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.

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.

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


Previous Open Thread here

New Open Thread here
Comments now locked in this one.


«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 1222   Newer›   Newest»
Dave in NC said...


ed iglehart said...

Oh Goody!

A nice clean beach upon which to frolic!

Bull Schmitt said...

(from previous thread)

GatorsChampions4Ever said...

"Do you honestly think that if Senator Clinton were the nominee, the AA would stay home?"

At least as much as the Clintonites claim that her women voters won't come out for Obama. Or more directly - yes, to a significant degree they would sit the election out - they would have more justification to do so. But the AA's are not even the worst of it for her chances.. it's the disaffected and youth vote which Sen. Obama dominates - that will switch over and vote for McSame over Sen. Clinton if she steals the nomination via "Superdelegate coup".

- - - - - - - - - - - -
You also asked:

"Why are we not holding Senator Obama to his word when he said ''Indiana will be the tie-breaker''?

Why are we not holding Sen. Clinton to her word when she said "North Carolina will be a game-changer"?

Like Yamaka yesterday, excuse me if I don't feel obliged to shoot down your ridiculous arguments all day. Cheers.

jpsedona said...


I haven't seen your update on popular vote since the contest results from NC & IN.

Using your math, Obama's up by?

IMO, ther uncommitted SD's are not complete idiots. In evaluating the popular vote, SD's may be looking for a reason to support Hillary. However, I can't see anyone but a ardent Hillary supporter including MI into the popular vote total. If they are that ready to support her, they're likely to already be on the list.

Ignoring IA, NV, ME, WA and MI; but including FL, Obama has about a 420,000 popular vote lead.

Will the SD's who are looking at popular vote include just the states? If so, that would be bad for Hillary since she is likely to have a large popular vote margin in PR.

Including PR, she would need a turnout of about 3 million voters and a margin of more than 55%-45% to pull even (Ignoring IA, NV, ME, WA and MI). If the cuaucs state estimates are included, she'd need more than 500,000 to pull even. If SD's ignore the popular votes from PR are dicarded, then she would need 1.25 million to his 750,000 to pull even.

The popular vote winner is certainly not determined yet, but any SD who wants to jump on the Clinton bandwagon are going to use one of the other arguments, not the popular vote that includes Michigan.

ed iglehart said...



I'm not sure to be pleased by such a remark, or not.

Yamaka said...

B s:

Your BHO said in the Victory Speech "My father's coffin was wrapped in the US Flag" yesterday.

I thought he died of a drunken car accident in Kenya. How did he get US Flag in his coffin?

Is this in fact true?

Or is it a gaffe?

Please clarify for me.

I understand BHO can win the GE with his 16.5 million voters.

How many EVs will he get w/o the help of Clintons and their supporters?

Any guess?

Cheer, Smile and Vote for Hillary for REAL POSITIVE CHANGE.

Dave in NC said...


It was a compliment.

Perhaps I should analogize for every smart bomb there is a dirty bomb.


Unknown said...

I have finally put my finger on what this campaign reminds me of, a sport rivalry. Clintonites and Obamans are slinging mud about each other back and forth like Yankees/Red Sox fans or like Packers/Bears fans. Long way to go but can we please get on with things here Obama has to win at this point or else Democrats will have succeeded in their feat to become even more mediocre than they already are.

Unknown said...

Will the balck vote help JR. in WV and Kentucky?
Don't get to excited about all those black faces in WV, they are just hard working miners coming off shift.

GatorsChampions4Ever said...

bull schmitt. Never answer a question with a question. You must learn that, son. I'll be happy to debate you on substantive issues, but as one last aside, I will make this statement:

I guarantee that Senator Clinton's win in West Virginia will be larger than Senator Obama's victory in North Carolina. Not as important, but a state that could be in play.

Yamaka said...


I see your point.

I want to wait till all the 6 Contests get over.

I wish the 300 or so undeclared SDs remain calm till June 3 Contests to see the total picture.

If BHO gets more total delegates and more popular votes, then I wish they move en mass towards him and put him over the hurdle of 2208.5 mark. I will support him then.

On the other hand, if there is a dichotomy: one leading in total delegates, and the other in total popular votes, they have to think hard and ask "Who is truly less RISKY and Electable in the GE?".


Leah Texas4Obama said...


I caught that too last night during Senator Obama's speech about the flag. I believe it was a slight gaffe. I believe he meant his grand-father. He grand-father was his father figure when growing up and his grand-father was a veteran that had a military funeral and is buried in the military cemetery.

I am sure the press will just on what he said and there will probably be an explanation coming from the Obama camp.

Peter said...

No doubt Clinton will win big in WV. She is leading with 30-35% but that could narrow a bit because of the positive press on Obama after last night and bad press on Hillary.
An endorsement from the senator og governour could have an impact here, it could lead to a bigger victory for Hillary (perhapes 70-30) or smaller victory (60-40). No matter what happens, Hillary will win WV big and we know it. But i doesn`t matter, it is a small state with few delegates at stake (27). A huge 70-30 win will only give her around 12 delegates net.

I haven`t seen any general elction polls for WV, but Hillary might have a chance against Mccain, but it is only 5 EV.
Obama is even with Mccain in NC polls. Clinton is also ahead big in Kentucky, no national poll there , but still only 8 EV.

NC has 15 EV and I think it is more likely that Obama wins NC than Hillary taking KY or WV (or both). NC is alone more important than KY and WV combined when it comes to electorate votes.

Either way, Obama has won this. It is just a matter of timing. The party should unite around Obama and the best thing for Obama is to do as well as possible in the remaining primary to build a momentum towards the general election.

GatorsChampions4Ever said...

DaveInNC. Response to your 12:16 post.

It was a poll posted by a blogger who got a AP story on this.

As I told bull schmitt, never answer a question with a question, although I think you are(or were) wiser than him. Anyhow, Ohio and Texas will be part of her final argument to superdelegates.

You are right, except for the fact that while the math favors Senator Obama, IT'S ABOUT ELECTABILITY! Let's see how the polls trend the next few days in these swing states.

I am NYC through and through. Do I have to bring up the gains she helped to make here or will we just ignore it?

I never brought up any of the Muslim stuff or anything else you listed. Go back to my original posts. That is not my style for blogging.

My point was that we tend to forget that this country was in great shape when Bill Clinton was in office. You don't think it can return to that if Senator Clinton were elected?

Dave in NC said...


there are like 3 black people (exaggeration) in WV, check the demographics.

Those people coming out of the mines are white... under all that coal dust.

However, thank you for making my point. WV looks about as much like America as the Yearning For Zion Ranch does.

WV supporting Clinton is about as possitive as Wright supporting Obama and for much the same reasons.


WV in play? Clinto vs. McCain?

When monkeys fly.

ed iglehart said...

According to CNN

Obama margin in NC = 232726
Total popular vote = 1571442
Clinton = 41.8721785%
Obama = 56.6818884%
difference = 14.81

But, if we do the rounding:
41.87 = 42, and 56.68 = 57
the margin is 15 points, and Dave wins the beer!

As to Indiana,
Total popular vote = 1265028
Clinton = 50.72%
Obama = 49.27%
difference = 1.45, which rounds to 1%


GatorsChampions4Ever said...

peter. Hello. Long time, no blog. How's things? You are spot on, except that it's about math till June 3, but when those superdelegates meet then, here is what I hope they will be discussing:

Who is more electable?

What if the polls still favor Senator Clinton in swing states vs Senator McCain?

How come we do not mention that caucuses are not including older voters, working-class voters due to older folks not being able to get to polling places, working class voters not voting because they are at work.

Let's hope the superdelegates just wait until all states have voted and we will then assess the situation.

By any chance, did anyone here catch what Sean Hannity said at 1am ET last night?

Peter said...

No I don`t think WV is in play, just thinking possible theories.

Anyway I think the best thing that can happen is if Obama gets endorsements from major KY and WC supers and they campaign heavy for him. That way he might to better in WV and KY which are awful states for him and a smaller loss than expected (20% or so) could help him a bit towards the negative press regarding to little support from white blue-collar workers.
But to be honest, WV don`t matter at all.

GatorsChampions4Ever said...

dave. HUCKABEE won the WV primary.

GatorsChampions4Ever said...

An interesting video:


GatorsChampions4Ever said...

peter. It may not matter right now, but in the long run it is a viable argument to supers that she won a swing state(WV) you say will go Repbulican just as Senator Obama did the same(NC) last night.

On to West Virginia.

ed iglehart said...


WV = 5 electoral votes and Ky = 8.

If HRC could put both of them 'in play', WOW!
But VA = 13, and Obama could well put that in play, as well as NC = 15.

I reckon Jim Webb would make the best VP for Obama, bringing true war hero and Reagan Cabinet (cross-party) credibility as well as very probably bringing Virginia into the fold.

All is now simple speculation. The only virtual certainty is that it's Obama Vs McCain in November, and all speculation regarding HRC is simple mass debating.


ed iglehart said...

"Sean Hannity said at 1am ET last night"

He should phone home.

jpsedona said...


I think a lot of the SD's will wait until the last primary. If they do that, then there's no second guessing and no fingerpointing that they didn't let all votes be counted.

However, depending upon the source you use, and whether you include or don't include SD's from MI & FL (I know you do), there are as few as 220 or so undecided SD's. And of these 220, there's roughly 50 that are add-ons, many of which will be selected to support one candidate or another.

