Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

Previous Open Thread here

1552 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 of 1552 Newer› Newest»

ed iglehart said...: emit,

looks like you're 1001; April 26, 2008 1:41 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: Jim: interesting idea re the SD’s who went against the rules. Seems like a fair way to punish the actual offenders.

Wonder if the DNC could then impose those same penalties on NH, IA and SC, who also moved their dates up -- against the DNC rules -- but had no penalties imposed.; April 26, 2008 1:42 PM
RobH said...: nnnaedMSMwatch,

You're correct. This will go to the convention. But IMO, the answer will be known in June.

Can you imagine this scenario? On June third after some more flow of SD's to both sides, and all contests done, Obama is w/in say 25 of the nom, and Clinton is w/in say 125 (not unreasonable.) If in the next week 40 SD's swing PUBLICALLY to Obama, making him the presumptive nominee, based on PUBLIC pledges, but no SD votes cast yet ('cause we haven't had the convention.)

Do you recommend Hillary work the SD's all summer long, to rescind their pledges (cause they haven't actually haven't voted yet)to overcome the public presumption - nay, acceptance - of his nomination?

If that happens....WOW (IMO); April 26, 2008 1:50 PM
jpsedona said...: MSM,

"JP, NC Dave, Ed, et al: The SD votes are not cast until convention; IMO, they do not really count until then, so any talk about how many either candidate needs to get NOW in order to “win” is not exactly “real.”

Absolutely correct. The delegates don't get counted until the convention.

However, if the SD's commit to a candidate (take your pick) and push one over the top (whatever that number turns out to be depending on MI & FL), for all practical purposes it will be over.

"So this will go to the convention. At that time, many factors will play in those SD decisions, GE being a primary one, I’m sure. And those in office will be -- and are now -- including their own re-election considerations (sorry, folks, it is politics, you know) in their decisions."

I cannot see either candidate looking for a convention battle once someone has reached the magic number (whatever it turns out to be). At that point the pressure will be there to concede and one of them will.

I personally believe that Hillary will concede before MI & FL are resolved. If she has aspirations of running again in 4 years if Obama loses the GE, or in 8 years, she is not going to start a civil war in the Dem party.

IMO, the down-ballot effects on the elected delegates is exactly why they won't reverse Obama's lead in pledged delegates.

Time will tell.; April 26, 2008 1:50 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: Ed & Robh:

The SD's are part of the play, and are DELEGATES, within the rules, and their decisions may be based on any criteria they choose, and the popular vote may -- and in my opinion should -- be one of the criteria used, and using the popular vote to persuade SD’s is fair and within the rules, and within the race for DELEGATES, so . . . we agree!; April 26, 2008 1:50 PM
RobH said...: Hey, has anyone noticed the the word verification is getting far more difficult to read? Far more slanted and merged? Or have the powers that be finally wised up and figured a way to dissuade me?; April 26, 2008 1:51 PM
Richard said...: Gator: I'm not sure where this hostility is coming from. If I've done anything to offend you, I apologize. I did not mean to at all.

Rereading your post in light of your most recent comment I can sort of see what you've done.

I used my first set of numbers based on polling data I found(which I stated before!)

I know that your first numbers are based on polls. That wasn't the question. I still disagree with your reliance on polls biased by the current divisive contest, since those numbers will change greatly once we have a nominee; but what I was confused about was how you were using what I had said.

I ''factored in your theories'' by using your statistic on states either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama would win that I did not have polls in.

This is what I was unsure of but now understand. The problem with this method is, as I have stated in my late-night post last night, that it completely misconstrues what I have said. I specifically did not make predictions of states either Clinton or Obama "would" win at all, merely listed the states I believe each of the candidates has a chance of winning. In other words, they are each candidate's swing states. There is a big difference. I by no means think that Clinton will win Florida, and I think there is a very good chance that she would lose either Ohio or Missouri (or both), leaving her with exactly 255 delegates. This is why I think reliance on the failed 2000/2004 strategy is foolhardy.

Finally, I created "at-large" states based on states you did not have listed.

States not listed are states I believe McCain will win no matter who is the Democratic nominee. I combed through your post and found that of those you think Clinton could win Tennessee and West Virginia. I am doubtful, but that gives her a couple of extra paths to victory, for a total of 49 Obama to her 8.

This was the sum of my theory, though: that Obama has more possible paths to victories. I was not making any claims about individual states or electoral vote totals.

All I really wanted to know is if I read your post considering you said you would check that

I am very confused: how would I know whether you read my post? And what was I supposed to check? I don't remember saying that I would check anything. I certainly read your post, since I replied to it in my general clarification of my post, and I am sorry if I failed to do something I had promised to do.

AND a THANK YOU would have been nice after I wished you well on your house.

I am sorry you were offended that I did not thank you for wishing me well on my home purchase. I did appreciate it, but, as I have said, I have very little time this weekend and I am trying to keep my posts topical. Shouting is certainly neither necessary nor civil. I am not taking this discussion at all personally, I am merely engaging in an academic excercise explaining why I think Obama was our best choice for nominee.

If it will help ease any anger you've developed toward me, though, I do very much thank you for your well-wishes.

If you want, I can e-mail you all my combinations for Senator Clinton in further breakdowns.

I am really interested in which states I did not list for her that you think Clinton could have been viable in in the General Election had she won the nomination. I would also be interested to know if there are any states I have listed as possible Obama states which you think he will have no chance in in November, and any of the red states I did not list in which you think he will be competitive. I think those should be easily posted here, though.

Again, I do not intend any offense.; April 26, 2008 1:52 PM
vwis said...: msmwatch,
The SDs in DC alone could shut this primary down right now. They choose not to because of the reasons that you mention. That is why HRC supporters (ie. Bayh) are counselling the SDs not to endorse. We can endorse, but you can't. (Chris M and Keith O talked about that last night, it was hilarious. Our should I say Hillaryous. That's entertainment news!) It is beening done by SDs who have endorsed HRC. If that works in DC I think we need new representation. Its almost as if she was a mind-sucking zombie and they're her offspring.
To Bayh I say run don't walk, run or you too will be the scapegoat. The Clintons are untouchable.; April 26, 2008 1:54 PM
Yamaka said...: msmwatch:

Your view on SDs is on the money.

You are very analytical and reasoned. Keep writing, please.

:-) :-); April 26, 2008 1:55 PM
jpsedona said...: MSM,

The DNC proposed, and the candidates accepted the four state plan. Each signed the following pledge:

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.; April 26, 2008 1:57 PM
vwis said...: robh,
Yes, I think it is to make us think it out 2 or 3 times before we submit.; April 26, 2008 1:59 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: There is a real easy solution to the whole primary schedule squabble, and it would make it fair for all candidates, voters, and States. (for future elections, not this year)

1) No candidate can announce or campaign prior January 1st of the year of the election.

2) There is no fund raising for the primary elections. All media exposure is Public Service, Debates, Town Halls, etc., that are sponsor paid for (i.e. CNN debate paid for by CNN).

3) All primary elections are held on the same date. I like April 1st, but you could make it any set date.

4) Employers would be required by law to allow employees time off to go vote.

5) Primary winners would be decided by popular vote.

6) The parties (Dems & Reps) would then have 60 days to ratify their candidate and go through the VP selection process.

7) Then they would have 4 months to showcase their ticket to the country. This could be done through public financing or whatever. It would include stump speeches, debates, etc.

8) Then in November we vote for President.

If there were 3rd party candidates, they would have to be selected and put on the Federal ballot on the same time-line.; April 26, 2008 2:02 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: robh ~~
In your scenario, if I read it correctly, they are only 100 votes apart, then he gets 40 SD’s more, he leads by 140 and that would leave (I think) about 109 undecided supers? While I do not envision that happening in that way, are you trying to trap me? DUH!; April 26, 2008 2:04 PM
RobH said...: vwis,

No, it has gotten noticably worse over the last four weeks, aprticularly in the last few days.

Maybe there's a heat meter on it, and when the rhetoric starts ramping up, it morphs. See, when I wrote to MSM about laughing together, mine was clear as day.; April 26, 2008 2:04 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: but, I cannot say if she should work all summer long to flip SD'S -- of course, it's appealing :-); April 26, 2008 2:06 PM
RobH said...: No, msmwatch,

I wasn't trying to trap you. I was making up numbers willy-nilly, just trying to present a scenario.

And it is a scary one to consider. Imagine if he (more likely than she) gains status of "presumptive", but it's not a lock 'cause "SD's don't really vote 'til August." I think if she continues the fight then, there will be real trouble. But most notably for any viability for her political future and Bill's legacy (IMHO).; April 26, 2008 2:08 PM
Yamaka said...: "So I would be careful about using stereotypes and conventional wisdom when judging who will support him in the fall and what states he might carry".

True.

But these considerations are useful for the SDs to Nominate the Most Electable Candidate, I suppose.

Both Electoral Votes AND the Popular Votes are important in Electoral Politics, I assume.

My paramount question is,

Whether the Democratic Party will use a clean 2208 threshold Primary or a messy 2025 threshold Primary for the Nomination?

To protect the former, I am getting ready to wage a War in Denver!

Stay tuned.

A Dream Ticket with BHO as VP will be a win win and a win situation for ALL of US!

Well, if our destiny is self-destruction, What can we do about it? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Though, I believe We Can Be the Masters of Our Destiny, if we want to!

:-) :-); April 26, 2008 2:19 PM
Dave in NC said...: MSM,

You make a very valid point regarding the vote about the vote not being until the convention.

However, I must echo Rob's comment about having advance knowledge of how certain supers will vote.

Regarding all the dialog about how the supers could/should/would make their decision, I refer to a comment by a high ranking DNC member not too long ago stating that there are no uncommitted supers, only unannounced ones.

I see no likely scenario where the supers will be Clinton's white knights. Most of them are as pissed at her as the rest of us.

And yes the verification is getting as hard as an IQ test so I may not be able to get through much longer. :); April 26, 2008 2:22 PM
vwis said...: Robh,
Mines always been too cursive and usually a font that's hard to read. Also, it appears before I type my blog. It's has always taken me 2 or 3 attempts. I think that they are not wanting such long threads.
Maybe this website was setup to confuse us, just like the political system. Its probably sublimal messaging.; April 26, 2008 2:25 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: robh

No scenario looks good right now. If you use yours, but HRC is ahead in the popular vote by the same percentage as BO is ahead in the delegates, what is the right thing to desire?; April 26, 2008 2:25 PM
vwis said...: yamaka,
Or may I say aka may? I believe you are leaving yourself exposed.; April 26, 2008 2:33 PM
vwis said...: akamay,
Your pool may not be the only thing that is dull or needing shocking.; April 26, 2008 2:35 PM
vwis said...: robh & msm,
To throw a even bigger monkeywench in the whole thing, the pledge delegate aren't actually bound to vote for the winning delegate.; April 26, 2008 2:42 PM
Dave in NC said...: Emit,

Your proposals are feel good solutions, much like the proposals of Ron Paul and Mike Gravel.

But you are in the wrong country my friend. The states have the right to determine their primary dates. You see the firestorm over the DNC and the issue at hand?

Second, there are very good reasons for most of the procedures in our political process, both at the party and the national level.

Mostly to not disenfranchise small states and minority groups.

The system works well and the only complaints are when someone doesn't get their way or when some grow impatient waiting for the system to work.

That said, WHY CAN'T HC JUST QUIT I CAN'T STAND IT ANY MORE MY CHILDREN HAVE GROWN UP WHILE WE WAIT FOR THIS PRIMARY SEASON TO END... I feel better now. :); April 26, 2008 2:45 PM
Yamaka said...: Ed..

Last time when I checked nearly 60% of the White men and about 80% of the White women support HRC.

I don't see any "Entitledness" here. She was a successful Co-President for 8 years. Later, she got elected twice as Sen from one of the very important States in the Union. She went to the voters and gotten nearly 122,000 more votes than her opponent (this is out of ALL votes polled). In the coming weeks her lead could expand dramatically. The best days of BHO was over after MS!

Where is this "Entitledness"?

:); April 26, 2008 2:56 PM
Yamaka said...: vwis:

I like your fun and humor.

My pool is NOT that bad.

I just poured some bleach on it!

Are you going to the Coronation Ball in Hyde Park? lol.

Already, pastor Wright is taking all the oxygen out of the liberal MSM!

