts of interest from his days in the IL senate (Exelon, Maytag). Here's a snippit from someone who knows more: Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues. “He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different, but overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.” I'll give any of you who are actually surprised by that a moment to choke it down. It sucks realizing your hero is only human.

....

OK, back to it then, and on to comparisons of grass roots organizing and inspiring people to rise up and make changes.

Yep - You've had the opportunity here to follow my evolution here from angry Clinton voter, to passionate Clinton supporter who will accept Obama as a mighty fine second to angry but still pretty happy to accept Obama as a mighty fine second. If you've been following along, you know that Hillary gave a speech that changed my life - saved it, even, as I don't think I'd have pulled myself out of my destructive shithole of a marriage and life to meet my husband and parent my amazing daughter. My personal slogan is "Thank Hillary for Little Petras" - corny. The Clinton campaign has not contacted me about any PR job openings. She inspired me to act - to turn my life around on a dime. I didn't just get weepy and start talking about how this new person was going to come along and fix all my problems. I got up out of the dumps, dusted myself off, and created a very successful and happy life for myself. I volunteered in hospitals and schools, and taught in urban public schools along the way. I think part of the reason I believe she is the one to make the change is that the people I've seen inspired by her have gone on to do more than push a voting button and wait for the change ding to come from the inspiration microwave - but that's just my personal experience. Hopefully all of the young people he's inspired to get involved will actually take on the world the way I have and make this great country all the greater. I'm honestly hopeful - if he really fulfills his potential to be the next JFK or MLK, and we see a huge social revolution as a result, and I get to raise a daughter while he's doing it - wow! Hopefully his military policy won't go as terribly wrong as JFKs in the Bay of Pigs. Hopefully he will show better judgement than JFK did in going against our allies and taking military action to overthrow the government of Iraq and put a guy named Sadaam Hussein in charge. If you're voting for Obama because he's more like JFK and Clinton voted for the war, read up. Geeze! It really, REALLY sucks when you/I realize one of your/my heroes was the ORIGINAL guy to get it wrong on Iraq. The only reason I can imagine this hasn't been raised by republicans is because it'll be so, so sweet for those turds to raise it in October. I appreciate what Caroline Kennedy's invoking her father's image is doing - how it's inspiring us all to think about the possibilities of programs like the Peace Corps and the potential for a REAL end to de facto segregation. As proud as JFK makes me to be a dem, I don't like the way Obama's campaign is using his memory. It feels icky.

Ahhhh, I'm starting to feel a little more civil. I'll point to a few things you might not know about Clinton.
She's flip-flopped. In 1960, she canvassed the streets of South Side Chicago to help uncover voter fraud that benefitted (here he is again) JFK when JFK defeated Nixon in a very Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry fight, where it's speculated that Dem. Mayor Daley underhandedly gave JFK the state of IL, and, in turn, the presidency.
Two things crazy here:
1) HRC was canvassing for Nixon (yuck) who happened to have the moral high ground (huh?!?) in a race against Kennedy (...) that involved voter fraud (wuh?).
2) HRC was only 13. At 13, I'm not proud to admit, I was chasing boys sporting bad eighties hair and too much make up. A year later she organized a babysitting brigade for migrant farm workers who couldn't afford daycare. THAT's the kind of kid I'm trying to raise.

Now, you ask, why did I say she flip flopped? As an adult she became a dem, an ardent activist for children, and in '74, a staffer on the Nixon impeachment inquiry.

After law school she passed the bar - yes she failed it once (someone raised that here), but that put her in good company, with - guess who - YES! JFK! She pioneered the concept of child rights - described by one historian as "one of the more important scholar-activists of the last two decades" (1992) for her work in the field. She founded...

I won't go on. I could - she's done a lot of amazing work. But, if you're interested in learning, rather than destroying, you, too, can consult wikipedia (I highly recommend the part about her Wellsley where she got a 7-min standing O for, yes, speaking about challenging the status quo).

For those of you who are bothered by it, I'll unashamedly admit I've talked about experience. Aside from the references to editing Harvard Law Review & "being a community organizer in a faith based organization" I haven't found any references to real advocacy/organizing efforts on Obama's part - even on his own website - that suggest he is committed to the type of lifelong work Clinton's already accomplished. I want a sincere leader. You question her motives and accuse her of vote fraud and saying/doing anything to be elected. Let her actions speak: She's dedicated much of her life to advocacy for children, culminating in that "miserable failiure of a health reform" we now know as SCHIP. That crew is OBVIOUSLY the best special interest to serve if you want to get the money and the power - everyone knows that poor kids with health problems have the deepest pockets. Duh!