Hillary not only needs MI & FL pledged delegates to win, she also needs the SD's from those states to be seated with full votes. Since she has a lead in SD's from FL & MI, it adds to her current SD lead.

However, that said, I beleiev that the SD endorsement momentum (drip drip) will continue for Obama over the next couple weeks. Realistically, for every one endorsement he gets moving forward, she needs 2 (or more). If he picks up 20 delegates over the next couple weeks, she would need 40. I just don't see Hillary outpacing Obama 2-1 after yesterday, nor do I see all of the remaining uncommitted remaining on the sidelines for another 4 weeks, do you?

countjellybean said...

Rush Limbaugh is now calling for congressional hearings into the disenfranchisement of Democrat voters in MI and FL. I think we can expect to see more posts along those lines.

Bull Schmitt said...

Are there any Democrats who watch to see what Sean Hannity said at 1am ET last night, much less care?

I only mock, because you make me laugh so :)

Amot said...

I think all you must not forget about the psychology of the voters! This time the vast majority of the undecided will go Obama because they want to see the race end. Also his supporters will be highly motivated while many Clinton supporters will consider it's over and stay at home. In WV turnout will be very small compared to other states!

Any major endorsement coming out for Obama will cost Hillary 2-5% in the next primaries! Any grand endorsement will cost her the election! Even if she trails in supers when WV comes she will win with 15% the most...

Unless Clinton makes a really good scenario that she is still in play and no endorsements come during the next week, it is over. But her aides said only miracle on May 31st can save her now. So when she wins WV by 10-15% next week, despair will be the result of 'the big victory'!

Dave in NC said...


I believe you points ARE worthy of a straight answer.

The issue of electability is in the perception of the voters. That perception, taken as a whole, has brought us to where we are now.

With Obama in a near-clinch situation.

The remaining undeclared supers are mostly elected officials and must be mindful of their careers.

Schuler, for instance would probably love to endorse Obama and jump on the band wagon, but his district voted for Clinton. It is not a particularly Democratic district, so his job would be at risk if he did so.

I know of no supers that have stated they would over-rule the electorate just because THEY THINK the people got it wrong.

I have, however, heard A LOT of supers talk about endorsing Obama to achieve resolution.

Clearly, any mass movement would have to wait until all the primaries are over - they wouldn't interrupt the people while they are still talking.

IMHO I believe the supers putting Clinton over the top, given where we are now, is not going to happen.

No, I do not believe Clinton would be a particularly good president. I believe that she would be more than willing to sacrifice the country in order to make a legacy for herself on some inane piece of legislation.

She would also be more inclined to be a poll driven follower rather than a leader willing to make tough decisions necessary to fix the mess created over the last 15 years.

Keeping in mind that she and Bill have been part of the problem all along.

There, all answers, no questions.

Peace my friend

jpsedona said...


Also in picking Webb, Obama would moderate the ticket. Webb, as a former Rep and more moderate perspective might be a good choice.

Nella said...

Interesting analysis of these results based on race:

If the black vote split 1/3 for HRC, which would be a normal phenomenon in any other race, his win in NC is gone; she wins by 3%.

In Indiana her win is increased to +10%.

There is a reason that David Axelrod made the strong pitch, caught by and run with by many of the pundits, that the Clintons are racists.

And that is one of the primary reasons that the white, non-racist, HRC backers will not support him. He played dirty, and is still playing dirty (watch his pitch person on CNN this morning.) It's not ONLY women voters who will not vote for him.

So all McCain needs to do in the GE is remind the people that Obama used a race card to defeat the better, or at least stronger, candidate - just as Bush played his ugly card against McCain in 2000.

Very sad, but true.

PS: I know I owe a response or two from earlier posts, lost track, I have a real job, and I do not have time to go looking. Consider yourselves right; I can take it.

I like this, too, so I'm appropriating it:

jpsedona said...


When the average person walks into the voting booth, do they vote for who they think can win or do they vote based for who would do the best job?

IMO, people do not want to waste a vote on someone who is likely to place third in a 3 person race. It happens, but I think most people don't vote for a fringe candidate as a protest. In a 2 person race, people look for who can do the best job. They may ALSO believe they're the most electable, but in general people vote for who they 'like', who can 'get the job done', and less so who can win the next contest out...

Florida-girl said...

Is it over now? It's kindof funny how she gave a winning speech last night (although her family didn't look too enthused, before anyone knew for sure if she had even won. JMHO

Martin said...

HRC keeps trotting out this "ready on Day 1" line. What does that mean exactly? Is she implying that Obama would spend the first few weeks stumbling around, wondering a President is supposed to do? Does she mean that she knows where the good bathrooms are in the White House? Where they keep the Windex?

jpsedona said...

Hillary in taking press questions at her stump speech in WV just backed away from going all the way to the convention (though that may or may not be her position). She indicated that sehe would remain in the race until there is a nominee (employing the huckabee stratagey).

Dave in NC said...

GatorsChampions4Ever said...
dave. HUCKABEE won the WV primary.

McCain was doing well in WV, just not well enough to win the primary. He instructed his people to vote for Huckabee to deprive Romney of, what could have been, a momentum-building win. Romney was in second place, so McCain's move was nothing short of brilliant.

McCain knows how to work WV.

Besides, the GE is a whole different dynamic.

It includes all the voters, not just the Republicans.

McCain didn't lose to a woman or a minority, and he won't in November either.

Check WV's voting history on "270 to win.com". Look at their history of governors, they had a Republican governor for close to half of the last 50 years.

They will vote Republican - on a statewide or national level - in a heartbeat.

Color them as red as an irritated bowel for '08

Florida-girl said...

I am also watching her speech. MSNBC. She does dodge questions well. Like a polatician should, I suppose...blah.

Florida-girl said...

She is in major debt, How is she supposed to go on?

Yamaka said...


I just made a back-of-the-envelope calculation:

I use the last left box of DCW (Option 6, as always): She has 1890 total delegates as of this morning.

If Hillary gets 119 delegates of the 217 in the forthcoming 6 Contests, plus about 200 of the 305.5 undeclared SDs, then the math will be
1890 + 119 + 200 = 2209 total delegates, which will push her up barely the hurdle of 2208.

Well, you may not agree with this, I understand.

We need to wait till June 3, till then it's all wild speculation/at best educated guess!


Doc said...

I wonder why Sen's Clinton and McCain do not wear little flags on their clothes. Do they not love america? Andy Rooney of CBS did a great piece on this a couple of years ago.

Dave in NC said...

JP, Gator,

Here in Charlotte we had a Democratic candidate for mayor come in 3rd a few years back.

It wasn't because the primary voters got it wrong, it was because of a divided party.

Don't under-estimate the power of the Clintons to destroy the party to achieve their goals,

Don't underestimate the willingness of the Clintons to destroy the country to achieve their vision of a legacy.

Martin said...

"If Hillary gets 119 delegates of the 217 in the forthcoming 6 Contests, plus about 200 of the 305.5 undeclared SDs, then the math will be
1890 + 119 + 200 = 2209 total delegates, which will push her up barely the hurdle of 2208."

Haha. Why not give her ALL the superdelegates while you're at it? The supers have been going 2:1 for Obama lately, but surely Cliton's STELLAR performance last night will turn the tide!

Yamaka said...

I have a hypothsis:

Of the 16.5 million votes BHO got,

I guess 30% is truly FOR Obama (mostly Blacks and a few college kids), another 30% is anti-women crowd and the rest 40% anti-Bill Clinton crowd.

Since HE is the bona-fide Front Runner, such calculations sound logical, at least for some of the SDs.


If this is true, what is his chance in the GE? Is it not too RISKY?

People may disagree, I understand.


jpsedona said...


Based on the district conventions in MI, Obama has already gathered in a quantity of the uncommitted delegates in MI that are not reflected in Option 6. As I've said previously, they are much like SD's; can change their mind but currently supporting Obama.

so, if those uncommitted in MI supporting Obama are around 30 (and ignoring additional uncommitted yet to be chosen), then using your scenario (119 of 217), she would need 230 of 270, correct?

Dave in NC said...


This time I agree with you.

Except that probably 200+ of the remaining supers are VERY likely, in THE REAL WORLD, to vote for Obama.

Check the interviews, comments, statements for each of them.

Look at the criteria that they have ALREADY STATED THEY WILL USE, not the criteria YOU believe they should use, or wish they would use.

That is the one fallacy that voids your whole calculation.

jpsedona said...


How would you apply your comment of "I guess 30% is truly FOR Obama (mostly Blacks and a few college kids), another 30% is anti-women crowd and the rest 40% anti-Bill Clinton crowd" to the remaining Superdelegates?

Yamaka said...

"but surely Cliton's STELLAR performance last night will turn the tide!" --martin

Well, I predicted that IN will go to HRC and for sure NC to BHO.

I would argue that as BHO said, IN is a tie-breaker, which finally she won, in spite of IN is in the backyard of IL, and been outspent 3:1.

Clearly, he did not get what he wanted from IN. 92% Blacks going to BHO made the NC blow-out, which is not necessarily good in the future.

This means he becomes just a Black Candidate from Chicago, which his supporters hate to think!

He should have gotten a blow-out in PA or IN or OH or atlest TX primary to legitimately say he is a Super Cadidate, IMHO.

Of course, so far he hasn't. Maybe in the future!


Florida-girl said...


"I guess 30% is truly FOR Obama (mostly Blacks and a few college kids), another 30% is anti-women crowd and the rest 40% anti-Bill Clinton crowd."