Qn: Can he damage BHO's Nomination, as an unintended consequence?

Cheer and Smile at the FIRST Woman POTUS.
:-); April 26, 2008 3:02 PM
countjellybean said...: Current List of Leaners

Clinton [11]:
Burke
Farrell
Hardt
Langan
Mafnas
Malone
Martinez
Moss
Stapleton
Strauss, Bob
Umemoto

Obama [12]:
Altmire
Brazile
Campbell, Margaret
Carter
Clyburn
Johnson, Joe
Kirk
Smith, Edward
Watkins
Maine's AddOn
Oregon's AddOn
Utah's AddOn

Denise Johnson removed because she is in the Pelosi Club. Two more planned add-ons added.

.......

Results from electoral-vote.com.

State-By-State:
Obama 154, Clinton 92

National:
Clinton 284, Obama 243

.......

As to Hillary Clinton being the "co-president", I can think of only two policy initiatives in which she played a role during her husband's two terms: universal health care and the war in Kosovo. I also have yet to see or hear any evidence to back up the claim that she is a moderate--or at least, that she is more centrist than Obama.

Along those lines, I think Evan Bayh, a true moderate/Blue Dog, would be a good choice for veep for both candidates.

.......

This is for Jean:
Thank you for your honesty. Personally I think Obama has ignored the older population up to now, and he rightly got what was coming to him in Pennsylvania. I hope you will have the chance to watch Obama on Fox News Sunday tomorrow morning. I believe he will be asked the types of questions that you would want him to answer. Perhaps you will like his answers, perhaps not.

.......

Jim said:
I do find I irritate ignorant folks more.

That is a bold statement, inasmuch as it comes from someone who doesn't know the difference between mean average, median average, and mode average.; April 26, 2008 3:57 PM
dwit said...: JP,

All I'm saying is that in this climate the Republitards are in as bad a mess as you can get. We have a president with the lowest approval ratings in history.

It seems to me your articles were written prior to the 2006 congressional elections. Remember Rep. Keith Ellison (first elected Muslim, 2006)is from good ol' Minnesota.

6 of the 10 congresspeople are dems.

In Wisconsin 7 out of 10 congresspeople are dems.

These do not look like states trending Republitard.

Here is an interesting article on the 2008 fight for Minnesota's Senate seat.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/11594276.html

An excerpt:
"Coleman's 45 percent approval rating among Minnesota adults puts him well into the below 50 percent zone, considered a sign of vulnerability for incumbents."

BTW, has anybody noticed how far off Rassmussen has been on these primary polls. Are they some kind of partisan group?

I'm not one who puts much stock in these polls, as I believe most have an angle, but some are way more accurate than others. Any thoughts on that?; April 26, 2008 4:16 PM
dwit said...: vwis,

Sometimes I'm not sure if you are responding to me or someone else. I am fine. Frustrated with this nonsense that Hillary has any chance of winning, yeah. But, I am continually blown away by how easily people are swayed by "character" issues over POLICY and the source of the candidates FUNDING.

To me its a no-brainer. I mean if you want to get down to character, which candidate openly lied about something they supposedly did?

Bosnia ring any bells?; April 26, 2008 4:21 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: countjellybean -

I found your statement about Obama not paying attention to the elderly a bit curious because I have been watching his rallies and townhalls LIVE online on CNN for several months and he has addressed many issues regarding seniors:

1) No income tax for seniors making under $50,000 per year

2) Having more care-givers to take care of the elderly in their homes so that they can stay in their neighborhoods and not have to be placed in a nursing home.

3) Enforcing the laws on the books for 'easy access' for wheelchairs, ramps, etc. so that the disabled and elderly can get around better.

To name a few.

Also, it amazes me when the media says he is not specific on issues because he DOES all the time on issues like the:

Economy
Early education
College tuition ($4,000 per student per year, Dream Act, Pell grants, etc)
Environment
Veterans (benefits/medical)
Heath-care
Research (science/medical/technology)
Energy
Iraq war
Diplomacy
and all of the rest. And if there is something he has not covered LIVE all the issues are outlined in great detail on his website under the ISSUES tab.

I don't think he has ignored any particular group and at a couple of rallies I have seen him give a great amount of time regarding the issues affecting the Native Americans - I have not seen any other candidate do the same.; April 26, 2008 4:35 PM
dwit said...: Jim said...

"What amazes me is the willingness of some to forsake the basic hollowed principle of 'EVERY vote counts'"

Yes Jim! I can't figure out why those states couldn't just come up with a re-vote solution. It all came down to the state democrat parties in both cases.

Ironically, the state party leaders will come out unscathed while Dean and the DNC are vilified.; April 26, 2008 4:38 PM
dwit said...: Wasted r time,

You get a prize for the best name!; April 26, 2008 4:41 PM
RobH said...: MSMwatch, regarding your 2:25 post:

My answer should be obvious. If Obama is ahead by x percent in delegates, and Clinton is ahead by x percnt in popular vote, and Obama hasn't otherwise imploded so as to make his un-electability certain, then the "to be desired" is the pledged delegates.

Reasons:

1) Delegates are an definable measure, pop vote is a subjective value (i.e. how much do we add for cacus states, should Peurto Rico's votes be counted since they don't have a say in the GE, are MI uncommitteds really all Obama's, etc. It's just too much of a mess, where one party will always be aggreived.)

2) Delegates is the measure ALL parties agreed to. Pop vote has just crept in as a "what if."

Yours in IMHO-land:
Rob

reasons; April 26, 2008 4:53 PM
RobH said...: Yamaka:

"a successful co-president for 8 years..." ....but one without a security clearance.

How successful could she be? Too funny.; April 26, 2008 4:57 PM
RobH said...: dwit from 4:16:

If it means anything, Rasmussen (the guy - forgot his first name) appears on Fox regularly.; April 26, 2008 5:00 PM
vwis said...: akamay,
And you think I jest?

The only ball I see you attending will be the hamster ball with all the political spins tactics being performed on you.

Rev. Wright in his interview with Bill Moyers on Sunday is going to admit that his offense language is only used as a mantle to get his parishioners attention and keep them from falling asleep in the pews. That is if he answers totally honestly.
My question to him would be whether he ever noticed BHO falling asleep in the pews.; April 26, 2008 5:11 PM
dwit said...: Thanks robh!

Gotta say, I never watch ol' FOX "news" so I wouldn't know, but their commentary has always struck me as a little suspect. But their poll numbers seem to be trying to shape public opinion more than track it.

I'm of the opinion that most polling outfits are of that nature, but ol' razzy clearly stands out.; April 26, 2008 5:14 PM
RobH said...: dwit,

I'm not exactly an adherant (sp?) of Fox. I just stumbled on him as I navigate between news outlets. (I don't punch channel numbers in, 'cause their all adjacent. And I kind of like rolling past them 'cause they're so funny.)

But I saw him there at least three-four times, thus I characterized it as 'regularly.'; April 26, 2008 5:24 PM
dwit said...: Sorry robh,

Definitely not implying anything by my FOX comments. Hats off to you for being able o withstand it.

If I didn't feel that a part of my soul and psyche were damaged every time I watched these painted platinum blonde televangelists, I'd watch it too, just to get a read on the pulse of this odd American sub-culture.

Did I say pulse? I almost forgot zombies don't have one of those.; April 26, 2008 5:32 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: vwis said...
"Their leaders [in Michigan and Florida] didn't feel the constituents would be able to figure out how to caucus."

Vwis,

Wrong assumption on Michigan's part. In 2000, Michigan held an open caucus (meaning Dem party membership was not a requirement to participate) on March 11 for the nomination - Gore got 83.57% of the vote, Bradley got 16.43%. At the source I checked (http://uselectionatlas.org), it is difficult to determine if the figures given are attendance or next level convention figures.

Then in 2004, the Michigan caucus was held on February 7. The 2004 caucus was a modified open caucus, meaning that all Democrats and Independents could participate. Kerry got 51.79% of the caucus votes, and 93 (or 72.7%) of the delegates. Dean came in second, with 16.50% of the caucus votes, and 24 (or 18.8%) of the delegates.

So to say that Michigan "officials didn't feel the constituents would be able to figure out how to caucus" might be stretching it a bit far.

Another factor to consider: Primaries are paid for by the state, but the party itself finances the caucus. Florida used the argument that it didn't have the estimated $10 million to hold caucuses; and since the state already held a primary, it wouldn't hold another at it's expense. I note that neither candidate publicly came forward with a viable proposal for financing a caucus in Florida, so shame on both the candidates for that (especially Obama, as that was pure politics that dragged out the argument on seating the Florida delegation). In defense of Obama, maybe he was waiting for Clinton to advance a proposal that he could then agree to, or counter with his own. Either way, he should have stepped up and presented a viable proposal to show his concern for the people in Florida who supported him.

Mike; April 26, 2008 5:48 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: MSMWatch2008 said...
"Wonder if the DNC could then impose those same penalties on NH, IA and SC, who also moved their dates up -- against the DNC rules -- but had no penalties imposed."

When you are within the rules, no penalty can be imposed. South Carolina (and Nevada) were given authorization to hold their selection process on the dates they held them on.

Iowa and New Hampshire state law states that the caucus and primary in the respective states 'shall be first in the nation'. The greed of Michigan and Florida to move their selection process forward came after the state legislatures in Iowa and New Hampshire had adjourned for the year, and there was no mechanism for new laws, so the states were required to hold their selection per state law.

Thus the rules that state a state's delegation must be reduced if the selection is held early do not apply, as the party leaders and legislators did not have an opportunity to bring the selection into the compliance.

Mike; April 26, 2008 5:48 PM
dwit said...: Oddly enough Hillary speeches have come to have that "FOX affect" on me now. I simply mute it ever time I see her on the "news".

Its just as if a commercial came on. Her fear mongering and divisive speech is like finger nails on a chalk board to me.; April 26, 2008 6:32 PM
ed iglehart said...: MSM,

@HRC is ahead in the popular vote by the same percentage as BO is ahead in the delegates, @

HUH? Obama leads the popular vote, even including FL and MI, unless you've got some special lenses to view it through.

xx
ed

6 attempts to read the damned verification! GRRRRR!; April 26, 2008 6:38 PM
ed iglehart said...: vwis,

"Rev. Wright in his interview with Bill Moyers on Sunday is going to admit"

The interview has already happened, and can be seen. There's a link:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

Enjoy a nice half hour. It's an excellent interview, and then there's part 2 if you've got the time. Well worth it, I say.; April 26, 2008 6:48 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: ed iglehart said...
"6 attempts to read the damned verification! GRRRRR!"

Ed,

Don't feel too bad. I have a corneal dystrophy (it is NOT Keratoconus) that causes me to have poor vision, and the verification code is almost always difficult for me to figure out. Sometimes the code is SO difficult for me to read, so I just guess, then if/when it reappears, I guess again. So far, my guessing has been more correct than wrong.

In the not too distant future (within 5-7 years), I'll need corneal transplants, which should allow me to see more clearly.

Mike; April 26, 2008 6:54 PM
vwis said...: Ed, & Mike
Our thread is too long. At 200 it is pretty much maxed out, they have to start a new pag. Blogger is encouraging us to move to a new strand by making it hard to read.; April 26, 2008 7:06 PM
Yamaka said...: vwis:

"The only ball I see you attending will be the hamster ball with all the political spins tactics being performed on you."

You are really cute and funny!

Keep the cheer on.

But Smile and Vote for the First Woman POTUS.

:-); April 26, 2008 7:07 PM
Anonymous said...: A little video for you all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1gGs1e9Q4o; April 26, 2008 7:30 PM
Yamaka said...: "Iowa and New Hampshire state law states that the caucus and primary in the respective states 'shall be first in the nation'. The greed of Michigan and Florida to move their selection process forward"

This is the type of Inward Ignorance and Outward Arrogance begs a complete Shut Down of the Democratic Party Convention in Denver this Summer.

(Although I am a Texan, I lend my should to the peoples of FL and MI.)

We Will Try. Try Harder.

Let the whole world come to know which God gave these States go first, and not the others!

Why "Date Rule" is obsolete and unnecessary!!?

:-); April 26, 2008 7:30 PM
Yamaka said...: Who is Rashid Khalid in the close circle of Sen BHO?

Remember, pastor Wright has called BHO "just a politician doing his job, and I am a pastor doing my job".