...almost done...blood from face draining...

On experience, maybe I'm hung up on that because it's sad to me that to so many of you, I'm now OLD at 35 and it seems to be suggested that I should drag my weary bones aside so as not to piss off the new potential democrats. In fact, I have been in this. I've voted, I've canvassed, I've marched. I have waited my turn. Our time is now. Let the other guy wait.

I am ready, with a very optimistic heart to follow a powerful and experienced woman on a positive tragectory of change that started before many of you could vote.

Carrie said...

OK, so, Ben, Karry, SRS - Sorry for taking the discussion off the topic of reconcilliation. I'm back now. Hopefully you can forgive my rant. The best analogy for how I feel after getting all of that out is kind of inappropriate, so I'll just say I feel better.

I won't engage on the negative stuff again. If I do, I owe you each a nickel.

Thanks for your words of peace.
-c

safia said...

Oh man I missed a lot!

S.R.S. said...

Carry,

Now I want to give you and a few others a great big virtual hug. See, it’s good to let it all out in a tactful and sensitive way. You have a lot of passion young lady (I don’t think of you as old, I might have been one of the guys you chased after with the bad eighties hair :-). You get the big star for the night. In life it is way too easy to misunderstand the motives of others when you are getting personal attacks. It easy to think they have evil motives when in fact they are sore from getting attacked too.

I’ve thought that politicians have learned from the past that negative, attack-oriented, campaigning is a path to despair at so many levels, but political advisors and pundits think it’s a necessary evil. They make candidates out as weak if they don’t participate in it. Hogwash. I think it’s important that policies and issues are questioned and challenged but it can be done in a way that doesn’t lead to personal attacks. I had thought in the distant past that if this boiled down to a race between Clinton and Obama that it was going to be a season of positive campaigning for once, hallelujah (oops, I shouldn’t say that, it’s Lent after all :-). But alas, no. That wasn’t to be. However, I’m an eternal optimist in the end (I’m a Green remember) and still think the O and C camps can reconcile in these last stages of the primaries. If not, then I guess each camp will win certain battles against each other but they will probably lose the war. I’ll then go back to trying to be an optimistic Green and focus on plenty of local Western Washington issues again for the next few years while the global landscape burns, ice caps melt, more Katrina’s hit the coastal cities, 10s of thousands more species go extinct, corn is taken from mouths to feed Suburban flexfuel SUVs, Iran is invaded by a misguided country, hardworking people helping to maintain our way of life are kicked out of the country, heath care becomes yet more unaffordable to millions more, the top 1% keep their tax cuts because those tax cuts have clearly done so much good for our economy, the new Alaska oil fields accidentally pollute one of the last pristine environments and kill off yet more polar bears so our oil companies can continue to have record profits, China continues to fund our appetite for debit that our children will have a hard time to payback while working for less for Chinese companies that have slowly crept into our country, more nuclear plants are built because our government doesn’t wake up to realizing that we can use much less energy today using technology we already have but think the market will provide without mandates, CA, WA and other states are whipped back in line after attempting to force stricter environmental laws because the federal government is clearly better at knowing how to manage the environment, and the rest of the world will sit back and shake their collective head at how foolish the American electorate was for missing two of the their best opportunities in years to possibly have started to fix some of these issues.

Time to wake up! Let’s get the Democratic primaries positive again! We have two amazing and unique candidates that should be allowed to continue running against each other in a civil and respectful manner.

S.R.S. a Green from Washington State

safia said...

I’m getting a little tired of people sidelining my reasons, and so many people’s reasons, for supporting Barack Obama to an agenda that they see as appropriate – an agenda that has nothing to do with what I’ve said, so many people have said, and what Obama’s campaign stands for. What, really, does Obama have to do with JFK? Nothing. The media came up with an excellent sound bite, and many, many people are chewing on it – especially Clinton supporters who say wither 1) JFK, MLK, not so good, adulterers, etc., or 2) “he’s no JFK” or “no MLK.” Gods. So what? I’ve not supporting Obama because of a soundbite.

“I'll give any of you who are actually surprised by that a moment to choke it down. It sucks realizing your hero is only human.” This is such a rude (and useless) comment. Your Weissman quote was also taken out of context. “Bundling” in itself is not the problem. Special interests with pull and influence in Washington is what makes the difference. If you are simply tracking on who has any large donors, it’s pure ideology. That’s not the point. On this point, the most important issue is which candidate is most indebted to which special interests and lobbies – and whether the public (and the world) will get sold out as a result.