Are you suggesting that the college educated, non-militant feminists, and people whom believe America might be better off with non-Clintons at it's helm (with quite a bit of controversy when they were, I might add), is a bad thing?

I just wish she had enough grace to think about the democratic party as a whole. IMO

Pablo said...


3 of my choices for greatest persons alive. Without some deep thought, but think if I did they would probably still hold up.

1. Dalai Lama
2. Norman Borlaug
3. John Wooden

ed iglehart said...

"My point was that we tend to forget that this country was in great shape when Bill Clinton was in office. You don't think it can return to that if Senator Clinton were elected?"

No, and it's pointless to speculate on such an impossibility - sheer mass debating for the sake of an empty thrill.


Also, Webb is married to a Vietnamese-American, making for a truly rainbow ticket.


jpsedona said...


"He should have gotten a blow-out in PA or IN or OH or atlest TX primary to legitimately say he is a Super Cadidate"

Much of Hillary's success is ude to preserverence in the face of adversity; overcoming the bad and focusing on the greater goal. It's the fighter in her. This is what makes her a survivor, right?

I think that the Wright issue has hurt Obama as a candudate. However, I would give him high marks for enduring the firestorm of all the Wright coverage 24x7. I see him as a much more tested candidate than before the controversy. This survival capacity parallels Hillary's.

RobH said...

Ed and jp,

Happy to see you sign on to the Webb idea. (I think I posited the same - oh - about a month ago.) (Even though last night in my delirium I think I blathered something about Obama/Clinton. I can not be held accountable for last night - I was doing shots of Crown Royal. And I might have proposed a pig roast to Aunt Jean.)

Anyway, for all the right reasons, I think it's a winner.

Richard said...

Updated Predictions:

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:

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 - 103 Obama, 114 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:
1589.5 Obama, 1427.5

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

1692.5 Obama, 1541.5 Clinton

Current Superdelegate Committments:

255 Obama, 270.5 Clinton

(Predicted Pledged Delegates + Current Superdelegate Committments):

1947.5 Obama, 1812 Clinton

Uncommitted Superdelegates Needed to Reach 2024:

77 Obama, 212.5 Clinton

Percentage of Uncommitted Superdelegates Needed to Win:

28.57% Obama, 78.85% 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):
1656.5 Obama, 1605.5

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

1814.5 Obama, 1719.5 Clinton

Current Superdelegate Committments:

260 Obama, 285.5 Clinton

(Predicted Pledged Delegates + Current Superdelegate Committments):

2074.5 Obama, 2005 Clinton

Uncommitted Superdelegates Needed to Reach 2208.5

134 Obama, 203.5 Clinton

Percentage of Uncommitted Superdelegates Needed to Win:

44.01% Obama, 66.83% Clinton


Unchanged from my previous post. Obama will still lead by about 135 delegates on Jun 6. Clinton would have to get nearly 80% of the uncommitted superdelegates to lock this up, while Obama still needs less than 30%. Even if Florida and Michigan are both included at 100%, Clinton would still need two thirds of the remaining super delegates to win. Not happening.

Post script:

Looking at this another way, Obama currently needs 37% of all remaining delegates, both pledged and super, to win this contest outright. Is there anyone here who doesn't think he'll get at least that?

RobH said...

So, here in America, we put our money where our mouth is, right?

Hillary does it.
Yam does it for Hill.
Millions of grass-rooters do.

But Did you check the Intrade Real Time Qoutes at RCP? Overnight Obama went from 79% to 91%.
(Talk about chasing the market.)

'Nuff said.

Florida-girl said...

Good post, Richard!

jpsedona said...


During your shots of Ryal Crown, you might have thought you proposed a pig roast to Aunt Jean... however, it's possible you only proposed... forgot the pig thing?

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Four more Supers to endorse Obama later today:



RobH said...

Crap, I gotta go back and read my post........

jean said...

I am so tired or people BEING SO CHILDISH OVER A WIN OR LOOSE in their RESPONSES.
From looking at the responses the statistics show that it is the Obamanites WHO ARE THE WORST OFFENDERS.
I do not think that Hillary can win but I wish she would. The responses from the Obamanites show me I will never vote for him.
I have never voted for a Republican but at this point I think I will.
I hate Kool-Aid and rather prefer a vodka soda with a twist of lime:)
Today sucks.
jean(not Aunt Jean who I think is great:)

jpsedona said...

From her campaign stop in WV, Hillary said:

“It’s still early…. This is a dynamic electoral environment.”

“I feel really good coming off our victory in Indiana… It’s a new day, it’s a new state, it’s a new election.”

I guess if you're used to answering 3am phone calls, yes, I guess 2am could still be considered early.

Relative to her comments about it being a new day, a new state a new election... perhaps she forgot to add: it's a new spin, new pitch to SD's, and a new round begging for campaign donations.

Dave in NC said...


I believe Obama's voters were:
75% pro-Obama
24% anti-Clinton
1% anti-woman

I believe Clintons voters were:
40% pro-Clinton
10% anti-Obama
10% Operation Chaos
40% racist

In the fall, the energized youth vote will show up to vote again, the ones inclined to sit it out probably sat out the primaries also.

The anti-woman vote will still go for Obama, the 20% of REPUBLICANS that are anti-woman will vote for Obama

20% racist Republicans will stay home because they are hung over after the Monday Night Football party - or maybe hung over after Bible-thumping class.

10% Operation Chaos Republicans will forget to re-register Republican and, realizing this, will think that they can't vote in the GE and will stay home like the stupid mules that they are.


Democrats hate Bush, that's what they do. They didn't vote for him and would hate him even if he ushered in the Harmonic Convergence.


The Republican MIDDLE CLASS will vote for Obama even if he starts wearing a turban on the stump!!

Put your preconceptions and conventional wisdom away, YOU ARE JUST WRONG THIS TIME.


RobH said...

Whew, jp.....dodged a bullet, there.
Hey you were there, too, and Ed, and Yam, and Dave, and you, and you....and Toto, too.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Hillary received aprox. 7% of her votes in Indiana from RUSH Limbaugh ditto-heads! If it had not been for Rush - Obama would have won Indiana and Hillary would be heading back to the senate today!

Rush should go to jail for being a traitor to America- his disrespect to democracy is unforgivable!


Hillary Clinton said...


Thanks for the tip! I'll give those Super Del's call before they make this mistake.

I could sure use some financial help with my campaign. I owe too many people money to quit now. I need to keep raising money until I pay all my debts - or until Bill gets paid to give another speech supporting NAFTA and free trade with Columbia and China. Please go to my campaign website and pledge your Bush Rebate checks to me right away!

jpsedona said...


Did you notice the room spinning and spinning after a whilE? Did you notice anyone flying by the window?

Amot said...

I agree on Clintons voters, but I disagree on Obama's - there are at least 15% open or secret anti-woman voters, mostly white and they are the voters that would go McCain according to current polls. AA voters have not so far disowned her, but they can and will if she makes the Nuke...

Leah Texas4Obama said...

jean(not Aunt Jean)

A vote for McCain is a vote for WAR and all of the Bush policies!

Any democrat that votes for McCain is not a real democrat!

OBAMA / Kathleen Sebelius '08


Amot said...

you make a strong prediction of 25% or less margin in WV, but I agree on that.
I think you underestimate KY voting for Hillary and OR for Obama. Both OR and MT will go huge for Obama well over the polls current prediction, the end-it-now effect there will be enormous. I think Obama will win OR by 8 or 10 and MT by 4, Clinton will take KY by 11 or 13. On PR I will not dare to make prediction until I see the trends and the endorsements.
The rest of your analysis is fine, I only don't believe 100% seating will happen.

We will continue to discuss the trends next week, when new polls are out and the end-of-the-week endorsements are fact!

Dave in NC said...


Yeah, that's right, I was there, you proposed to Aunt Jean!


I'm up for the pig roast, bring the Crown, also!

Jean (not Aunt Jean) I'm with you on the vodka with the twist. We will make a good team: a Democrat voing for a Republican and a former Repub-turned-Demo voting for Obama.

jpsedona said...


Relative to Rush, and any other talking-ahead that's far left or right, trying to convince voters it's what they're all about. I tend to think Rush's influence is overblown. But the question is why would the Dem parties in the states allow independents and crossover voters in their primaries or caucuses?

Unknown said...

Reverse Racism and Pragmatism; the Blindness of the American Left

American political correctness has turned the discussion of some controversial issues like race or religion a matter of taboo. That explains why MTV is more popular than PBS. Everyone prefers simplicity over complexity; but it is impossible to understand the real world people by turning a blind eye. In addition, if the world of politics where under the jurisdiction of ethics and rationality many issues like wars and socio-economic inequalities would be today a thing of the past. It is under those premises that many find unbelievable how many sectors of the American Left still use “academic selection” and “faux logic” to underscore the sound argument that Ms. Clinton might be the best choice for them.

Several weeks ago, Geraldine Ferraro was silenced by her own boss for committing political heresy. Ferraro said that Obama would not enjoy his current popularity if he were a white man. From the world of academics to the world of MTV, the truth is undeniable; racism has nothing to do intelligence and aptitudes. But closing the argument at this point is simplistic. When Obama carries close to 90% of the black vote and wins in states with significant black population; anyone with the slightest common sense would presume that maybe race is playing a factor.