This is a big blow to the carefully crafted persona of BHO as a man "Above Politics" by his handlers and BigMoneyBags.

The facade is coming down.

BHO, where is the Truth, where is the Beef?

:-); April 26, 2008 7:49 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 26, 2008 7:54 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Yamakamikaze said:

". . . begs a complete Shut Down of the Democratic Party Convention in Denver this Summer."

Hey ditto-head - Your continuing statements about shutting down the convention prove you are a ditto-head.

"We Will Try. Try Harder."

At what, ditto-head? Causing dissension in the Democratic Party?

I really should go back to my previous 'skip any post by Yamakamikaze, don't even skim the post' philosophy. Responding to any of his/her/IT's posts means I'm giving attention to a ditto-head.

Mike; April 26, 2008 7:55 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka-

Huma Abedin has been Hillary's personal assistant since 1996. Huma is a practicing muslin with ties to Pakistan. Wait till the media spins that one 24/7.

Btw - Senator Obama, Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are ALL politicians - your point is ?; April 26, 2008 7:56 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: ed -

Hehehe.. ya got me on that one :); April 26, 2008 8:13 PM
Yamaka said...: Rashid Khalidi's wife Mona cooks well and has served sumptuous dinners to BHO, who has paid generously to the Anti-Israel activists group of Prof. Khalidi!!

AIPAC is working on a 527 Ad on this issue in Indiana and NC very soon!

It would be an interesting fight from now onwards! We are in the Fourth Quarter - or in the 12th Round of Heavy Weight Champion of the USA!

In how many Championship Games the underdog snatched the Trophy? Plenty.

She is behind only 12 delegates, so far! Include ALL votes of MI & FL.

Stay tuned.

Oh,...No...NO...NO Don't call BHO a Politician, he is a Messaih!!!!!!

All other Senators are Politicians, the Public Servants.

Not BHO!!!! Mmmmmmmmmmmm.

:-) :-); April 26, 2008 8:14 PM
Yamaka said...: Who is a Ditto-Head, anyway? Seriously.

Are those who follow BHO as a herd Ditto-Heads?

Please throw some Sun Light on this issue.

:-); April 26, 2008 8:18 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: As of now Senator Obama has a total delegate lead of +133.

Until the DNC recognizes the FL and MI delegates - they DO NOT count.

I believe that Obama will be our next President of the UNITED States of America.

President Obama

President Obama

President Obama...

it has such a wonderful ring to it ;); April 26, 2008 8:30 PM
Yamaka said...: President Osama, Ooooops I meant President Obama.

Yes, it has an aroma around it. BO!!!!!!!

Oh, Ya BARack Hussein Bin Obama has clinched 2208 already!

Oh, Ya the Coronation Ball is rolling !

Join the the Crowd in Hyde Park.

:-) :-); April 26, 2008 8:57 PM
RobH said...: Ed, (Leah),

I practically 'peed my pants' when I read the muslin/towelhead/bedsheets pickup.
My kids just asked me why I spontaneously burst out laughing frm a dead silence.
You don't miss a thing; April 26, 2008 9:06 PM
RobH said...: Yams, you are a pathetic figure.
Osama (oops?) Hussein Bin?

Get some new material, ace.; April 26, 2008 9:09 PM
Anonymous said...: no vote counts until cast in Denver; April 26, 2008 9:28 PM
Richard said...: Part I: Predicting the Remaining Contests

I am predicting the following results for pledged delegates awarded in the remaining primaries. Some of them may seem to be counterintuitive, since Clinton gains small numbers of delegates even in states she is likely to win by large margins, but examining the delegate selection plans in WV and PR, for example, suggests that it will be very difficult for Clinton to gain more delegates than I have given her. If anyone wants to take the time to analyze the congressional districts in one of these states and give a reasoned argument that these numbers are off I will gladly change them.

Pledged Delegate Predictions Through Jun 6:

Guam - 2 Obama, 2 Clinton
IN - 37 Obama, 35 Clinton
NC - 61 Obama, 54 Clinton
WV - 10 Obama, 18 Clinton
KY - 23 Obama, 28 Clinton
OR - 28 Obama, 24 Clinton
MT - 9 Obama, 7 Clinton
SD - 8 Obama, 7 Clinton
PR - 25 Obama, 30 Clinton
-----------------------------
Total - 203 Obama, 205 Clinton

Part II: Analysis of Required Remaining Super Delegates (Excluding FL & MI)

In this section I will use the current delegate counts from DCW the predictions I have made above to calculate the number and percentage of the remaining delegates that each candidate would need to gain an absolute majority in Denver on the first vote assuming Florida and Michigan are not seated.

Current Pledged Delegates:

1491 Obama, 1336

Predicted Pledged Delegates Jun 6 (Current PD + Predicted Remaining PD):

1694 Obama, 1541 Clinton (153-delegate lead)

Current Superdelegate Committments:

234 Obama, 256 Clinton

(Predicted Pledged Delegates + Current Superdelegate Committments):

1928 Obama, 1797 Clinton (131-delegate lead)

ncommitted Superdelegates Needed to Reach 2024:

96 Obama, 227 Clinton

Percentage of Uncommitted Superdelegates Needed to Win:

31% Obama, 75% Clinton

Part III: Analysis of Required Remaining Super Delegates (Including FL & MI)

In this section I will use the current delegate counts from DCW the predictions I have made above to calculate the number and percentage of the remaining delegates that each candidate would need to gain an absolute majority in Denver on the first vote assuming 100% of Florida and Michigan delegates are seated and all 55 uncommitted Michigan delegates are pledged to Obama.

Current Pledged Delegates (Including FL & MI):
1613 Obama, 1514

Predicted Pledged Delegates Jun 6 (Current PD + Predicted Remaining PD):

1816 Obama, 1718 Clinton (99-delegate lead)

Current Superdelegate Committments:

239 Obama, 271 Clinton

(Predicted Pledged Delegates + Current Superdelegate Committments):

2055 Obama, 1989 Clinton (66-delegate lead)

Uncommitted Superdelegates Needed to Reach 2208

153 Obama, 219 Clinton

Percentage of Uncommitted Superdelegates Needed to Win:

45% Obama, 65% Clinton

Please Note: In both of the above scenarios the percentages of remaining superdelegates needed by each candidate add up to more than 100%. This is because of Sen. Edwards' pledged delegates. Note that if Edwards could swing his delegates to one candidate or the other, it would represent a reduction in percentage of remaining Super Delegates needed of 6% (if FL & MI are not seated) or 10% (if FL & MI are seated).

Conclusions

Even if Sen. Clinton gets her wish and all Florida and Michigan delegates are seated, she is very unlikely to win the nomination. Obama would still lead by 99 pledged delegates on June 6, and Clinton would still need to convince 65% of the remaining super delegates that it is worth overturning a nearly 100-delegate lead. I don't see that happening.

The only way Hillary can come close to catching Obama in pledged delegates is if Michigan and Florida delegates are seated and Michigan's uncommitted delegates are (very unjustly, since even Clinton has been claiming they represent Obama voters) not chosen from a slate committed to Obama and John Edwards is able to swing his delegates to Hillary. In that case she would still trail by 44 pledged delegates on June 6.

Sorry, Clinton folks, it just isn't happening.; April 26, 2008 9:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Richard,
What is your MOE? 25%?; April 26, 2008 9:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Time to go. I shall return tomorrow and promote my utube video I worked on for 3 hours.; April 26, 2008 9:38 PM
Dave in NC said...: Richard,

I have a problem with PR...

The Monster will have been slain by then.

:); April 26, 2008 9:48 PM
vwis said...: Dwit,
I was responded to the posts on your bio. Is that you?; April 26, 2008 10:14 PM
vwis said...: akamay,
I was in your neck of the woods a few weeks back. Galveston, TX. It is beautiful there.

Your loyalty is commendable. I am not sure how you convince yourself of it. Somehow I see you standing in front of a mirror practicing your gab.

When I was in TX I heard a man, over sixty, explain Rev. Wright in his point of view. He said that Rev. Wright wants America to be run like Africa. Is that really your worse fears about BHO. Everyone else in the room felt very uncomfortable and just wanted him to shut-up.; April 26, 2008 10:31 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Richard -

Here's where I agree and disagree:

Pledged Delegate Predictions Through Jun 6:

Guam - 2 Obama, 2 Clinton
Agree, although since it's a caucus, it might go 3-1 for Obama

IN - 37 Obama, 35 Clinton
Agree, but might go anywhere from 39-33 to 33-39, depending on who gets that 50%+1 vote margin. I also have questions about how high will Obama's vote count be in CDs 1 (Gary, East Chicago, Hammond) and 7 (Indy), and will CDs 3 (Fort Wayne and NE Indiana), 8 (southwest) and 9 (southern Indiana) go more than 63% for Clinton.

NC - 61 Obama, 54 Clinton
I currently project NC to go at least 68-47 Obama, but I thik it could go as high as 72-43.

WV - 10 Obama, 18 Clinton
I think it will go 19-9 for Clinton.

KY - 23 Obama, 28 Clinton
Kentucky is more likely to go closer to 34-17 for Clinton than 28-23. Latest polls I've seen have her at almost 70% (extrapolating the poll to 100%). Also, the state is much closer politically to what is going on in Appalachia than most Blue Grass state residents want to admit, and Appalachia is one of Clinton's highest-polling areas in the country.

OR - 28 Obama, 24 Clinton
I'm looking at 29-23 for Obama. Depends on the turnout, and whether the younger voters (college students) vote in Oregon before heading out of state. More likely, since it's a mail ballot.

MT - 9 Obama, 7 Clinton
Agree - Obama winner overall, but not enough to get the extra delegate in either district, and definitely not enough to get better than an even split in the PLEO nor At-Large categories.

SD - 8 Obama, 7 Clinton
Agree, although if he gets more than 62.5% of the vote, he would get a 10-5 split. Doable, but not likely, IMO.

PR - 25 Obama, 30 Clinton
Right now, I agree, but this one is clearly up in the air with the indictment of the Governor. Since he has endorsed Obama, I think that bumps up the Obama factor, but who knows what's going to happen if the people decide to ignore his endorsement - could go 35-20 for Clinton at that point.

Mike; April 26, 2008 10:42 PM
Somerled said...: I'm tellin' ya yams is a REPUGNANTCAN. Ignore him. He is working for McCain. :-); April 26, 2008 11:01 PM
Yamaka said...: vwis:

Seriously, my son and I were once admirers of BHO, for his eloquence and poetry.

But, he left me (58 years) when he said,

"Ronald Reagan was a Transformational Leader, and the Republican Party is the Party of Ideas".

He gave all sorts of explanations afterwards, as to why he said it... blah..blah..blah.

I knew the intent and the context etc. He meant what he said, and he wanted to disrespect Maestro Bill Clinton, the Center Piece of his Core Strategy against HRC.

He left my young son (19 years) when he became another Chicago Politician who started pandering to everyone (e.g giving drivers' license to illegals - just to pander to Latinos in TX).

Plus, I am politically a centrist, a moderate, and a fiscal conservative. Therefore, BHO the FAR LEFT liberal CANNOT be my cup of tea.

That's it. Nothing else. Not his full legal name, his times in Indonesia. Not his going to TUCC. Not his friends with Wright, Farrakhan, Rezko, Ayers, Khalidi etc..although, I am little concerned about Michelle and her pay raise leading to "quid pro quo".

I am Socially a Liberal. Lot other things don't bother me. Not his Afrocentric "Exclusively Blackness" etc.

But, for me skills, knowledge and experience matter a great deal. We have humongous issues facing us. We need a quite knowledgeable experienced hand at the TOP.

Not a novice, who needs job training for a long time.

That makes me a Hillary supporter, very passionately. As a delegate I will always stand up for her.

Cheer and Smile for the FIRST WOMAN POTUS.; April 26, 2008 11:13 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Cheer and Smile and VOTE for the best PERSON for the job: OBAMA :)

Obama '08 - our next President of the UNITED States of America; April 26, 2008 11:29 PM
Aunt Jean said...: I see everyone has been busy tonight. It will take me awhile to say, answer.and question everyone so please be patient.Hope everyone had a good day even you obama supporters [no insult intended] Jean; April 26, 2008 11:41 PM
Yamaka said...: This is my two cents of prediction for the next 6 months:

My Target Number is 2208.