You forgot the other quote in the same article: "This ban is part of Obama's best effort to address the problem of money in politics," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "It isn't a perfect solution to the problem and it isn't even a perfect symbol. But it does reflect that Obama shares the urgency of the American people to change the way Washington operates." No, no candidate is running a green, clean campaign with $10.00 contributions; but nobody claimed that in the first place. Your argument is a red herring.

A lot of Clinton supporters are assuming that all Obama supporters are starry-eyed sillies who are clutching at their hearts and singing for peace—another media manipulation. (Yes, I work in independent journalism and I’m pretty sensitive to the way mainstream media dishes it out to direct perception. It works). I don’t think Obama will be the next JKF or MLK. He will be the next BHO. All this talk of JFK and MLK only indicates that we are so disillusioned right now across generations that we looking back to last time we can all remembering the people having a voice. Notice that everybody skips over the Clinton years in that collective Howl for another era. Yeah. the Kennedy’s are going to bat for Obama; I’ll grant you that. That doesn’t mean we are all looking for the next JFK.

You know, 35 is pretty d*mn young. I don’t understand your comment about that – but it’s a backhanded way of playing into the notion that Obama supporters are as inexperienced you would like us to believe he is. That’s messed up.

Strange that the most persuasive and appealing issue on Hillary Clinton’s agenda is one I don’t hear a lot about – her healthcare platform, not because it’s all that different than Obama’s (one key and tres-importante difference though, hers is required spending for all), but because her healthcare plan is the ONLY evidence I can see that she does not buy into the Friedman-esque, special interest generated, fact cat political, privatization nightmare which is horribly affecting people’s lives here and around the world. Corporations are bad because they are corporations. Privatization of what should be universal access to things like basic healthcare is bad. Also, everyone keeps throwing “socialized” this and that around as though it means something de facto bad. That’s cold war rhetoric. The post office, public libraries, public education … -- these are good things, “socialized,” democratic things. Don’t fall prey to media rhetoric so often.

If Clinton’s years as First Lady are going to resound the call for experience so loudly, then her hand in debacles needs to be taken into account. Media, for example, is being gobbled up by private companies – with special interests – and it makes it more difficult to assess what’s going on when three multinationals own every major network. The Clinton years made that possible.

There are issues many of us care about. It would be nice if that could be acknowledged.

If Clinton supporters want to persuade Obama supporters to vote for her if he loses, try taking us more seriously—don’t dismiss us like this, so rudely and condescendingly, and stop attacking our judgment. It isn’t right. I haven’t dismissed the judgment of Clinton supporters; I’ve simply disagreed …. I’ve worked very hard to do the research, and not simply self-interested research but also on issues that pertain to people outside the US, and I’ve been weighing what I’ve learned for nearly three years. I chose to support Obama very thoughtfully and with a great deal of care. As someone who has hoped for a woman in the White House, it made me very sad that I would not be casting my vote for a woman. I’d appreciate it if those of you who support other candidates would quit ascribing to Obama supporters this doe-eyed, na├»ve, and idealistic quality that supposedly makes our vote noting more than a swoon for the “preacher.” That is so wrong, so wrong. You’re the ones swooning for the media.

Sorry. All that up there was just too, too much. Troubling. I'm disappointed that Clinton supporters don't seem to have much respect for the judgment or experience of Obama supporters. When you look closely, it seems to be less about the candidates and more about patting us "idealists" on the head.

Matt said...

Folks, lets mov this discussion over to the Open Thread:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/open-thread.html

safia said...

Karry --

Where ever you are, I hope you are doing well. My gramps went into the hospital. I'm wishing he could partake in these lively discussions. He'd like them. Best to you.

To everyone else, thank you for all the input and info ... you're right about the party needing to come together... I wish that Green was teh way we could all go.

protactinium said...

Why does every complain about the "venom" Obama supporters are full of these days.

The truth is both side of the fence are turning venomous. Why is this? This is because we arguing about our true convictions. What we belive is right, and the best route to go. The best thing for everyone. When you truly belive that something is right youll fight it at all costs.

Hilary herself, and her supporters have made on real mistake of the "starry-eyed" Obama supporters. They are not supporting Obama because of a sound bite or because the media said so. The type of support Obama has only comes from one thing.