If Ferraro statements were thrown in an academic setting; it would be a theme for statistical research but she would never be silenced. But this election is not being played on a university campus but in the real world where the rules of academic discussion do not apply. It is under this understanding that it is Ms. Clinton who reminds Ferraro that her claim is politically inappropriate. But the truth does not care for political correctness but to the rules of evidence. Anyone who turns a blind eye to the fact the popularity of Obama among African Americans has nothing to do with his race is either playing naïve or “academic selection.” It is very likely that black voters are playing reverse racism in this election. Therefore, it is ironic that Clinton, a political savvy, is the one who dismisses an undeniable truth but not in the name of ethics but politics.

The Clintons have being vilified by Republicans and the far left “progressives” for many reasons; but it can summarize in one word, for being politicians. When their critics wear the robe of ethics to judge them, they are being hypocrites or naïve. The world of politics and the world of ethics do not go hand to hand in practical terms because they are played but human beings. Although most of us try to do our best to act morally and rationally correct, we are also driven by emotions and impulses; therefore the world of humans and their relations “politics” is not a perfect ethical and metaphysical world of absolute truths. A good politician is one who is able to balance both; moral standards and ethics with the understanding of an imperfect political world.

For example, killing innocent people is immoral but necessary if their numbers represent a small number compared to those who might be saved otherwise. Anyone who lived during the Cold War and understands politics would agree that the longer you play this game of compromises, the more criticism and enemies you get. I wonder why older people prefer Clinton over Obama. Thus, it is no brainier that Clinton’s baggage is bigger than Obama’s since she has been longer in the political rodeo. Obama is a freshman compare to Clinton who is a senior. Does lack of baggage overrides learned experience? That is why Mrs. Clinton had the wisdom to silence Ferraro at that point. But I believe the time for silence is over. It was rev. Wright and the overwhelming vote of the black community who opened the Pandora Box of racism. Therefore, it is time to openly ask them if they are playing reverse racism in their political choices.

Assuming we turn a blind eye to the issue of racism because this is not so important when it is compared to what is on stake; we would have just immersed ourselves into the pragmatic world of politics. Pragmatism would dictate that “momentum” is not necessarily perennial, that fairness is not necessarily the best political option and that The Cold War was ugly and unfair but saved as from nuclear holocaust. It is under this rationale that Clinton nomination is more politically sound that Obama as follows:

Obama has the popular vote, but majority rules are not enough to concede an election by two reasons. First, our founding fathers created the Electoral College to avoid mob rule. It is elitist to think that people do not know better today, but do they? Personally, I would hesitate to validate Britt Spears political opinion. Although Gore won the popular vote and he was a much better choice than Bush; majority rule cannot be applied because it is unconstitutional. It is in this respect that the Republican Party abides to winner takes it all; if these rules were applied to the Democrats, Clinton would be the nominee now because she won the biggest states.

Second, it is easy to preach to those already converted, but hard to appeal to those who hesitate. Obama’s wins resides to those in the far left and left of the political spectrum, but Clinton does much better with those in the middle no Obama. Unfortunately, those in the middle are also more prone to switch from Democrat to Republican according to exit polls. If Clinton is the nominee, the far left and progressive voters would have no other choice than to back up Clinton.

Skeptics dismiss this argument by claiming that issues at stake such as the economy and the war are so important than anyone with a right mind would be insane to vote for “four years of Bush.” But most skeptics are using “faux” logic. It is truth that the current economy and the war is hurting us, but a small group of voters care more about other issues such as moral values, tradition and race relations. I am not defending this group, their valid point might be wrong but that is not the issue; the issue is that they outweigh more those issues than the economy or the war, and they vote. Anyone from Florida can testify that the Republicans profit from the Cuban vote because the many Democrats are against the embargo or sided with Elian Gonzales’ father. The truth is that the embargo certainly hurts Cubans in the island but who thinks this moral principle is preferable to eight years of Bush? If you cannot go beyond this point, you do not understand politics.

Political pragmatism was very evident during the 2004 election. The San Francisco Chronicle carried many reports from the American heartland (the rural white America that overwhelming favors Clinton today over Obama). Those people who Obama claim are “disenfranchise” and “angry” folks overwhelming also voted for Bush over Kerry because he was closer to their values regardless that many lost they jobs or love ones in the war. God’s politics “Why the right gets it wrong and the Left doesn’t get it” by Jim Wallis explains this point in detail.

A good politician is not a committed individual moralist but a social moralist which is different. The big picture is more important than the personal righteousness of the moment. Therefore, the questions delegates must ask themselves are: Which is more important, to respect the vote of the majority or to risk upsetting a small group that might vote for “four more years of Bush”? If I were one of them, for me the stakes are very high to gamble. Finally, Senator McCain is having a hard time to distant himself from the Bush economic legacy which facilitates the race for either democrat candidate. But McCain would find easy to revive the argument of racial fear when it is not hard to find evidence of reverse racism; remember he would be courting hesitant rural white voters no Obama committed black voters. Also, these rural voters are more committed to moral values so it would be easy to go against a more liberal Obama than to challenge a more conservative democrat like Clinton. Obama might be the best choice in the righteousness of the momentum and personal ethics, but Clinton is the best choice in the big picture of what is right for America in the next four years. In addition, McCain can always move closer to the middle where Clinton is now because the right has no other choice than to vote for him.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Hillary is the new Mike Huckabee - she knows she has lost but she still wants power and money!

She isn't going anywhere until she recoups her 11.4 MILLION dollars that she has LOANED her campaign.
It made me SICK this morning when she was talking about the single mothers that send her twenty dollars and the seniors that send money. THOSE PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD TO BE SENDING HER THEIR MONEY - this is sickening that she keeps begging for money from poor people when she still has MILLIONS in her personal bank account!



ed iglehart said...


Get an editor or a blog and post a link rather than a screed.

Namaste -ed

Leah Texas4Obama said...


The 7% Rush vote figure was released by the Obama campaign this morning. It was based on polling I believe.


ed iglehart said...


Yeah, but Huckabee is actually an attractive character, and has a sense of humour.


Leah Texas4Obama said...

Breaking news:

THREE MORE supers for Obama:


One has been added by DCW yesterday - the other two should be added soon :)

Dave in NC said...


Welcome to the blog my friend!

Not to be a smart-mouth, but... was there a point in that post?

I fell asleep after the 15th paragraph.


Peace, and keep posting

Amot said...

Leah, Obama's campaign keeps sending me 'please, donate!' e-mails every single day. I am considering those as very-close-to-spam. But my point was other than that - Obama has money and he is sending the e-mails... I imagine that Hillary is sending tons of e-mails like that and she is dreaming of fundrasing events every time she takes a nap. It is mean and immoral to ask your poor fans to donate more and more when you are so rich yourself...

Martin said...

I'm waiting for Hillary to use the Oral Roberts argument: donate $8 million to my campaign or God will kill me.

jpsedona said...

Obama's got the three M's... money, momentum & math...

When Hillary announces the April coampaign numbers, it will be interesting to see how big the total debt is. She made two loans to her campaign this month ... so far.

Hillary's win in IN coupled with a large NC victory for Obama will continue the SD endorsements going for Obama. If Hillary had any momentum coming out of PA, it's gone now with Obama wiping out her gain in pledged delegates in NC. Since PA, Obama has now picked up more than 2-1 versus Hillary. He's had the SD endorsement momentun since Super Tuesday.. and that's not changing.

The math is all Obama. The pledged delegates lead is insurmountable; Hillary's SD lead is evaporating; Obama leads in contests; Obama leads in popular vote; and the prospects to catch him is bleak.

jpsedona said...


Realtive to the 7%, I personally don't believe it. If you do, that's fine.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Amot -
I get the Obama email too but many of them are not asking for money - they just have a donate button at the bottom of the letter. That is much different than getting on the TV asking for money all the time and pushing a website URL all the time for donations. In my opinion.

Martin - I wish she would just get on TV and say 'If ya'll send me 10 million dollars I PROMISE I will drop out of the race!

Leah Texas4Obama said...


I am getting the emails because I am registered on the Obama website. If you consider them spam then why don't you just go to the website and take your name off of the mailing list? :)

jpsedona said...

Here's a interesting article with comparisons between Hillary & Huckabee with respect to staying in the race until there's a nominee.


Leah Texas4Obama said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Leah Texas4Obama said...

June 15th there will be a nominee (if not sooner)

Exclusive: Senior Hillary Official Says She'll Drop Out By June 15



Leah Texas4Obama said...

ANOTHER super for OBAMA!

DNC Jennifer McClellan of VA switches from Clinton to Obama:



Amot said...

Leah and all,
Obama trails by 11.5 (Inola to be added and McLellan switched)
Today we gonna see it to single digit :)

Amot said...

I read the mails (and I am registered too) but I don't like the donate button in everyone of them. I just pointed that she is much worse - sometimes when I decide to check her site I have to pass through 5 donate options before reaching content!
I wish she asks for $10M as drop-out price - she will get that in an hour!
Or less...

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Another thing to keep in mind. On the Obama website the official number that they say they still need is 172 and DCW has 179 (to clinch the nomination).

I think Obama's team is probably closer to the correct number since they have all the facts over there in their camp.

What a great day!


gloria said...


Unknown said...

"I believe Obama's voters were:
75% pro-Obama
24% anti-Clinton
1% anti-woman

I believe Clintons voters were:
40% pro-Clinton
10% anti-Obama
10% Operation Chaos
40% racist"

Surely, you jest.
If 92% of Whites voted for a White candidate vs. A Black candidate, it would scream Racism. The reverse is happening.
Reverse discrimination is in effect for this primary election and discrimination will rear its ugly head in the GE IF JR. makes it that Far.

jean said...