HRC is behind BHO by 11 total delegates, but ahead of him by 122,000 popular votes.

By June 3, she will be much ahead of him in both total delegates and the popular votes.

Plus, she has earned the primaries of Large MUST win States like MA, NH, NJ, TN, FL, PA, OH, CA (and of course NY) for a Democrat. She can legitimately seek the Nomination.

This will morally force nearly the 350 undeclared SDs and the 50 + 32 uncommitted delegates to cast their votes in favor of her. She will clinch the Nomination.

Then, there is the real problem of bringing the BHO people into the Tent. Nearly about 30% of them will NOT vote for her because of the bad blood(many of the "Children" in this vastly FAR LEFT blogsite).

Still, HRC will manage to sway the 38 million Left-Leaning Americans to her side, and clinch the Presidency.

God Willing.

We will have the FIRST WOMAN POTUS to crack open the Glass Ceiling.

Good for the Genuine American Heritage.

Not a chance for the Kenyan Heritage!!!!!!!lol

Cheer. :-); April 26, 2008 11:46 PM
Aunt Jean said...: I'll start with Ariane tenn. is beautiful and I have given a lot of thought to what you said and you are right it just get's near impossible when they start insulting you as a person. Have a nice evening.Oh by the way I'm still learning and I think you know what about [who said you are never to old to learn] Jean; April 26, 2008 11:52 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike in Maryland about my grammer yes is seen where I typed fuzzy instead of fussy oh well typo. I didn't know that you were an english major? I stand corrected! Jean; April 26, 2008 11:55 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave in dc have you always had such a smart mouth? Jean; April 26, 2008 11:56 PM
dwit said...: vwis

Oh! gotcha! I'll have a look at my blog.; April 26, 2008 11:58 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Ed the famous quote is Hell has no fury like a woman scorned [but did get a laugh out of the one you used. Jean; April 27, 2008 12:00 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Richard I guess you have forgotten about the freedom of speech in America. Jean; April 27, 2008 12:02 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Now it there anyone else that wants to ask me any questions please feel free to and I will do my best to answer them. Jean; April 27, 2008 12:04 AM
Aunt Jean said...: I forgot about vwis don't know what you are talking about yeah and nay please let me know if you want an answer. Jean; April 27, 2008 12:06 AM
MSMWatch2008 said...: ed iglehart said...
MSM,

@HRC is ahead in the popular vote by the same percentage as BO is ahead in the delegates, @

HUH? Obama leads the popular vote, even including FL and MI, unless you've got some special lenses to view it through.

xx
ed

6 attempts to read the damned verification! GRRRRR!
~~~~

Ed, you missed that I was in a dialogue with robh about a hypothetical scenario. Old as I am, still don’t need specs to read, or verify, so maybe it’s you who needs some new lenses.
xx

robh: you and ed agree on Obama, so you might find my comment to be dismissive, or rude, but then again you might find the "special new lenses" post a bit smug. You tell me.; April 27, 2008 12:07 AM
Aunt Jean said...: found my other paper. Dwit yes Hillary lied about Bosnia but Obama also has lied when he said that he has never heard wright say anything like that before then or anything bad. Then asked again later the same question and he said well maybe I have then asked again later and said yes I have heard him say some things. So if that isn't a lie I don't know what is. I could go into a lot more lies that he has said but I believe you know what they are and don't need me to remind you. Jean; April 27, 2008 12:10 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Hey Leah that sounds just like Hillary's list on that post of yours at 4:35 pm. Jean; April 27, 2008 12:12 AM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 27, 2008 12:25 AM
dwit said...: Jean,

How do you know he lied? There is no footage of him at the church during that sermon. I believe him. Many very devout Christians don't make it every Sunday. That goes double for a guy as busy as Obama.

We have the video of Hillary though.

http:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4; April 27, 2008 12:27 AM
dwit said...: Jean,

I'd be curious if you could shed some light on these lies you speak of. Just find me solid proof, like a video and I will consider it. Please, don't bother sending anything from the Hillary campaign or any op-ed pieces or blog posts. Just give me something non-partisan. I' will have a look.; April 27, 2008 12:31 AM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 27, 2008 12:33 AM
MSMWatch2008 said...: Dwit said . . . To me its a no-brainer. I mean if you want to get down to character, which candidate openly lied about something they supposedly did?

Bosnia ring any bells?
~~~~

Exelon (and legislation that never passed) ring a bell?

“Exactly five hours of legal work” for Rezko ring a bell?

Ethics bill amendment that was never enacted ring a bell?

"I pushed the wrong button" ring a bell?; April 27, 2008 12:41 AM
Aunt Jean said...: dwit msmwatch2008 has listed a few. Thanks msmwatch2008 you saves me some typing. Jean; April 27, 2008 12:46 AM
Aunt Jean said...: msmwatch2008 and dwit I meant to typo saved not saves.; April 27, 2008 12:51 AM
dwit said...: Hillary was a lawyer for Walmart.
She even served on the Walmart board!

I think that beats the pants off of 5 hours billed for a client of the firm Obama was with.

But, are you afraid to give me links to back up your claims?

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0021,harkavy,15052,5.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html

I just thought this one was fun

http://www.prorev.com/hillary.htm; April 27, 2008 12:59 AM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 27, 2008 1:00 AM
Somerled said...: Yaws is right we ARE ready for a woman POTUS. As soon as one seeks the nimination, we'll vote for her.; April 27, 2008 1:00 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Aunt Jean said...
"Mike in Maryland . . . I didn't know that you were an english major? I stand corrected!"

You made an assumption, and like most assumptions made without sufficient evidence, the assumption is wrong.

High school English was the extent of my schooling in English.

However, when I'm writing on sites such as this, or in general correspondence, I make a serious attempt to communicate my opinion in a clear manner. I attempt to make sure the noun and verb agree and have the same tense. I try to make sure my spelling is correct, or at least readable. I try to make sure the capitalization and punctuation are correct. I try to make sure there is logic to my thought process, and in what I write.

I don't always succeed, but I make a serious attempt to do so.

Why?

To communicate means "to express thoughts, feelings, or information easily or effectively." If someone is struggling to understand a person's post because of misuse of words, incorrect spellings, grammar that is atrocious, etc., how effective is that person in communicating their thoughts? Not very.

If the person can read what I write without struggling to interpret the words (from misspelled words, improper grammar, syntax errors, etc.), they can more easily understand what I'm trying to communicate. If they struggle to read what I wrote, they can't start to comprehend what I wrote.

Whether they agree or disagree with what I wrote is a different matter, but they won't be struggling to read, and possibly (or if the grammar, spelling, etc. is atrocious, probably) misinterpret the concept I'm trying to convey.

You, on the other hand, make so many errors in your composition that by the time a person has interpreted what you wrote, they are not at all interested in entertaining the thoughts you may have tried to convey. You show a lot of disrespect to the recipient when you don't try to convey the thought in a manner that is easily understood.

So no, I am not, nor ever was I, an English major. I did try to learn the lessons as I took the English classes in school, and I try to remember those lessons as I correspond with others. I also try to respect the other person by attempting to convey my thoughts in as clear a manner as I can.

Mike; April 27, 2008 1:00 AM
Somerled said...: Well... I WAS an english major. I wish more people would embrace that mike. I was NOT a typing major! lol; April 27, 2008 1:07 AM
Richard said...: Mike -

I don't disagree with you on most of your points. I think most states could easily swap a delegate or two either way, and your numbers don't add up to much difference.

I hadn't really looked closely at Kentucky, but I balked at your Kentucky numbers, and thought I would take a closer look. I suggest a compromise number based on the following analysis:

Districts 1,2,4,5 (5 Delegates each)

I doubt Clinton will reach the 70% threshold required to get a 4:1 split in any of these districts. I know poll numbers are high there right now, but Obama will have some time to campaign there and should gain back a few points. 70% really is a difficult number to reach. I think they will all split 3-2, for a result of Obama 8, Clinton 12

District 6 (6 Delegates)

This is a more urban district which includes the capital of Franfurt. Obama already polls at around 25% with over 20% undecided. To get a 4:2 split in this district, Clinton would need to get 75%. Clinton 4, Obama 2

District 3 (8 Delegates)

This is the most urban area of the state, containing Louisville. Obama polls very well there, in the mid-40s, and not far behind Clinton. With a minimum of campaigning and advertising I think he can deny her the 56% she would need for a 5-3 split. Obama 4, Clinton 4

That gives a total so far of Obama 14, Clinton 20.

For at-large delegates, a win of 61-68% would give a division of 11-6, which seems most likely to me. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama could pull to within 20 points and take a 7th delegate. Still, assuming an 11-6 split, that gives a total of Obama 20, Clinton 31. My gut tells me this is too high, but my gut has been wrong before.

Assuming all your totals are right, though, the total as of June 6 will be almost Identical to what I predicted:

Obama 204, Clinton 203

Clinton Still needs to convince either 65 or 75% of the supers to reject the clear delegate winner. Still not going to happen.; April 27, 2008 1:13 AM
Richard said...: Richard I guess you have forgotten about the freedom of speech in America. Jean

Yes, Jean, the First Amendment guarantees you freedom from most government interference in the exercise of your right to expression. That you have the right to spew whatever hate and vitriol you want does not, however, make it right for you to do so. Nor does it make it in any way incumbent upon me to tolerate your racism. I am perfectly within my rights to ask you politely to refrain from your vile behavior, and so I again ask you not to spread your racist views on this board. They are extremely offensive and have no place in civilized discussion.; April 27, 2008 1:26 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Richard said...
". . . Clinton Still needs to convince either 65 or 75% of the supers to reject the clear delegate winner. Still not going to happen."

I agree.

By my calculations (and mine are not that different from yours, something like 3 or 4 difference), she needs 76% of the 302 remaining superdelegates to reach the number needed without Florida and Michigan.

If she gets 76% of the remaining superdelegates (or some combination of remaining and switches in already declared), it will almost certainly mean that something has come out in Obama's past that will totally collapse his campaign. If that happens, then most, if not all superdelegates will abandon him, and he would have to withdraw, leaving the pledged delegates to vote as they deem best.

If something was going to demolish the Obama campaign, it would almost certainly have already happened, with all the attention that so many have placed on his past record. I think the probability of the Obama campaign collapsing on a past scandal is extremely small.

Can it happen? Yes.

Will it happen? With about the same probability that the Chicago Cubs will win a World Series. (Sorry Cub fans, but the odds are similar, IMO, based on the Cubs history over the past 90+ years. But remember - there's always next year. VBG)

Mike; April 27, 2008 1:38 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Richard,

For Kentucky, I'm basing my calculations on the only two polls I've seen so far:

SurveyUSA shows Clinton leading 62-26, and

Preston-Osborne shows Clinton leading 56-25.

Average them, and you get 59-25.5, then project them to 100 and you get Clinton at 69.8%, and Obama at 30.2%. Since the polls are statewide, I think Clinton's support in CD's 4 and 5 (Appalachia) and CD 1 (which also reflects Appalachia's political views to a great extent) is much greater than the statewide average. I don't think it unreasonable to think she may win two or all three by a 4-1 split. Those delegate splits would probably be offset to some extent in CD 3 (Louisville) and maybe CD 6 (Frankfurt area).

I've never lived in Kentucky (grew up in NE Indiana), so take my observations with a grain of salt.

Also, as new polls are published, and as more information becomes available, I reserve the right to adjust my predictions!

Mike; April 27, 2008 1:55 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Hey Mike in maryland I'll make this real simple that even you can understand. I don't know your age and don't really care but you are about the rudest person that I've had the misfortune to read. There are plenty of people on here that their words are spelled wrong,so are you a sexist? I do believe you are. I don't need, appreciate, or do I want some asshole like you and believe me I've met a few in my life [ you are KING]tell me how to write, speak, or anything else. If you don't like how I post don't read it I really don't give a rats ass! It's men like you that have an inferiorty complex that treat women unfairly. Jean; April 27, 2008 1:57 AM
Aunt Jean said...: One more thing I was being smart butte when I said I didn't know that you were an english major.; April 27, 2008 2:00 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: aunt jean said...
". . . smart butte . . . ."

Since when did rocks have brains?

Dictionary.com defines butte as "A hill that rises abruptly from the surrounding area and has sloping sides and a flat top."