TRUE CONVICTIONS! Obama supporters support Obama because they truly belive hes right. Saying anything else is no only insulting to Obama, but also to his supporters, as well as our democracy as a whole. To try and say that them 50% of democratics voting are voting with an angenda is just wrong, and a 90s way of red vs blue thinking that has put us in the situations we are in today.

Carrie said...

Safia - Maybe I should have listed people at whom this wasn't targeted. You were at the top of the list. We've exchanged information and opinions, and those echanges have deepened my appreciation for Obama. I don't question your judgement. It's clear you're an independent-minded and informed voter. I've tried to be clear that I'll be very happ about the outcome in November as long as it's one of these two amazing people. I'm deeply sorry you read this as targeted in that way. It really wasn't intended.

I've appreciated how you haven't put arguments in black and white, you haven't said that Obama is perfect and Clinton is crooked. I believe you've done your research and I have no doubt that you are aware of some of his financing conflicts of interest. I believe that you recognize that, just as none of us are perfect, neither are these two tremendous people with noble goals. My point, which may have been lost in the delivery, behind the hero comment is that it's something that happens to all of us. I remember the one and only time my mom made a racist statement when I was 13 - it sucked to realize she was human. I remember when it came out that Bill C did, indeed, cheat on Hillary C. It sucked. They're human. When those things happened, I certainly needed a moment to digest them.

About JFK, I disagree that this is a media-driven phenomenon based on some coincidental soundbite. But that's not the point. My point in drawing parallels to JFK - whom I revere - was to try to put the notion of balance into perspective for people who seem think - and NO I didn't and don't think this includes you - that Obama walks on water and Clinton is an *evil* liar who has done nothing but cheat to get where she is. (I haven't seen anyone refer to Obama as evil, or suggest that if he won any states there had to be fraud involved.) It's the same reason I pointed out that Hillary had campaigned for Nixon (ewwww), and that Nixon had had the moral high ground (weird).

The key things I think you missed in my message were
- It's unfair to lump all supporters of either camp into one bucket
- We shouldn't assume any individual here - including me - speaks for the candidate or his/her supporters
- I, too, am voting for my candidate because of my starry eyed ideals. (I, too was insulted when, in an earlier thread, someone here dismissed my ideas and arguments because, "it [was] obvious Hillary is a personal hero of [mine].")

I really wasn't trying to insult people for choosing their candidate because they're idealistic, but to defend myself against the accusation that I wasn't.

My point about experience here was an honest attempt to put a finger on just what was bothering me about 1) the experience argument, which didn't make as much sense as it used to, and 2) why it still appeals to me. What I've realized is that the experience I value is experience in the type of advocacy and service she's dedicated her life to - that, in another universe on a different planet, I think any Obama supporter could really appreciate. That experience is completely overlooked by many - both young and old. I also realized that it's overlooked in large part because of the sexist crap she had to endure. I may only see it that way because she was the hero I saw being clobbered in my early twenties. At any rate, the hateful stuff really ticks me off.

On age, I HAVE had people, not necessarily here (I honestly don't remember, could have just been DU) suggest to me that I was being divisive by not falling in line behind Obama as it was certainly going to cause the *new* voters who have never been involved in the process to never vote again. Seriously - they've said that to me! At 35, I'd still like to fancy myself as "the future of the party." I still have a lot more presidential elections to participate in. You may not think I'm old, but some of these folks do!

I'm not swooning for the media. I don't have time. I listen to NPR on my hour-long commute into and home from work; I watch youtube clips of debates, interviews and speeches after I've tucked my daughter into bed and made a few calls for the Clinton campaign; I read; and I come here. Clearly this is no bastion of Clinton good will, so that's not why I'm here and not where I get my starry eyed warm fuzzies for Clinton. I come here to listen to you and SRS, Karry and Dave, Protactinium... the list goes on. Beyond that, I try to find time to read the info on policy and background related on each candidate's website as I figure that's the best/easiest place to locate positives. I read wiki pages and follow the trail of links to sources sited.

I'm not sure exactly why I got the gold star from SRS (thank you, by the way - that made my day), and, in your review, got plugged into the Clinton supporter hall of shame.

All I can say, that I can repeat, is that I prefer Clinton for my own very good reasons, but I feel like one of the luckiest democrats in history to have Obama be the alternative.

Peace.
-c

Carrie said...

Safia - I'm sorry to hear about your grandpa. You, he and your family are in my thoughts. He sounds like a true gem. Have you heard the Friday morning "Story Corp" series on NPR? I'd love to hear his story there some time.

-c

Carrie said...

I've moved to the open thread. Hope to see you there.

-c