Glad you are having a great day.
It is obvious that Hillary cannot win at this point.
Has it occured to you that while she may win in the upcoming states she also may try to unite the party?
Obama does not have a chance in WV and Kentucky. The only chance he has is Hillary by getting the democrats out and in action.
Kool Aid is not a favorite there.
If Obama wins the general election it is only because she will help unify the party.
Obamanites need to learn to work well with others because right now there is no chance against McCain.
You folks have used "change" to equate to "estrangement" to the rest of the party.
jean(not aunt jean)

Leah Texas4Obama said...


And a lot of Hillary white female supporters are voting for Hillary because Hillary is a 'white female'.

It cuts both ways.


Leah Texas4Obama said...

jean (not Aunt Jean),

Yes it has occurred to me that Hillary will be helping unite the party now. She has said she will support the nominee and I do believe her on that one.

Also, going ahead and playing out the remaining states will increase the voter registration and that will help Senator Obama in November. So there are positives and negatives that are going on at the moment.


Unknown said...

As for the Clinton supporters saying they will vote for McCain,
It is your right and I will not ridicule you or call you names.
Many Obama supporters will go that way if he gets whacked by the rules.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

It is time for DEMOCRATS to UNITE.

Say NO to McCain's Iraq policy.

Say NO to McCain's healthcare policy.

Say NO to McCain's economy policy.

Say NO to a Bush third term!


Martin said...


Richard said...

amot: I was trying to be as conservative in my predictions as possible. This was really, in my opinion, a best-case scenario for Clinton. Remember also that regardless of the state-wide margins of victory it is very difficult for a candidate to pick up many delegates in a 2- or 4-delegate district (or more than one in a 3- or 5-delegate district).

Unknown said...

See anything comparable here?
From Wikipedia

Adlai Stevenson

The President (Truman) believed that nominating a Southern candidate from a state where Jim Crow laws were in force would forfeit potential support for the Democratic party from African-American and Northern white voters.
Stevenson was nominated on the third ballot. It was the last nomination contest in the 20th century of either major U.S. political party to require more than one round of voting to nominate a presidential candidate.

Stevenson then delivered an eloquent acceptance speech in which he famously pledged to "talk sense to the American people."

Although Stevenson's eloquent oratory and thoughtful, stylish demeanor thrilled many intellectuals and members of the nation's academic community, the Republicans and some working-class Democrats ridiculed what they perceived as his indecisive, aristocratic air

Amot said...

I agree most districts are hard to change, but I expect big changes to happen in the days to come.
I still think you gave not enough delegates to Clinton in KY.

How do you think - can McGovern help him make inroads with older whites in SD and makes his victory double digit? Is that guy popular there?

Yamaka said...

"It is time for DEMOCRATS to UNITE."

The Fight Must Go till June 3-5.

Till DNC says the Hurdle is 2208.5

Till one candidate jumps over that Hurdle of 2208.5!

Folks, Remember what Ted Kennedy did to Jimmy Carter in 1980.

I get the smell that the history could very well repeat, unless the foul-mouths of Obama-maniacs just quit from now onwards.

Children of the Piper, you have a choice to make:

Keep throwing mud on Hillary and she will dynamite your rear ends in the Summer and Fall! You make the simple choice!!

How may Electoral Votes your BHO will get with 16.5 million votes in the GE?

Stand up and answer!

Cheers. :-)

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Just to let ya'll know-

Someone on the super-delegate page is using the name Leah.

It is not me.
Ain't that weird!

Obama '08

Yamaka said...

"Obama's got the three M's... money, momentum & math..."


I thought you will say he has the
Message. Sure, he does NOT have that.

Yes, he has Money; the Momentum could change after WV and KY.

Math, I am not that sure.

Sorry to interfere with your enthusiasm! lol


Unknown said...

I have a secret revelation.

GatorsChampions4Ever said...

ed. Response to your 1:04 post.

There are no virtual certainties.

North Carolina will not be in play.

No more xx to me. Kind of creepy to kiss another guy.

Unknown said...

North Carolina will not be in play.

Bush beat Kerry by 435,000+ votes.

Bush beat Gore by 370,000+ votes.

Martin said...

"Math, I am not that sure.

Sorry to interfere with your enthusiasm! lol "

Why on earth do you think YOUR inability to accept the reality of the math would interfere with anyone's enthusiasm? LOL LOL LOL

Mike in Maryland said...

"Clinton supporter: Race causing "negative dividends"

Headline on CNN about Senator Feinstein's view of the race.

TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/6pf2am

"McGovern to Clinton: Time to go"

Headline on CNN.

TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/58ybrs


P.S., For those who don't know what a TinyURL is, from the TinyURL website:

"Are you sick of posting URLs in emails only to have it break when sent causing the recipient to have to cut and paste it back together? Then you've come to the right place. By entering in a URL in the text field [], we will create a tiny URL that will not break in email postings and never expires."

It not only works in emails, it works in other places, wherever you can post a URL. Click the TinyURL link, and you are redirected to the original URL, as if you clicked it directly.

GatorsChampions4Ever said...

Let me just say that while I think it is great about what is going on, I find that one person on here whom I respect, admire, and adulate is taking her support for Senator Obama a little too far. Putting Obama 08 and saying ''Clinton will drop out by June 15'' is erroneous and wrong. I have supported Senator Obama to her, defended her to some of Senator Clinton's supporters on here(even though I am supporting her), and asked for a simple thank you and NOT ONCE did I get a thank you for this. We are all in this for the same reason: No Senator McCain in the White House. We are all friends, but if we cannot show a little courtesy, then I think it is quite sad, improper and just plain wrong. You know who you are.

Leah Texas4Obama said...


If I did something to offend you then I apologize.

I do put Obama '08 on my posts but other people on this thread put Hillary POTUS on theirs so it is all the same thing. I put Obama '08 on most of my posts and on 'most' of the websites that I post on.

I am not sure what you are referring to regarding the 'thank you' if I owe you a thank you then - thank you.


Leah Texas4Obama said...

Gator said: "and saying ''Clinton will drop out by June 15'' is erroneous and wrong."

If you read the whole post and went to the link then you would have seen that it was a 'close person to Hillary' that said that.


Yamaka said...


There is Coronation in Hyde Park!

Please attend! And, remember Carter and Kennedy 1980.


Martha said...

I have heard some SDs claim they will follow the "will of the people" regarding their own endorsements. If they simply follow the popular vote, doesn't that obviate the need for SDs?

Amot said...

Obviously following 'the will of the people' is the best for the party this year. Unfortunately every super has own standard for what the will is!

Mike in Maryland said...

Heard on MSNBC last night, one of the reporters (I think it was Andrea Mitchell) stated that Clinton will stay in the race through West Virginia (5-13) and Kentucky (5-20). When the results from Oregon come in the morning of 5-21, she'll make an announcement that she will drop out. That will mean that the 5-31 meeting of the RBC will have nothing to decide on MI and FL.

The main reason given for her staying in that long is to try to generate some contributions to offset the (now) $11.5 million she has loaned the campaign.

The above are NOT my words and thoughts, just what I heard on the air last night.

Also discussed last night was the fact that when John Glenn ran for President in 1984, he had campaign debts that took him 20 years to pay off. It may be because of the Glenn campaign experience that may be the reason Clinton decides to stay in the race for another two weeks.

BUT, IMO, if that is the only reason she is staying in the race, then it's the wrong reason. If she's going to drop out, then do it now. As Richard pointed out in his analysis of upcoming primaries and how the supers would have to break for her to win, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for her to win the nomination at this point.


jpsedona said...


Also, she will need to file her FEC report on the 20th for April. I suspect that one measure of SD support will be how Hillary did after winning PA vs. Obama. With DNC coffers empty, which of these two candidates do you want to build up the party money for the GE and down ballot contests?

Leah Texas4Obama said...

More votes have been coming in in INDIANA.

When I went to bed last night Clinton had a lead of 22,412

This morning her lead was 18,440

Now the lead is down to 14,195

And all aren't in yet.

UUbuntu said...

Pablo -- Thank you for your comment (both in my blog and here). Your choices for most admirable human being are really interesting. I thought of the Dali Lama myself, and John Wooden is an inspired choice for any basketball fan, or person who believes that sports makes a positive difference in life-attitude.

But I had to look up Normal Borlaug. After reading that biography, I have to say that he just about trumps anyone else I can think of. All I can say about his life is "Wow". That man has made more of a difference in more lives than anyone I can probably think of now.

Here's another link to his biography

I hadn't heard of him before, but I'll think of him now. Thank you, Pablo.


Dave in NC said...


If you can in any way find a comparison between Stevenson and Obama, then you must be old enough to remember Stevenson, and are showing that age badly.

I'll leave you alone on the numbers comment. We have already determined you are not good with numbers.

Gator, Lee,

NC is in play. But if you are still supporting Clinton, this isn't the first error you have made today.


The comparison to 1980 is only valid if you have Obama playing as Reagan Clinton playing as Kennedy, except she is NO Kennedy, and, you don't need anybody to play Carter as he would have lost that election even if he had run unopposed. And rightly so!

Mike in Maryland said...

One thing that REALLY amuses me is that the Clinton supporters (I'm thinking especially of Yamakamikaze, Aunt Jean, Jim in Texas) are saying "Count ALL the votes in ALL the states."

But if you remember back, Clinton had a "27 state" strategy - have the nomination sewn up by the time the ballots were counted after the polls closed on Super Tuesday.