Mike; April 27, 2008 2:05 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Ok is ASS better !!! Mike; April 27, 2008 2:18 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Or would buttocks better? Take your frigging choice. Yes I know frigging is wrong but I thought it was better. Jean; April 27, 2008 2:20 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: aunt jean said...

"Yes I know frigging is wrong"

Ah, but 'frigging' is so much more polite . . .

And remember that children can, and most likely do, view these pages.

What kind of example are you setting for them with your vile language? What about the young girls who might support your candidate, but are driven away from her by your use of profanity?

Or they might have parents who support Clinton. They could point out the language of a strident Clinton supporter (like you, aunt jean), and ask their parents why they support a candidate whose supporters use profanity. Do you think it might put doubt in the minds of the parents?

On second thought, keep up the profanity, and drive people away from Clinton. After all, if her supporters are so uncouth, what does that say about the candidate herself?

Mike; April 27, 2008 2:34 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike what no more catty or rude remarks Are do just like using words that you think I don't know the meaning of. Jean; April 27, 2008 2:35 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Better a good woman than someone that has all these ties with people like wright,and all the other unstable people that he hangs with. Not only that I really don't think a child would be reading a blog like this. If it changes someones mind because of what I say they weren't really a Clinton supporter in the first place. Jean; April 27, 2008 2:44 AM
Aunt Jean said...: They also would probably say who is that jerk that treats woman like dirt under his foot. I wonder who he supports because I don't want to go there. Jean; April 27, 2008 2:46 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Wrong person when I asked if they were black that was for you Mike but since I asked how about you too Richard? Jean; April 27, 2008 2:49 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike you are the one that is being uncouth; April 27, 2008 2:51 AM
ed iglehart said...: DNFTT

xx
ed; April 27, 2008 2:58 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: aunt jean, aunt jean, aunt jean,

You wrote, "Wrong person when I asked if they were black that was for you Mike. . . ."

I've already written some biographical information in these pages, and I don't think it necessary to repeat that information at this time. Dig back in the files, and you might find that information I posted.

Besides, it's quite boorish to ask someone such questions when those questions are not applicable to the discussion at hand. After all, as Senator Obama has stated [paraphrasing], "We are all citizens of the UNITED States."

Mike; April 27, 2008 3:01 AM
dwit said...: you do realize the Clintons are friends with Rev. Wright don't you Jean?

They even invited him to the White House.; April 27, 2008 3:01 AM
Aunt Jean said...: yeah right it was a dinner or what ever for preachers that all. Don't try and make something out of it that it wasn't. Jean; April 27, 2008 3:13 AM
Aunt Jean said...: dwit I never said that we weren't all Americans. I was just curious about wanting to know if they were black.I don't understand a few things and I was trying to sort it out.That's all nothing more. Jean; April 27, 2008 3:23 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: aunt jean said...
"Mike you are the one that is being uncouth"

A couple of comments on the above:

1. When referring to a human, the pronoun is "who" or "whom".

2. 'Uncouth' is defined at dictionary.com as "Crude; unrefined."

At synonym.com, the synonyms of 'uncouth' are given as "coarse, common, rough-cut, vulgar" [emphasis added].

I think if an unbiased observer were to read these pages, they would come to the conclusion that a couple of other posters are much, much more uncouth than me.

This is not to say that I am the least uncouth poster on this site. I am not. Many others would and should be considered in that category, but to prevent the impression that I might be slighting some I might not name, I won't identify any of those posters whom I consider to be in that 'least uncouth' category.

Mike; April 27, 2008 4:07 AM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Just figured out why it is always night time when Aunt Jean posts, and Hillary is complaining that she never sleeps.

Aunt Jean is Hillary. ;o); April 27, 2008 6:40 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Emit you're right I don't sleep very much anywhere from 2 to 5 hours and here lately it's been around 3. When you are trying to do a dozen things a day it's hard to sleep everybody wants something.Then I get so keyed up and can't sleep. Then you have jerks on this blog that really get you going and get you really keyed up. You ask why get on this blog? There are people on here that do have valid points so I like reading them. Jerks on here don't happen to often.By the way I've been up for awhile. Jean; April 27, 2008 9:48 AM
MSMWatch2008 said...: dwit said...
Hillary was a lawyer for Walmart.
She even served on the Walmart board!
I think that beats the pants off of 5 hours billed for a client of the firm Obama was with.
But, are you afraid to give me links to back up your claims?

~~~

I’m not being facetious here, or dismissive, but I am truly astonished that you -- or any Obama supporter -- are not aware of these things. Not because MSM has given them much coverage (after all, he got a free ride until last week), but they HAVE been covered, in depth, and I would think someone who backs a candidate would want to know as much as possible as there is to know. I’ll get your links, but you really can get fair and accurate info at factcheck.org, with the links (for those who have time constraints, which you would be hard-pressed to argue on this site!) These are ALL old stories, with many links for each, so if you want the info, you really should be looking for it.

Here you go:

Exelon (surprised you missed this, although it’s in news, not comments):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?ex=1359867600&en=810356a876446fcf&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Ethics bill:
Perspective: in a debate, Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers; Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers Obama has is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." That law (actually it was an amendment) was not enacted; do you still need a link? (Not sure how to prove the negative, although it’s an accepted fact – can check the Congressional records, but not now. Google it!)

I pushed the wrong button:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,0,4956975,full.story?coll=la-home-center

Didn’t you know that Obama lied about 5 hours work, which he has admitted? Since you apparently haven’t even heard his own explanation of his “misstatement” about Rezko (which does not include his justification that he “lied” because he was naïve about Washington), I’ll give you that link instead of the many others.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story

The Tribune found his ‘explanation’ totally cool, but nobody has ever confronted him about that lie during the debate.

None of the items I mentioned has ever been - to my knowledge – disputed by Obama. Only justified, sort of. I left out every item that has already been exposed, or overexposed, to date, or that I think is not necessarily damning (like the earmark for Michelle’s employer.)

The VV doesn’t really let you in on ALL of the available info re HRC’s work on the Walmart board. It’s been exposed as if she were the devil incarnate, when in fact her work there was fairly benevolent, especially if you are a woman, and especially if you are a woman with children. How about an article that has two sides? I’ll give you that link as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html

Interestingly, Michelle Obama was on the Board of a Walmart vendor long after Walmart had become what it is today, and was a known quantity:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-sweet/michelle-obama-quits-boar_b_49100.html

Gotta go, busy day, won’t see any feedback until late. Ciao!; April 27, 2008 9:54 AM
MSMWatch2008 said...: BTW, yes I do ralize that the times article is the same one you sent, dwit, but I'm not sure you read it.

It is actually fair, as it points out where she made progress, or at least attempted to make progress, and it make it clear that while she did not focus on unionizing, she was there to focus on women and environment --- and she did!; April 27, 2008 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: "Mike you are the one that is being uncouth"
A couple of comments on the above:
1. When referring to a human, the pronoun is "who" or "whom".

Rather an Elitist Statement; April 27, 2008 10:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Mike,
The previous post did'nt come off. I was referring to your assualt on Aunt Jean for Grammar.; April 27, 2008 10:53 AM
ed iglehart said...: MSM,

Thanks for the links. I followed them all, and found very little to significantly discredit either of the Obamas or Ms Clinton. Trivial stuff.

Anyone with the time and inclination might be interested in the BBC's coverage, and this blog.

Enjoy!
ed; April 27, 2008 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...: I made a video and posted it on Utube. I,of course, thought it was funny, although it reflects a total lack of graphic skill.
I will post another showing the opposite outcome later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1gGs1e9Q4o; April 27, 2008 11:10 AM
MSMWatch2008 said...: ed ~

as you will have read, there is nothing new there. Rather, I was accommodating dwit's request to back up my assertion that his candidate has also said untrue things about what he did. (I assume ". . . or didn't do" would pertain as well.) He particularly cited the 5 hours quote, which was obviously an untruth, and even a deliberate untruth.

We all choose which facts we would deem to be significant, but that cannot be done without first having the facts.
XX; April 27, 2008 12:04 PM
ed iglehart said...: MSM,

Where is the "5 hours quote" I seem to have missed that. I have heard that Obama had five hours billed to Rezko (I think) by a law firm he worked for. Is that a falsehood, and if so, where is the repudiation?

xx
ed; April 27, 2008 12:12 PM
jpsedona said...: Richard,

In looking at your delegate projections (with and without Fl/MI), you might want to go through and factor in the 'likely' way that the add-ons are going to go. Like other SD's, they can vote any way they want, but in general I think they will be chosen and vote based on how their states voted.

It would be interesting to see your projections with the add-ons reduced from the remaining uncommitted delegates.; April 27, 2008 12:54 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: ed iglehart said...
I have heard that Obama had five hours billed to Rezko (I think) by a law firm he worked for. Is that a falsehood, and if so, where is the repudiation? Ed:
~~~
I see it’s a bit too subtle, so I’ll lay it out:
South Carolina debate: OBAMA: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual (Rezko) to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That's what she's referring to.
. . .
Trib quote: Obama fleshed out his relationship with Rezko -- including the disclosure that Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought. (my emphasis) . . . But Obama's explanation was less a font of new data or an act of contrition than the addition of nuance and motive to a long-mysterious relationship.
. . .
I suppose it’s the addition of nuance that allows this to be a non-repudiation, for you and for others. Not having Obama’s billable hours, the veracity of how much legal work he did is not an issue for me. It’s his downplaying of the relationship, and his failure to admit the funds sent his way via that relationship. I submit that you have set the bar WAY too low for an honesty/integrity read on your candidate.

Actually, Ed, I don’t believe it was too subtle for you, nor do I believe that it is new info for you, as all of the ties to Rezko were (finally) reported upon in the national media when the Rezko trial began. So I wonder what might your agenda be in playing dumb?; April 27, 2008 1:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Back from church and I guess I can remain a member. Minister said nothing inflamatory.; April 27, 2008 1:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Has Clinton closed a 11 point gap in the Gallop Tracking poll in two weeks, or is it just a fluke which can be spun?; April 27, 2008 1:38 PM
vwis said...: akamay,
Thanks for the explanation I now know where you,re coming from.

I too, didn't like his comment about Reagan and the Reps being the party of ideas. However, this is the game of politics and he was so pleased that Reps for the first time in a long time were coming out in record #s to hear him. Remember the crack by Michelle about being proud to be an American for the first time? What she was referring to was that people who were not engaged in the political process were showing up to hear him. So to appeal to these people he gave them credit for ideas and a good leader. That was a ploy to keep them and win their vote. If we hope to flip some of the red states we need them. I do not believe he intended it to be read as a slam against Bill.

I also, remember the 90's and the WH staffers who expressed frustration because of the way the Clintons handled situations, they were always fighting a dirt storm. Bill was always saying they were doing their job and not being dragged down with, but he was raised in the south and that just means that that wasn't so. He was just trying to be reassuring to the American people. Most of the dust was stirred up by Hillary things like the files from the Rose Law Firm being sent to office before K. Starr and his goons could get their hands on them. That means that she had something to hide. What not sure, but something. She has proven by her management of the campaign that they still would operate the same way.

The day when politicians can be honest and the people still vote for them will be the day when we don't need politicians and we the people know how to live peaceful with each other without laws (Don't see that happening ever). If someone is different from us that does not make them bad. Respect is how we will breakdown the barriers.

One thing I am most proud of this election season is that we are going to break all the barriers, in regard to gender, race, and age. With age comes wisdom, what we produce is not based on our sex, and the color of our skin is not how to judge people. One of these three will win. We have progressed as people since the 80s.

The Clintons deserve respect for what they have accomplished. The media however, has learned they can take great liberties with them. They are too comfortable with them.
Obama doesn't take it, even Bush doesn't (Doesn't mean I like him, he too closed-minded.)

With all the things to deal with in the next 4 yrs it is going to take stamina. Youth may be beneficial. His willingness to dress in costume like a Moslem is the kind of willing-spirit we need to show, to try to regain our standing in the world. The world has a dim view of us because of Iraq and present policies. His bitter comments, although poorly worded ("cling" is a negative word), shows to me that he gets it that people and disenchanted with politicians and prefer to vote on their amendment rights rather than on false promises.

I feel Hillary missed her boat 4 yrs ago. Right person, right time.
I do feel there will be better for her than the WH. The WH is not the end and be all for her.