So her original intent was to exclude the voters of:

Democrats Abroad (oooops, no EC votes, so doesn't count)
Virgin Islands (oooops, no EC votes, so doesn't count)
Washington state
District of Columbia
Rhode Island
Guam (oooops, no EC votes, so doesn't count)
North Carolina
West Virginia
Puerto Rico (oooops, no EC votes, so doesn't count)
South Dakota

So why a "50 state" strategy now, but prior to Super Tuesday it was a "27 state" strategy? LOTS of voters wouldn't have had a say in the process with the original "27 state" strategy.

A little bit of honesty on that point would be appreciated.


Dave in NC said...


Excellent points.


Why don't you propose a one state strategy and seat MI ONLY.

Think of the money that would be saved on the convention, they could move it to the Holiday Inn.

Or even the Holiday Inn Express, then Clinton could actually claim some experience.

Dave in NC said...

Maybe they should decide it with a duel.

Obama could use a bowling ball and Clinton could use sniper fire.

At least no one would get hurt.

Unknown said...

Dave in NC:

I am still supporting Hillary. I will vote against Obama in November if he is the nominee so I can vote for Hillary in 2012.

Also, the margin might be smaller for McCain in NC, but Obama is not going to win the state.

Between the 435K+ margin Bush has over Kerry plus the Hillary supports who will not vote for Obama, no change Obama wins NC.

jpsedona said...

The delegations for MI & FL are not going to be seated as is. Yesterday Dean said:

1) “we want to respect the voters who went to the polls. It was politicians that made a mess of this — not the voters."

I interpret this as there will be no 50-50 split of votes in either state.

2) “you have got to respect these two candidates. You cannot change the rules at the end of the game and change the outcome."

I interpret this to mean that there's no way that Dean will allow the delegates be seated and affect the outcome of the pledged delegate totals. Nor do I think he would allow the delegation to be seated at the convention should Hillary fight it all the way (since he controls a chunk of the credentials committee). I think that delegates from FL in some proportion to the actual vote will be seated. In Michigan, I suspect that Hillary might keep the delegates won and Obama get the 55 uncommuitted.

3) “you’ve got to respect the 48 states that followed the rules they way they were supposed to."

I interpret this to mean that he will insist on a penalty being imposed against FL & MI. This might be 1/2 vote per delegate or half the delegates. I suspect that he might want the same imposed for superdelegates that include party officials that helped create this mess (along with Dean & DNC of course). But I see this statement as meaning that there's no chance of seating the delegations as is. It will include some penalty wither against the pledged delegates, the SD's, or both.

4) “So there will be some sort of compromise in the Rules Committee on the 31 of May, I hope.”

Dean is inferring that the RBC meeting will be more than just to hear the two challenges.

Unknown said...

“If you can in any way find a comparison between Stevenson and Obama, then you must be old enough to remember Stevenson, and are showing that age badly.”
Actually wasn’t old enough to vote then, more my study of history. Junior’s supporters are evidently ignorant of it.
Those who ignore the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeating them.
AS For:
“I'll leave you alone on the numbers comment. We have already determined you are not good with numbers.”
It is hard to defend stupid your statements when you have been sipping Obama-aid.

Unknown said...

Make that
It is hard to defend your stupid statements when you have been sipping Obama-aid.

Emit R Detsaw said...

Just for fun, and kind of scary too.

Went to Hillary's site (go to look up her stance on Issues and see what are her happenings, and decided to pop into her store just to window shop. When I went into one area there were a couple posters, and one of them gave me a flashback to a picture I had seen a long time ago:


After you take a look at it, then you can visit this link to see what it was I had seen years ago that made that picture so familiar:


Like I said - scary. ;o)

Unknown said...

"The delegations for MI & FL are not going to be seated as is. Yesterday Dean said:"
The DNC is not a dictatorship. Dean does not control the committee.
Rather than interpret, you editorialize.

ed iglehart said...

The indiana margin keeps shrinking.
Clinton: 50.56%
Obama: 49.44%
50.56% - 49.44% = 1.12%

Round that, if you like.

xx (sorry Gator, you're excluded)

Unknown said...


Unknown said...

Sorry, to forceful. Silly would be better. Get another sip of coolaid.

ed iglehart said...


Juvenile would be great, but I can accept silly.

知 者 不 言。 言 者 不 知。


Yamaka said...

"Yamakamikaze, Aunt Jean, Jim in Texas) are saying "Count ALL the votes in ALL the states" -RodentMicky


What the candidates said and what DNC wanted are one thing, and totally another thing is what the voters of MI and FL want.

We don't want the Democratic Party to disenfranchise about 3 million voters, who just obeyed their States' call for Primary. They went to the polls and cast their votes.

How dare are you and the Party to trash their votes?

We will meet in Denver. We have the right to destroy the Convention if the Party becomes undemocratic by leaving MI and FL.

Also, remember what happened in 1980 between Carter and Kennedy, and the GE.


Yamaka said...

dave nc:

Very funny. Enjoyed the One State Convention!


Dave in NC said...

Lee, Gator, and perhaps others,

First let me say that to the extent we are discussing opinion, I respect each opinion... regardless of how much acid I may think must have been dropped to draw those conclusions.

Life would be REAL dull without diversity. Take that from a person who grew up in WV.

Now, instead of just repeating myself, let me pose a challenge.

Explain to me how the Democratic party can be so disfunctional that loyal partisans insist on failure in a state with 2.6 million Democrats and 1.9 million Republicans.

Now, try to answer that question without waxing racist.

This is a question that each of us should probably try to answer for ourselves, at least.

Then, perhaps we could form a plan to correct the issue.

Richard said...

Amot, I don't think anything McGovern says has any relevance to the way superdelegates or Senator Clinton make their decisions. It makes a nice talking point for the evening news, but that's about it. I think nearly all of the outstanding supers are balancing a desire to back the winner with a desire not to offend the Clintons and their still substantial political machine. Most have been hoping that their decision would become irrelevant before they have to make it.

Mike in Maryland said...


YOUR candidate wanted to 'disenfranchise' the voters of 23 states.

What I asked you to do, and am asking again is this:

"So why a "50 state" strategy now, but prior to Super Tuesday it was a "27 state" strategy? LOTS of voters wouldn't have had a say in the process with the original "27 state" strategy.

"A little bit of honesty on that point would be appreciated."

Your response did not address that issue.

Please post a message that DIRECTLY responds to that issue.

If you can't defend it, then admit it, but then don't bring up the "50 state" strategy, as you will show your complete and utter dishonesty.

IF you CAN defend it, then please do. But in defense of it, directly address the issue, and ONLY that issue. Otherwise you will show your complete and utter dishonesty.

I think your path to demonstrating you are not completely and utterly dishonest is a very narrow path, about as big a path as Clinton's path to the nomination. In other words, possible, but the probability is small and getting smaller by the day (or in your case, by each inane and nonresponsive post here at DemConWatch).


Yamaka said...

Dear Democrats:

Here is another Conversation with Sen BHO Jr:

--Good Evening Senator, BHO. How are you Sir?

--Fine Yamaka. Thanks I am doing very well. I am kind of relieved that IN and NC over. I spent tons and tons of Street Money in both States, finally I could win NC, lost IN after two months of drought! She was going for my floating ribs, but I gave her my elbow in NC with 14% margin; but she touched my nose in IN, thank God I am not bleeding, I escaped with a mere 2% margin for her.

--Senator really Congratulations. You deserve this victory in NC. And your Children needed this NC win more than you did! But, if you think of it yesterday was not that fantastic. In SC, MD,VA, DC you won by 24-50% margin - some of your Children thought the NC will be like another SC with 28%. Alas, you got only half of that. What does this mean? Remember, you also lost your backyard IN.

--Well, you are right. But we want to think NC is the greatest victory in all my career! Because we did not have any for 2 long months. We lost large bellwether States OH, PA and TX. I know the fact is I won NC with the help of 92% of my Black folks, not of White Blue collar people, who along with the White women make the backbone of the GE Electorate. But, again Yamaka we have lot more work to do.

Even if I steal the Nomination because of the funny Rules of the Party, how am I going to unify the Party for the GE? Nobody believes in what I am saying. They say I am just a liar: I told the world yesterday that my father's coffin was wrapped by US Flag! I don't know why I said. Well I said it...Hi. That's me ..Hi.... .Haaaaa..Ha. Well, Yamaka, I need to run. See ya later.

--Bye Senator, Good Night.


Oh, folks, Enjoy


countjellybean said...

Hi Folks,

A little history on the formation of economic policy inside the White House:


Aunt Jean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunt Jean said...

Hi Obama supporters just wanted to say congrats for obama's win. Last night was a good win for him. Would have done it last night but had to go somewhere. Jean

Yamaka said...

"YOUR candidate wanted to 'disenfranchise' the voters of 23 states."

Utter nonsense. Just irrelevant what Candidates said or did.

I am interested in some thing else.

Please answer my qn before going to my Candidate.

In which God's name do you and the Party want to disenfranchise about 3 million voters from MI and FL?

Be a man or mouse and answer honestly to this fundamental question.


suzihussein22 said...