I also believe that Bill's heart isn't in her winning. He supports her for whatever reasons, it is a true union of equals. All he wants to do is speaking engagements, charity (ie. Indonesia), and even politics like peace brokering (ie. Ireland). The WH would be too constricting. After an illness like his heart problems he realizes the value of time.

God bless you,; April 27, 2008 3:17 PM
vwis said...: Jean,
I had read your comment about best friends and had asked if it was me?

You make me smile. Although, I think that you could refrain from words like jerk, butt and get your point out just as well. Don't let them get you so worked up, your worth more than that. This politics that we are discussing. Unless you given so much money to your candidate that you feel personally invested. Its not worth it.

I actually think you meant Leah.; April 27, 2008 3:53 PM
dwit said...: No MSM,

I read it all the way. See, I'm not like Hilary or George Bush. I look at the nuance of any given situation and report on things fairly. Notice that I chose an article from The New York Times which has endorsed Clinton.

That doesn't let Walmart off the hook for it abuses of its employees and our communities.

Bottom line is that both have worked on behalf of shady characterS.

THAT'S WHAT LAWYERS DO!

My point is that Hillary can't throw stones at Obama's glass cottage, when she lives in a glass mansion.; April 27, 2008 4:38 PM
Yamaka said...: "That was a ploy to keep them and win their vote. If we hope to flip some of the red states we need them. I do not believe he intended it to be read as a slam against Bill".

I see it differently.

If he seeks the Nomination of the Democratic Party, then he MUST win the large Primaries of MA, NH, NJ, TN, CA, OH, FL and PA, before looking at the traditionally RED States.

In spite of spending 3:1 and plenty of campaign time he could NOT close the deal with the Democrats. In this sense, his politics and strategy are seriously flawed, IMHO.

Hillary has put together a winning coalition to win the Nomination and the Presidency -

Most Latino men and women, most White women, and most older regular White males. This will demographically outnumbers his coalition -

Most Black men and women and most young affluent White males, although he also has the help of the liberal media, which spins every news towards his favor.

Because of this liberal media bias, he was given free pass in the first two months of this Campaign; in spite of this bias, many controversial issues broke through, and now he is in a losing streak! His best days are over with MS!

Her nomination and election to the Presidency break the 50,000 year old Glass Ceiling against women, which will give hope to my daughter, and other young women including Malia and Sasha Obama. This is very historical, and thus monumental.

I really wish this year is the Year of REAL Change., and HRC is the FIRST WOMAN POTUS.

I also wish a Black man of Civil Right Heritage emerges soon to be the First Black President some time in our life time.

Stay tune.

Cheer, Smile and vote for Hillary.

:-); April 27, 2008 5:01 PM
Yamaka said...: "I feel Hillary missed her boat 4 yrs ago".

She wanted to gain experience in Govt. So, I agree that 2000/2004 was not the time for her.

"With all the things to deal with in the next 4 yrs it is going to take stamina".

We need experience and an aptitude to reign in the sprawling Bureaucracies/Agencies of the US Govt.

"I also believe that Bill's heart isn't in her winning".

I disagree. He truly wants her to win the Presidency for the sake of the country.

He may mostly stay in NY to take care of his Clinton Initiatives. He is not interested in moving to Washington DC. He wants HER to go, and do the things SHE wants to achieve.

Thus, we read the politics very differently.

:-); April 27, 2008 5:13 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: dwit said . . . My point is that Hillary can't throw stones at Obama's glass cottage, when she lives in a glass mansion.
~~~
Well, I guess you’ve changed your point!

First, you asked a question,
“which candidate openly lied about something they supposedly did?”
I replied with a few of the pertinent Obama instances.
Your reply to those instances was to cite Hillary’s Walmart term, with your links, PLUS you asked why I was afraid to provide links (not sure where that came from – had you previously asked for links???)

I replied with links.

I also noted that the NYT article, hardly kind to HRC, was balanced, in that it pointed out the following negatives:

Her years on the Wal-Mart board, from 1986 to 1992, gave her an unusual tutorial in the ways of American business — a credential that could serve as an antidote to Republican efforts to portray her as an enemy of free markets and an advocate for big government.

But that education came via a company that the Democratic Party — and its major ally, organized labor — has held up as a model of what is wrong with American business, with both groups accusing it of offering unaffordable health insurance and mistreating its workers.

So rather than promote her board membership, Mrs. Clinton is now running from it, even returning a $5,000 campaign donation from the giant discount chain in 2005, citing “serious differences” with its practices. But disentangling herself from the company is harder than it may seem.

Balanced by these:

In Mrs. Clinton’s complex relationship with Wal-Mart, there are echoes of the familiar themes that have defined much of her career: the trailblazing woman unafraid of challenging the men around her; the idealist pushing for complicated, at times expensive, reforms; and the political pragmatist, willing to accept policies she did not agree with to achieve her ends.

But if her circumstances made her a natural choice for the board, her often liberal beliefs did not and she struggled to change the rigid, conservative culture at Wal-Mart, achieving modest results.

“We were on the leading edge of something that is being mandated now,” said Bill Fields, the head of merchandise at Wal-Mart in the early 1990s who worked closely with Mrs. Clinton on the environmental project.

Ultimately it points out the bones of the situation:

“She was not an outspoken person on labor, because I think she was smart enough to know that if she favored labor, she was the only one,” Mr. Tate said. “It would only lessen her own position on the board if she took that position.”

You say you did read the whole article. And you gleaned from it, what?
She lives in a glass mansion?
And ???
Which candidate ever lied about what he/she did/didn’t do?
I guess the question was rhetorical?; April 27, 2008 5:29 PM
vwis said...: akamay,
Too much to deal with all at once without having too long a thread.

Bill is a naturally gifted politician. Yet he has made so many blunders, I have to question why. an example being that he knows peoples memories are short. About a month after the Bosnia story he brings it back up. His explanation of it being late at night and when your 60. Meanwhile, it was 9:30 in the morning on St. Patricks Day. Also, when your 60 you have moments you forget, although true, we don't want to believe that our president is having senior moments. I believe he believes in her abilities that I don't question.; April 27, 2008 6:03 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: sorry, can't help it . . .

a glass mansion

. . . maybe with a glass ceiling?; April 27, 2008 6:09 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka said: "She wanted to gain experience in Govt. So, I agree that 2000/2004 was not the time for her."
_____________

Well if she wasn't ready in 2004 then that proves that she can't say she has 35 years of experience.

Obama has more years in 'elected' office than Hillary does and in my opinion he is MORE qualified than she is. And besides his years in elected office he has worked as a community organizer, civil rights lawyer, and has taught law and the U.S. Constitution in a University.

When I hear people in the 'media' say he is not experienced it makes them look like fools.; April 27, 2008 6:12 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: May I ask a question of the Obama supporters?
I will.

You keep telling us that you are the de facto more intelligent, better educated, and mathematically superior element of the electorate. However, I am just not feeling it.

Wouldn’t at least one or two of those traits be consistent with having a somewhat open mind? Then, why are you so ill informed (or possibly deliberately ignorant) about these two candidates?

I’ll give you those math skills. Hey, my 790 math SATs were 40 years ago - pretty meaningless now. However, I do manage about 100 million in assets, without any need for median versus mean versus anything else. I haven’t needed to use that since my kid’s 5th (maybe 4th) grade math homework.

But research skills? Reasoning skills? If you have them, are you using them?

Now I do not mean ALL of you, just as I do not believe that ALL Clinton supporters are seeing past skin color, Hussein middle name, Rev. Wright.

Just all the ones I know.
And guess what?
They’re all smart – AND educated!
And a couple are even young ;-); April 27, 2008 6:15 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: vwis

have to agree, at least to the point that I wonder if Bill really wants her to win. Maybe it's subconscious, but in general he is a VERY thoughtful person. Can’t quite get this, it’s bizarre.

also, I'm sorry, am I long-winded, and therefore harming the thread? New to this is my only excuse.; April 27, 2008 6:22 PM
Yamaka said...: "Well if she wasn't ready in 2004 then that proves that she can't say she has 35 years of experience"

We are talking about experience in National Government and National Service!

It is a laughable matter to say HE has experience in National Government.

In Springfield, BHO was a PART-TIME legislator, most of the time he was just "present". And, he wild away the precious time in smoking outside the building! Ask around.
_______________________________

"Bill is a naturally gifted politician. Yet he has made so many blunders, I have to question why."

Bosnia or Travelgate or other gates are relatively minor slips, if at all any, and/or the brain-child of liberal media.

The big picture is breath-taking:

During Clinton's period, when HRC was the Co-President (in my view),
22 million jobs were created and an economy was growing at a 3.75%, and the Brand America was the envy of the world.

Yes, Nostalgia of Ninetees, when my savings invested in the American economy made me bundles, a seven-figure!

Yes, enlightened self-interests!

Yes, HRC CAN bring the Paradise Lost!

Vast majority of the Americans are in the middle, politically.

Therefore only a Moderate, a Centrist can win the Presidency.

HRC, a Centrist, is our President.

A fussy talker with a messy character CANNOT be elected, period.

BHO is NOT Electable, he is a FAR LEFT Politician.

:-); April 27, 2008 6:32 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: MSMWatch2008 said...
"May I ask a question of the Obama supporters?
I will.
You keep telling us that you are the de facto more intelligent, better educated, and mathematically superior element of the electorate."
_________________________

Well, first of all who is the YOU you are talking about? The media? I have heard the media say that Obama supporters are more educated than Hillary supporters.

Please do not try to lump MILLIONS of Obama supporters into 'one stereotypical group'.

This is part of the mindset that the Obama campaign would like to see go away. Stereotyping people because of race, gender, political affiliation, region, etc. divides people and does not do anything to unite the people of America.

We are Americans, individuals, and diverse.

Everyone poor, rich, black, white, yellow, brown, male, female, north, south, red states, and blue states need to unite and start thinking about what the best thing for our country is.

VOTE OBAMA '08/'12; April 27, 2008 6:36 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka said:In Springfield, BHO was a PART-TIME legislator, most of the time he was just "present". And, he wild away the precious time in smoking outside the building! Ask around."
_________________________

If you want people to listen to you then you might try to stop typing things that are not true. In the Illinois legislature it is common to vote 'present' when you have a problem with the bill. Obama voted on 4000+ bills in Illinois.

And if you are one of those people that hate 'smokers' then I have absolutely no desire to converse with you in the future. In fact I have no desire to converse with any of the people on this blog that spew hate, call people names, or use vulgarity in their posts.; April 27, 2008 7:08 PM
Anonymous said...: PACs and lobbyists aided Obama's rise

Data contrast with his theme

By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | August 9, 2007
In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.
Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.
Full Link http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/; April 27, 2008 7:30 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Jim said...
"Mike you are the one that is being uncouth"

A couple of comments on the above:
1. When referring to a human, the pronoun is "who" or "whom".

Rather an Elitist Statement"

And just how do you define the word 'elitist'?

From a rich background?

Went to an Ivy League school?

Define the word 'elitist' so we can see where you are coming from.

Mike; April 27, 2008 8:13 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Jim-

Lobbyists have NOT funded Obama's presidential campaign. What Obama says at his rallies is that 'lobbyists have not funded THIS campaign' - the current one.

If you want to talk about Senate campaigns then we will need to talk about the nearly 2 million dollars that Hillary received from PETER PAUL AND the amount of money that she did not report from PETER PAUL and the current lawsuit PETER PAUL vs. Clinton AND the $35,000 FEC fine that the fundraising committee had to pay for not reporting the money.
(The fundraising committee, New York Senate 2000. Its participants included CLINTON's Senate campaign, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the New York State Democratic Committee.); April 27, 2008 8:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern [1]. Alternatively, the term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of the elite.; April 27, 2008 8:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Does that fit you,Mike? Is it insulting? Probably not.
By the way I am sick of word verification
I just enter xxx until I get a doable one; April 27, 2008 8:33 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Jim,

I asked how YOU define 'elitist" After all you are the one who used it in reference to me.

I do not want a dictionary definition. I can look up the word in the dictionary myself. I would appreciate your PERSONAL definition of 'elitist'.

Mike; April 27, 2008 8:42 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: Leah said . . .
Please do not try to lump MILLIONS of Obama supporters into 'one stereotypical group'.
~~~
That is why I wrote:
"Now I do not mean ALL of you, just as I do not believe that ALL Clinton supporters are seeing past skin color, Hussein middle name, Rev. Wright."

See, that was my 'clue' that I did not lump any number of people into any group.

However, I will say that on this very blog I have run into "we are the smart ones" from many Obama people; I would not say that you are one of them.; April 27, 2008 9:01 PM
Anonymous said...: plainly speaking, Mike, I kinda felt you were coming off as thinking you intellectually superior due to your command of the langusge and grammer.
To quote Rev Wright in his speach today,(which I thought was quite good), "different is not inferior"
Folks who cannot spell well or use poor grammer are equal in my eyes.; April 27, 2008 9:15 PM
Yamaka said...: "Everyone poor, rich, black, white, yellow, brown, male, female, north, south, red states, and blue states need to unite and start thinking about what the best thing for our country is".

I heard this mindless blather from, I believe, the Inexperienced Chicago Politician - the bleeding FAR LEFT liberal before.

Such statements are like some Voodoo Language, signiying nothing.

Real people in real life are ideologically passionate about their positions, and the groups/parties are formed accordingly. That is what is called politics!

Can chain smokers understand this?

I doubt it.; April 27, 2008 9:16 PM
Anonymous said...: My last post appears to be inferior. spelling; April 27, 2008 9:17 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: Jim ~ correction:
different is not DEFICIENT!

I didn't think his speech was really very good, expected better.

Got a giggle at his disses of the Kennedys, though he was way off in the accent, but really . . . dissing John wasn't very PC, then Ted, then all the Irish????

I guess his message, "I am NOT reigned in," IS the media!

Funny.; April 27, 2008 9:41 PM
Yamaka said...: An Open Letter to Chairman Dean:

Dear Gov Dr. Dean:

This morning you told George Staphanapolis that we are in a no-win situation as far as MI and FL is concerned. The principles you want to use here are

1. Voter of MI and FL did NOT do anything wrong. Only the Official/Politicians did. Therefore, their votes must be counted, and their delegates seated.

2. The two Candidates must be satisfied.

3. It should be fair to the other 48 States on this matter.

I am astonished. We are in a no-win situation because of what you just said. You cannot possibly have ALL the three items satisfied.

As the Chairman, you MUST prioritize and choose ONE over the others.

I suggest that you should drop items 2 and 3 (which are just inferior points) and focus on item 1.

The superior point here is "Count ALL Votes and Seat ALL their Delegates", and do NOT punish the voters, who just obeyed their State Law.

Therefore, stand up for the voters of MI and FL, and say that ALL States are in play; the required delegates needed for the Nomination are 2208, period.

By taking untenable positions you set the Party in the path of total destruction in the Summer and the FALL '08.

Respectively,

Yamaka,
A Delegate from TX.

Cheers.; April 27, 2008 9:49 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka-

Chain smokers are people and Americans too!

I am just waiting for the government to start charging $1 tax per soda pop can or beer, or something and then I will sit back and enjoy seeing all the anti-smoker bashers have their day!

I cannot believe Americans have allowed the government to discriminate against smokers - people that are using a LEGAL product (that the government profits from) - like they do.

Sitting in traffic five days a week going to and from work is like smoking a carton of cigarettes. So, let's just impose a $1,000 tax on drivers for adding to the pollution level.

And people that bring children to restaurants and let them yelp while other people are trying to have a peaceful meal should be fined and made to sit in a small room at the back of the restaurant by the restrooms.

And let's not forget that now some restaurants are refusing to serve overweight people at buffets and some are allowing them to eat but adding on an extra fee to the bill.

When is this madness going to stop!; April 27, 2008 10:03 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: The votes from MI and FL can not be counted as is.

The public was told BEFORE the primaries that the votes would not count. Voters that believed that the votes would not count stayed home and DID NOT vote. You can't changed the rules at the end of the game!

MI and FL primaries were not and are not valid or fair elections.

The DNC really should reprimand Hillary for spinning MI and FL like she has and for misleading her supporters.

Hillary's words re: MI and FL – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C08W-jgyLlA&feature=related; April 27, 2008 10:12 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: 1/3 = .33 repeating
2/3 = .66 repeating

so therefore

1 = .9 repeating

You can prove anything you want with numbers. It's all a game to keep the public interested.; April 27, 2008 10:31 PM
Yamaka said...: "Chain smokers are people"

Yes, but they ignore the most basic concept in healthy living:

Smoking Kills People, and Kills the Innocent Secondary-Inhalers (spouses, friends and unsuspecting by-standers).

Read the Surgeon Generals' Warnings, and read the extensive literature available free.

A person who has been a chain-smoker is NOT the right person to get the Nomination of the Democratic Party, other points aside, IMHO.

:-); April 27, 2008 10:37 PM
vwis said...: akamay,

How do you feel about the Reps who are registering as Dems to vote in the primaries as called upon by Rush and other conservative media. They hope to have a riot at the convention. They are being asked to support Hillary. I'd like your explanation on that.

The FL and MI situation is a just a plain ole mess. I see new rules being written as we speak for future elections and it won't make it less complex in the future.; April 27, 2008 10:48 PM
RobH said...: Here's a cut and paste from a decent op ed today. Just an excerpt. I think this is good insight as to why some folks who are not for Hillary, are not. Check out the twisted logic here:

"....(In Penn.) Obama made a rather charitable gesture not only toward his Democratic rival but toward the presumptive Republican nominee as well. "You have real choice in this election," he told a crowd in Reading. "You know, either Democrat would be better than John McCain, but ... all three of us would be better than George Bush.

....Obama was not the first of the two Democrats to say something nice about the Arizona senator. He was the second.

A few weeks ago, campaigning in Texas, Clinton sounded downright glowing about McCain. Referring to those 3 a.m. phone calls at the White House, she said, "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Sen. McCain will be able to say. He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

Let's review. Clinton criticized Obama for ranking McCain No. 3 in a four-person assessment, ahead of Bush. But Clinton herself put McCain No. 2 -- or maybe even in a tie for No. 1 -- in her evaluation of the three candidates.

She thinks McCain is better than Obama and McCain is no better than Bush. Which can mean only one thing: Bush is better than Obama!

Of course that's probably not what she actually believes....."

End of Excerpt.

But she'll say it anyway. Whatever it takes.; April 27, 2008 11:02 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka -

You are being ridiculous.

If we eliminate everyone that has ever smoked, drank, ate unhealthy, etc. then the only people left to hold office would be a bunch of arrogant, pompous nerdy twits!

We better impeach George W. Bush right away because he once received a DWI - that surely must be of more importance to you then since he 'could have' killed someone with his car than all of his war crimes put together. And ya better go tell Arnold that he can't be governor any longer because he enjoys his cigars.

Senator Obama has stopped smoking. It is a non issue.

Do you want the government coming into your home to see if there is something you are doing that is unhealthy? And then judge YOU, fine YOU, and take away YOUR civil liberties?

America is really starting to become a sad place to live. We are losing more and more of our freedoms each day and the really sad part is that Americans are to blame for allowing it to happen.; April 27, 2008 11:04 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah you are just to........ funny. Jean; April 27, 2008 11:06 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah you are just to........ funny. Jean; April 27, 2008 11:07 PM
Yamaka said...: "How do you feel about the Reps who are registering as Dems to vote in the primaries as called upon by Rush and other conservative media. They hope to have a riot at the convention".

1. I don't listen to Rush Who.

2. There may be rioters of different shades and shapes, for different reasons. I don't know all those reasons. But all Ground Actions before a political Convention is any group's right, IMHO. It may not look nice, I agree. But, sometimes it is required to achieve a nobler end!

What we plan is massive Civil Disobedience. This is primarily to attract attention to our moribund illogical Rules, poor implementation of it, and the sanctity of Votes.

As I used say, Votes are Holier than Pope (A metaphor)!

Here we are NOT talking about what Candidates said and did, which is immaterial to me.

We simply say this: People obeyed their State Law and went to polls. Therefore, their Votes MUST be counted, their delegates seated, as per their choice, period.

Cheer and Smile. Vote for Hillary.; April 27, 2008 11:10 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah I really hate to admit this but for once I have to agree with you on the 11.04 pm post and that really surprises me. Jeanltroi; April 27, 2008 11:11 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah don't think for one minute that I believe Obama can run the white house [I don't] Hillary is the best one for the job and you will never be able to change my mind. Jean; April 27, 2008 11:14 PM
Somerled said...: Unfortunately I am still a smoker as of right now. What I wanna know is: How in the HELL is it possible for me to buy these things???

There is only ONE reason. MONEY.

The ONLY product on the market which, if used as directed, will eventually kill you.

Whomever this next prez is, let's see 'em fix THAT if they REALLY care about healthcare. Then I'll be impressed.; April 27, 2008 11:17 PM
Yamaka said...: "America is really starting to become a sad place to live. We are losing more and more of our freedoms each day and the really sad part is that Americans are to blame for allowing it to happen".

In my America I don't want polluters. I am concerned more about the Secondary Smokers, who have been forced to smoke nicotine, against their will.

Learn more about smoking, and know how many secondary smokers are killed every year.

I don't want chain smokers to be nominated. Smoking is a part of the behavior, and character. We don't want our Nominee to have poor character, judgment and credibility.

BHO has serious problems in this aspect, besides the horrendous policy defects of raising taxes and giving drivers' license to illegals.

:-); April 27, 2008 11:19 PM
Aunt Jean said...: vwis I do get passionate about things it's in my nature I'm cherokee and Irish with just a little Scottish. So need I say more lol. Thanks for the back up. Jean; April 27, 2008 11:21 PM
Somerled said...: Putting Hillary into a character debate would be like putting a frog in a blender.; April 27, 2008 11:21 PM
Somerled said...: Obama's character flaws don't have a body count. Hillary's do. Game over.; April 27, 2008 11:23 PM
Somerled said...: Last, but certainly not least, she wants to work for four years at the desk where Bill and Monica shared that famous cigar. It WAS smoking we were talking about right? I think this is over. 'Night.; April 27, 2008 11:30 PM
Richard said...: aunt jane: Sigh. Yet more racism from you. By all means, if it will help you preserve your racist world view, feel free to consider me whatever color you want. Just please stop spewing your hatred here.

jpsedona: you make a very good point, and one that I had not considered. I don't know how to begin going about making such a calculation, but I will consider it over the next day or so and report back on any progress. Anyone have any suggestions?; April 27, 2008 11:33 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka said: "We don't want our Nominee to have poor character, judgment and credibility."
_______________

Exactly! That is why we CANNOT allow Hillary to be the nominee.

Obama will be our next President of the UNITED States of America; April 27, 2008 11:34 PM
Aunt Jean said...: uqnybRichard are you talking to me aunt Jean because there is an aunt jane. Jean; April 27, 2008 11:46 PM
Yamaka said...: "Obama will be our next President"

Ya, w/o the Nomination. To commemorate this awesome achievement, the Coronation Ball is already going on in Hyde Park.

Wright is on the Saxophone, Rezko the MC and William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi and Mona are Guests of Honor! Hurraaaaaay.......Hi;;;Iii

After the Ball, all day dreams will come true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:-); April 27, 2008 11:48 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Yamaka I always liked your posts but about the smoking even though I agree with you somewhat I also at the same time disagree. I'm a smoker but I 'm a very considerate smoker. I don't smoke in my home nor do I get close to people that don't smoke if I'm not outside I don't smoke. I don't smoke and don't to smoke in some one car or home. I have had a bad experience with a non smoker that went way out of her way just to be ugly to me [I was outside in a public place it got out of hand because she got ugly with me { I was with my retarded sister and 74 year old mother]my sister weighs 83 lbs she defended me because the woman was calling me ugly names. Well she was going to hit her and my mother stepped in and said don't hit her [this woman probably weighed 175 lbs she pushed my mother. Well needless to say I stomped her ass. Now the reason I diagree with you is people have a right to believe what they want [might not be able to understand it] but if people want to do things that are legal they should have that right and they don't need the gov. telling them and making laws like we are children.All people have to do is show consideration. I hope you don't take this as an insult it's not meant to be just something to think about. Jean; April 28, 2008 12:12 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Richard I really don't know what your problem is with me but it' getting very old. The only thing that I have said is I don't think obama can run the white house.. Open your ears. I DIDN't SAY HE COULDN'T BECAUSE HE IS BLACK WHITE OR WHATEVER. I JUST BELIEVE HE DOESN'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE TO DO IT.Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a racistbut calling them a racist because they don't agree with you does make you one.I looked and didn't see a post from aunt jane for the last little while so I took it that you were talking to me if you weren't please except my apology. Jean; April 28, 2008 12:26 AM
Yamaka said...: Jean:

I see your point. I do.