Wow! Trying to stay up to watch the results were almost too much for this mom. I had to take a nap after work this afternoon. The "bellwether" of Howard Co., IN did go to HRC. I was personally expecting about a 6% margin in IN and 12% margin in NC. I'm surprised HRC made another loan to her campaign. I have read some comparisons between her and Huckabee, but that's not necessarily bad because this is still generating new registered voters. More citizens need to get involved with their own country. Anton made a post about HRC being more moderate. In studying their voting records, I didn't notice much of a difference in their voting stances. That means more to me than their verbal campaign promises.
Tyler, when I read about Norman Borlaug, I also thought WOW. He made me think of George Washington Carver. I read his biography several years ago.
Anton, you also made an interesting view about rural voters. I get the sense that they have strong community bonds that are also blessings, but newcomers aren't easily accepted in some cases.
I'm really going out on a limb here with this insight. Growing up in a 50/50 area of Nashville, TN, I got the strong impression that blacks don't automatically "hook up" with people of mixed backgrounds so the argument of the black demographic doesn't convince me.
Lee, whoever the democratic nominee is in November, I will support. I don't believe McCain will help our country recover from this endless war, definitely doesn't know about the economy, doesn't have a plan for the environment, and help us generate jobs. The Carpetbagger Report has an article on McCain's flip-flops.
I've noticed interesting references to Oz. Isn't that a story written by a socialist mocking democracy?

Aunt Jean said...

Hey ED you just don't know when to quit. Obama won Nc by 56% hillary got 42%. Indiana HIllary got 51% and obama got 49%. According to CNN. Why can't you leave it at that. Instead of trying to get trouble started. Give everyone a break ok. Thanks Jean

Unknown said...

Dave in NC:

Here is a non-racist argument.

For a state that has that ratio of Dem to Rep voters, how do you explain:

In 2000, Bush got 56.03% and 1,631,163 votes compared to Gore 43.2% and 1,257,692 votes.

Bush beat Gore by 370,000+ votes.

In 2004, Bush got 56.02% and 1,961,166 votes compared to Kerry 43.58% and 1,525,849 votes.

Bush beat Kerry by 435,000+ votes.

The Dems got 268,000 more votes in 2004 and still lost by an additional 65,000 votes.

I will admit that the margin may be smaller but I do not think Obama can win North Carolina.

Emily & Dylan said...

Are Hillary supporters disappointed about the election in NC, and the mathematical pledged delegate count? Yes, we are, but that doesn't mean that we'll suddenly abandon our principles and swing our support to Obama.

As a lifelong Democrat, voting for McCain has nothing to do with sour grapes about Hillary potentially losing the nod. It has nothing to do with being punitive. It has everything to do with Hillary supporter’s integrity and commitment to remain true to what we believe in. We don't believe in Obama, nor do we believe he will change our country for the better. Many of us firmly believe quite the opposite will happen.
Obama can’t possibly win the G.E. without Hillary’s base. He also can't win the G.E. having colluded with the DNC to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters.

In an attempt to appease Hillary backers, the DNC will try to persuade Hillary to take second chair on a ticket with Obama. What the DNC fails to realize is that even if (and that’s a huge if) Hillary accepts the VP offer, many of her supporters will still vote McCain. It's not that we don't want to vote for Hillary, we do, it's that we won't vote for Obama.

I can live with four years of McCain, but I can't live with betraying my own principles to vote for Obama. I also can't live with those who may be Obama's choices for Supreme Court Justices. His choice of wife, pastor, and friends tell me his choice of appointees will be similarly reprehensible.

My vote in this primary was for Hillary, as were my votes for her as New York’s finest Senator. My vote in the G.E. will be based on support for someone with integrity, experience, and honor. From what I’ve learned through researching his record, relationships, and political history, Obama has never possessed any of these three important qualities. I won’t vote for someone who delivers speeches about inclusion, but has never practiced it. I won’t vote for someone whose entire political career has been based on slick maneuvering, pandering to the AA vote, and empty rhetoric. Finally, my vote will never be cast for Obama because his record in both the Illinois and US senate is one of the worst, bar none.

There will never be Democratic party unity until the Florida and Michigan delegates are seated proportionate to the actual primary voting, and until the ultra latte left-wing of our party ceases to engineer primaries to give unfair advantage to their choice of party nominee—Obama.

With all these points in mind, I beg Hillary to “soldier on,” no matter what.

Unknown said...

Emily & Dylan:

Well typed.

McCain will not be able to do any damage to this country or even change the Supreme Court as long as the Dems hold on the the House and the Senate and Pelosi/Reid do their jobs.

I will vote for McCain in 2008 and Hillary in 2012 if the Dems nominate Obama.

As for Obama, how does he plan to fulfill his changing Washington promise when:

#1 - 80%-90%+ of House will be relected.
#2 - 2/3rds of the Senate is not up for relection in 2008
#3 - 80%+ of the Senators up for relection will be relected or their party will hold their seat if they retire (Craig ID for example)
#4 (assuming Obama won) - the Republican party plus any Republican thinking of running for President in 2012 will not give up any issue that might help them in a general election

Does he really think the few new senators and representatives can really change how all the incumbents do business?

Yamaka said...

"The comparison to 1980 is only valid if you have Obama playing as Reagan Clinton playing as Kennedy, except she is NO Kennedy, and, you don't need anybody to play Carter as he would have lost that election even if he had run unopposed. And rightly so!"


Remember Reagan lost the Nomination to Ford in 1976, then got it in 1980.

Ted K did not support Carter, one of many reasons he lost so badly to Reagan.

You know my comparison is quite right. Somehow you imagine BHO is a Republican!!!!!

HRC can be Ted K, if the BHO people disrespect her!! She is probably the King Maker, as many BHO's people want her to be.


Yamaka said...

"There will never be Democratic party unity until the Florida and Michigan delegates are seated proportionate to the actual primary voting, and until the ultra latte left-wing of our party ceases to engineer primaries to give unfair advantage to their choice of party nominee—Obama."

E & D:

Amen, Well Said.

Mike in Maryland said...

Emily & Dylan said...
"[Obama] also can't win the G.E. having colluded with the DNC to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters."

Senator Obama made it a point to follow the rules for delegate selection. His campaign was to win the votes necessary to get the majority of delegates. To date, his campaign is more successful than Senator Clinton's.

Senator Obama has always stated that he will go with the delegate count. Senator Clinton and her supporters have introduced moveable goal posts - popular vote total (where in the rules is that discussed?); not counting caucus states (where in the rules is that discussed?); determining who won by the Electoral College method (where in the rules is that discussed?); who won more blue states than red states (where in the rules is that discussed?), etc., etc., etc.

May I point out that a majority of the members of the DNC, who wrote the rules for the primary campaign, were friends of, or selected by, Bill and Hillary Clinton?

May I also point out that of the 277.5 superdelegate vote endorsements, 148.5 (or 54%) are for Clinton? (But that current 19.5 vote lead has decreased significantly since the beginning of the year.)

May I point out that the member who claimed responsibility for that section of the rules that says a state jumping the start date would be docked by a minimum of 50% is Ken Curtis, a Florida DNC member who is supporting Clinton?

Many of the sour grapes posts about the delegate selection rules should be directed to the source (or sources) of those rules, not projected onto your candidate's opponent. And if you do the research, it was Bill and Hillary Clinton, their friends and supporters who wrote the rules that now are causing her so many problems.

I must admit, that as an Obama supporter, I get a lot of schedenfreud from some of the posts from Senator Clinton supporters. Schedenfreud - the joy in the misery of others, especially when that misery is self-inflicted by themselves or the candidate they support.


Aunt Jean said...

Jean from one Jean to enough thanks have a nice evening. Jean

Yamaka said...


Your post regarding BHO and Adlai S was quite appropriate.

BHO believes his rhetorical eloquence with the teleprompter and Black support will give him at least 271 electoral votes.

Since vast majority of White male and female voters don't trust him, I think he will not get more than 100 electoral votes, if he is the Nominee.

BHO will disappear the way Adlai did! We may also lose the Congress.

McCain will have the landslide as Eike had.

SDs, please make a note of this.


Aunt Jean said...

Softspoken22 you sure have taken a different stand than when you first got on here. I wonder why?Why I say different stand is you acted like you wanted to listen to everyone now I'm not so sure with your post such a shame.Have a nice one. Jean

Bull Schmitt said...

Not sure if some threads are more visible than others?

I left a comment on the Ultimate Delegate Tracker page - it appears to me that Green Papers has Indiana pledged delegates for Clinton at 38-34, rather than the Clinton 39-33 reflected in your current count.


Aunt Jean said...

Dave in NC I've been all over NC and it is a pretty state. Jean

Yamaka said...

Forget about who wrote the Rule and why it was written.

It is unfair and illegitimate to disenfranchise the 3 million voters of MI and FL who just obeyed their State calling for an early Primary. They should NOT be punished for the ill-implementation of the Rule by the Officials/Politicians, as Dean said 10 days ago to Meet the Press.

Count ALL votes of ALL States.

Otherwise, become an IRRELEVANT National Party!


suzihussein22 said...

My stand is that I'm wanting to state personal opinions with an open mind about Democrats sticking together against McCain. I'll go out on another limb here. I thought that Gore shouldn't have taken the VP positon with former president Clinton. I believe he should have waited and then run after WC had his terms. I believe NAFTA really hurt his chances. I'm not savvy when it comes to politics so I'm really showing my ignorance I'm sure.
Quid pro quo-HRC's campaign has very clever strategies and Obama's campaign is very organized.
I also wanted to go ahead and post I don't think reaching across the aisle is contradictory to keeping McCain from winning. I believe this country is more important than partisanship. Take care.

Mike in Maryland said...