Smoking is prohibited in most place I go. Most people I know don't smoke. Second hand smoke bothers/affects the health of innocent unsuspecting people.

We have a serious conflict in this country.

Tobacco products are legal. But they are prohibited in many public places. Those who got addicted to when they were young find it very difficult to quit. They are the victims of the tobacco industry.

Our healthcare costs are skyrocketing partly because of smoking related illness.

I don't know at this time how to resolve this conflict: we cannot ban tobacco products (politically impossible) and we must protect the health of smokers and NON-smokers as well. How to do it? I am lost!

:-); April 28, 2008 12:31 AM
Dave in NC said...: Greetings, I see all is well at the Hillary Memorial Hospice. We’ll turn up the Morphine drip since the end is near.

Brother Yam has fallen delirious, so we will put some happy pills in his drip. :)

Aunt Jean, we’ll see if we can get some nice pills in your drip. :)

Jean, the Scot-Irish in your heritage shows, I'll bet you could pierce a brick wall with a whiskey bottle. :); April 28, 2008 12:34 AM
countjellybean said...: Transcript of Barak Obama's interview on Fox News Sunday.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/transcript-obama-on-fns/; April 28, 2008 12:36 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Yamaka the first thing is the gov. instead of making so many laws to ban things they should deal with the tabocco companies and making it against the law for them to put so many chemicals in them.It's not so much [yes part of it is] the tabocco that is the worst it's the chemicals that they put in them that's so bad. It's a start. By the way I've been smoking since I was 11 now I'm 54. Jean; April 28, 2008 12:39 AM
Dave in NC said...: Aunt Jean,

Seriously,
I was born and raised in WV so I feel I know you like I know my own heart. I don’t want you to change or stop speaking your mind. You have much to say that is worth hearing as a Populist on a thread of mostly Libertarians. I just believe you will be taken more seriously if you police your grammar and spelling. Keep up the lively banter, though. Even the most gourmet dish is better with a little pepper. :)

BTW, One of my early jobs was driving a cab in a poor black neighborhood on the graveyard shift. I drove many good people and lost people between home and work, liquor house and whore house, church, VFW, the club and the emergency room.

That was 200 miles away and a quarter century, 2 businesses, 2 degrees, and a professional certification ago. I still have fond memories of the people I met. Of those that are still alive, I believe they would remember those days as wretched.

Jean, how will your nephews look back on their childhood when they are 40 or 50? It’s up to you…

Cheers!; April 28, 2008 12:39 AM
Dave in NC said...: I checked my email for the first time this weekend. I received, on Friday, a confirmation of receipt of my notice of candidacy for convention delegate. I have never done anything like that before and a tear came to my eye.

In addition, in the last 3 weeks, I have changed parties, voted on the first day of early balloting, made my first campaign contribution, put up my first yard sign, put on my first bumper sticker since “Reagan/*?!?&# in 1980”, and signed up to work the phone bank on Election Day.

SO, the problem with Obama was…?; April 28, 2008 12:41 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave in nc I probably could lol.Even more so if some of the posters were on the other side. lol. Jean; April 28, 2008 12:42 AM
Yamaka said...: The popular story is Michelle Obama agreed to campaign for her husband only when he agreed NOT to smoke nicotine products.

Now I believe BHO is using nicotine gum or patch.

Without nicotine, he is really paralyzed, as per the insider story!

On a serious note, it does NOT bother me if he takes nicotine gum or patch; but I will object when he smokes in public places!

We must eliminate all forms of second hand smoke! How? I don't know.

:-); April 28, 2008 12:43 AM
Dave in NC said...: Went to the Springsteen concert here in Charlotte tonight. The tribute to Danny Federici was very sad, but the concert was, as always, a breath of life. As I go to sleep with a happy song in my head, I wish each a good night and may God bless us all!; April 28, 2008 12:43 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave as far as my nephews hopefully with very fond memories and love.My family even though we fight we love each other and I come from a very large and it's getting larger everyday lol. Jean; April 28, 2008 12:45 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave forgot family in my post . Jean; April 28, 2008 12:47 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Well fellow bloggers I'm heading for the sack been painting all day and I'm tired hope to get at least 6 hrs. sleep we'll see.Have a great night! Jean; April 28, 2008 1:46 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Hey guys I was poster number 1200 does that make me special. I know no Aunt Jean bashing for a day [but of course I have to play nice] somewhat lol. goodnight. jean; April 28, 2008 1:49 AM
Unknown said...: test; April 28, 2008 2:35 AM
Ariane said...: Can someone explain (with reliable sources linked if possible) just why the legislatures in FL and MI decided against revotes? It seems like a big part of it is they were just continuing to play chicken with the DNC. But I keep hearing accusations from the Clinton side that it is Obama's fault - - but I don't know HOW he could have made the legislatures vote not to hold new elections. In the case of Fla. I think I also heard something about the old voting machines having already been got rid of and new ones not ready until too late? And I heard something about the issue of people who said they would have voted Democrat originally but since it wasn't supposed to count for anything, they instead voted in the Republican primary which at least was going to count 50%, and some of them were saying they should be allowed to vote again in a Democratic re-vote.

Revotes seemed like the only way to avoid one or another large group of people being extremely (and justifiably) angry. Seating delegates based on the non-campaigned popularity/name recognition poll is not fair - since A) we've seen there is quite a difference in poll results after they campaign in a state- and B) it is unfair to people who did not vote BECAUSE they were told it would not count - -or voted instead in the Republican primary since at least it would count 50%. This is especially true in MI where only one of the major candidates remained on the ballot- -and she said it didn't matter since the election "wouldn't count for anything". It's ridiculous to say that's a regular fair election just because 40% voted for Uncommitted. Certain Obama and Edwards supporters in Michigan did try to get people to do that to avoid the publicity value of Clinton getting a huge percentage; but not everyone saw a protest vote worthwhile - -they KNEW there would be no way to know later who the Uncommitted votes were for. I've heard that there's also the problem that some people mistakenly wrote the names of Obama or Edwards and had it thrown out.
BUT the proposal of just dividing the delegates 50/50 that was ludicrously suggested by the Obama campaign is no different than zero/zero as far as the voters actually having any influence. Saying that is fair is as ridiculous as saying it's fair to seat the Mich. vote based on that practically Soviet style election.

So I was very disappointed they did not do revotes. Can anyone tell me what the deal was and if there is any truth to support Clinton people blaming Obama?; April 28, 2008 6:16 AM
Richard said...: Aunt Jean: you use frequently use racist language, you have openly admitted your racist views, you spread stereotypes and judge entire groups by their color whenever you talk about race. Most recently you had the audacity to ask two posters if they were black, as if it mattered in the least toward the validity of their arguments.

To put it simply, Aunt Jean, my problem with you is that you are racist. I am sick of this argument, though, and I will gladly agree to stop pointing out your racism if you will stop making racist comments.; April 28, 2008 7:25 AM
Ariane said...: @MSMWatch
>"May I ask a question of the Obama supporters? <> You keep telling us that you are the de facto more intelligent, better educated, and mathematically superior element of the electorate."

I'm not sure what percentage of Obama supporters you think is included in this "you" - I know you said it wasn't all. Based on polling, Obama voters are apparently more likely to have had higher education than are those who voted for Clinton . But so what? Personally, I abhor it when Obama supporters make use of such statistics to put down Clinton supporters and in other fora I have let them know I objected to their attitude.
A) Certainly not all Obama supporters have college degrees, and many Clinton supporters do.
B) More importantly, it is incredibly obnoxious to think that people without higher education are unintelligent or uninformed. Intelligence, analytical thinking, intellectual curiosity and cognizance are not the sole province of people who have had the benefit of higher education- -although it's true that it gives more training at analyzing information, but some people are self-educated and have very sharp minds. I recall one Obama supporter on another forum who was going on about Clinton supporters being "uneducated" and "of the lowest class" I told him how offensive I found his attitude that he was superior to those with less education and less money, and reminded him of examples of people with limited education, from lower economic classes, who had been able to accomplish some remarkable things by organizing. That particular time the guy ended up seeing the points and apologized.
In this blog I am new but already I feel myself getting rather irritated with the way some people are harping on details of grammar.

I hope that on BOTH sides we would try to suggest to supporters of the same candidate that they attempt to tone down their attitude of superiority toward supporters of the other Democratic candidate. This includes the Clinton supporters who call Obama supporters names and accuse them of being cultists, zombies, naive children, etc. That is every bit as insulting as Obama supporters calling Clinton supporters uneducated, ignorant and mathematically challenged. One thing is for sure: Democrats are going to have to come together in the fall to prevent a continuation of Bush policies and a president that may be even scarier than Bush, with his repeatedly mixing up things like Sunni and Shia and singing Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran like it's some kind of joke to get us into another war when our military is already overextended and our debt is skyrocketing; not to mention his notorious temper tantrums. If we continue to antagonize each other by personal insults on top of extreme rhetoric about the candidates, we are doing our part to make a McCain victory happen..... actually I think that is very true - - I think some of the most obnoxious of those claiming to support Obama or Clinton on blogs are actually rightwingers involved in another part of Operation Chaos (whether freelance or directed from above).; April 28, 2008 9:01 AM
Unknown said...: I am Nancy PEloosy and I am very upset that they are taking away my Queen Bee Status. There can be only one Queen Bee in Washington DC and that is me. Everytime Clinton wins a state , I have to address the TV audience that the Dream Ticket with Clinton & Obama is not possible. I do not care if the Democrats win the General Election . If Hillary is nominated with Obama, Hillary will be the President and She will become the Queen Bee. I do not want that.
Finally Howard Dean has agreed with me now. Both of us do not care if Democrats win or not in Nov. He wants to be the King Maker and I want to remain Queen Bee.
They are telling me that the party is divided equally between age groups, Race, Gender and Class status and we should find some way to seat FL & MI at the convention. .If they are seated Hillary will win hands down and what will happen to my Queen BEE status? Dam* these people who want the majority to decide who our nominee should be. They are telling me and Howard that the General Election is like the Superbowl and the the Primaries are like the playoffs. Rules for the Playoffs should be the same as in the General Election. If we do that Hillary will get 308 electoral votes and Obama will get only 232 electoral for the states that each will win. That means Hillary will be the Quuen Bee and I do not want that !!! Howard Dean and I planned such a messy series of Primaries and Caucuses that the party will be divided right in the middle. We do not care about winning in the General Election . Do not tell me about realty and facts. They confuse me. I just want to remain the Queen BEE !!! No Super Delegate dare take that away from me !!!
Barack Obama's 20-year association with his "spiritual mentor," the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his "friendly" relationship will unrepentant Weather Underground bomber William Ayers and his remark that "bitter" small-town Pennsylvanians "cling to guns and religion" do not help him with any of key voting groups. And his discomfort, evident in the Pennsylvania debate, when he is greeted with anything but adulation does not augur well for his ability to stand firm and show a sense of command in the face of the stringent criticism he is bound to receive as the Democratic nominee. I do not care if 28% of Clinton supporters vote for McCain & 18% of Obama supporters vote for anybody but Clinton. I do not want the Dream Ticket even though that may be the only way Democrats will win the General Election .
Since being elected Speaker, the approval rating of the divided Congress has dropped to a historic low of less than 20% due primarily to public frustration over Congress' inability to affect Bush's Iraq policy. I am solely responsible for that. I have been the main reason that the Democrats never succeeded in opposing the War policy of Bush . I wasted two years and I do not care because I am the Queen Bee !!! I am second in line after Bush & Cheney . Who knows I may become President if both of them are gone !!! That may be my only chance !!!; April 28, 2008 9:27 AM
Yamaka said...: Hello Nancy:

I like your post on Nancy Pelosi.

Whenever she starts talking about this Primary, I get angry.

I want her to just shut her big mouth and do her job as the Speaker.

She comes across very unprofessional. She needs to be kicked out of Speakership, IMHO.

Keep writing. Please.

Cheers. :-); April 28, 2008 9:38 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 of 1552 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

1552 comments:

Tags