Rather than discuss the merits of either Democratic candidate, I want to take this time to post a link to something that helps to explain why we MUST NOT allow McSame to get the keys to the White House:

"If I was a terrorist"

TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/5wjdhz


Leah Texas4Obama said...

Yamaka said: "Forget about who wrote the Rule and why it was written."

Spoken like a true Hillary supporter.

The problem with Hillary is she does not want to play by the RULES of the DNC. She only likes that rules that help her and wants to disregard the rules that are not in her favor. That is not the way to play the game - and says quite a bit about her character!


Leah Texas4Obama said...


Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Zogby: 30 Superdelegates Will Endorse Obama

John Zogby: Within 48 hours, about 30 superdelegates will endorse Barack Obama. That should give him further momentum. You will also see pressure from party leaders and party elders on undecided super-delegates to come off the fence.


Aunt Jean said...

To everyone on this blog even you ed goodnight have to get up at 5 am. My mother is having surgery tomorrow or I would stay and argue Hillary's many vergues.Now don't anyone say anything bad about me while I'm gone LOL LOL. Jean

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Goodnight Aunt Jean. I hope tomorrow goes well for your mother and that she has a speedy recovery.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Mike in Maryland -

Thanks for posting that link!

That was pretty good!

suzihussein22 said...

Aunt Jean,
May you and your family be able to rest and your mom be in capable hands. Good night.

countjellybean-I think I found another link on White House econ. pol.- treas.gov/offices/econom-policy/econpolicy-hist.pdf

Yea, let Congress get hold of Rush Limbaugh. It hopefully wouldn't be the type of investigation he wanted. We've had a sheriff in TN call for investigations and ended up being the one investigated. Is that karma?

Dave in NC-I admit I don't understand your challenge. I haven't heard about AS in a while so I'll have to brush up on that. Isn't Sugar Mtn. in NC? I went skiing there once. I had to wear 4 layers of clothing that day. I loved Ridgecrest. I went to 2 Christian camps there.

Ariane said...

Mike in Maryland, (I mean this ganz freundlich:) I think it would be a good idea to contain that expression of Schadenfreude lest it drive Clinton supporters into abandoning their party - - with the result for the entire Nation of A Whole Lotta Schaden Goin'On (and very little Freude)....in other words, Bush 3rd term AKA McCain who admittedly doesn't understand economics, mixes up Sunni and Shia and sings Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran, like it is some kind of a joke to get us into another war.

Think of it as the Golden Rule. If it were becoming apparent that YOUR candidate were almost certain NOT to get the nomination....how would you want the other Democrat's supporters to behave? (Not how HAVE the very RUDEST of them sometimes behaved - -as our mothers told us "Two wrongs don''t make a right." but how would you WISH them to behave that might convince you to do the right thing and unite?

Because of this I'd just as soon the superdelegates do what I've heard many of them plan to, which is to wait until after the remaining primaries. I do not want Senator Clinton's supporters to feel she was forced out.

Pablo said...

Thanks Miss Aunt Jean for the congrats.

I know alot of Clinton supporters are still feeling the sting and may take a day or two to get back to normal. People feel so attached to their choice and have so much thought and time invested that we end up taking these things very personally when it goes the other way.

It's natural for the Obama supporters to feel glee, I'd only hope we show it with a soft tone and mixed in with some compassion.

To be honest, I was nervous for Obama. Hillary has fought a hard campaign. Even though I side with Obama I know Hillary would make a fine President as well, and the closeness of this campaign only solidifies that a woman President is not only viable, but I am sure will be a reality in the very near future.

We look so hard at the opponent to distinguish differences, we have to remember whichever candidate had been chosen, the majority of their concerns would be addressed the same. A better health care coverage for America, to get out of harms way refereeing the civil war in Iraq, ending the failed Bush policies we have now, etc., etc.

After the shock has worn off that our first choice of candidate is not the eventual nominee, remember this if you are planning as a penalty vote to choose McCain. None of these polices mentioned will be addressed. The goal can sometimes be lost when we get so wrapped up in the battle.

Naiomi said...

To all the Clinton supporters. I wanted to say I thought your candidate was very gracious last night in her IN victory speech.

I was contemplating how difficult it was in 2000 and devastating in 2004 to watch Bush claim victory. I actually was so disappointed it made me cry.

I hope that regardless of who becomes our nominee and hopefully our democratic president next January that we will see our country on a major correction and will be satisfied with progress.

I think we all here on this site want to see our country in a better direction.

I am sad for your disappointment. I hoped this would be a joyful time for all Democrats.

Aunt Jean, Good thoughts for your mother's surgery tomorrow.


Ryan L said...

Hi All,

I just had to jump into the fray a little. (Although it is much more civil than on most sites - thanks!)

Point 1: Some posting here remind me of "Bush-think". Y'know, where you decide what the answer is, and then you try to rationalize it by distorting, hand-picking, or suppressing facts. Haven't we had enough of that for 8 years?

Point 2: This one is about race, and I hope not to offend anyone. Racism, as I see it, is _not_ voting for someone because of their race (being different than your own). Voting for your own race does not mean you are racist, but it is if you say you voted because against the other guy because of his race. That being said, I think we should tone down race accusations a little. More to the point, the black vote have overwhelmingly voted democrat for many elections, including for Bill Clinton, so I would not label them as racist. Maybe they can just relate to Obama a little better. Conversely, I also wouldn't assume that most of the votes that Clinton got were racist either. Also, not to sound elitist, but I would assume that "reverse racism" should be saved for describing blacks not voting for Obama because he is black.

Keryl said...

So Clinton supporter Emily and Dylan won't vote for Obama, because it's against her/his ideals? Both candidates have admitted that their policy is almost identical, so exactly what ideals are you talking about that McCain is closer to than Obama?

If you believe Clinton is the right candidate, and that she knows what's best for America, does that not include also believing in her endorsement if she makes one?

Yamaka said...

"That is not the way to play the game - and says quite a bit about her character!"

She did not say "Republican Party is the Party of Ideas". Shame on the Empty Suit.

She does not have the Fuzzy Talk with a Messy Character of Double-Talk, Wright, Ayers and Khalidi.

Remember, what happened to Adlai Stevenson, his flowery talk, and how he got beaten like a dog twice! History will repeat, several times.

Remember, What Ted K did to Carter.
What happened to Carter in 1980.

We will never leave you steal the Nomination w/o a Fair Play and Legitimacy. 2208.5 is the Hurdle. Your Messiah has NOT jumped it.

Whichever way you slice it Illegitimacy is Illegitimacy.

Count ALL Votes of ALL STATES.

We will meet you all in Denver. Let the whole world know how undemocratic the Democratic Party has become, thus paved for its own demise!

Money Talks in Campaigns, not the Message anymore.

Vast Majority of Americans know this sad story. They hate BigMoneyBags.

jpsedona said...


"The DNC is not a dictatorship. Dean does not control the committee. Rather than interpret, you editorialize."

Clearly, I indicate my interpretation and it's opinion.

Additionally, Dean does effectively control the credentials committee. The two candidates are not going to agree with each other and against the DNC-Dean loyalists. Dean can agree with one candidate or the other to seat or not seat a delegation. In fact, I would not be surpirsed if there could be more than one slate of delegates at the convention for MI.

ed iglehart said...

"Indiana HIllary got 51% and obama got 49%"
Using CNN data, Hillary got 50.56% and Obama got 49.44%, like I said. Do the math.

And the best of wishes for your mom -xxx

Emily & Dylan,
"He also can't win the G.E. having colluded with the DNC to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters."

Hillary also colluded with the DNC to set the penalty at 100% disenfranchisement. All candidates agreed. Check the record.

I second Mike in Maryland's response, but with a correction - It's "schadenfreude", and it's a familiar sensation recently. ;-)

Ariane, Good interpretation - "The shameful joy"

And Emily & Dylan, I'd love to see an answer to Keryl's question:

"Both candidates have admitted that their policy is almost identical, so exactly what ideals are you talking about that McCain is closer to than Obama?"

Salaam, etc.

ed iglehart said...


"Vast Majority of Americans know this sad story. They hate BigMoneyBags."

That's why Obama has so very many donors?

Over 1,500,000 individual donors. That's the highest level of individual participation ever.

Yamaka said...

"If you believe Clinton is the right candidate, and that she knows what's best for America, does that not include also believing in her endorsement if she makes one?"


We will cross the bridge when we come to it.

But let us see what happens in WV KY and PR.

Whether the BigMoneyBags can buy the votes there?

In SC, the Empty Suit won by 28% two months ago; but in NC he could win only by 14%. What does that tell you? BigMoneyBags cannot buy the Election all the time.

It is the Message that matters, HRC and her supporters believe.

The Democratic Party deserves to lose both the Congress and the WH in 2008, because it moved away from the democratic ideals of counting ALL votes from ALL States.


Yamaka said...

"Over 1,500,000 individual donors. That's the highest level of individual participation ever."


This is like believing what all your Empty Suit says:

"My father's coffin was wrapped in the US Flag"

How credible is it?

So much money from liberal tycoons, Hollywood, foreign governments and other illicit sources are laundered in the broad day light!

I just don't believe your Empty Suit's Story. It is very fishy to me.


jpsedona said...


"It is the Message that matters, HRC and her supporters believe."

True. Unfortunately for her, the believers are the minority of people who cast votes and states that awarded pledged delegates. Soon she will be trailing in SD's as well.

jpsedona said...

From MSNBC FirstRead:

"Deal or no deal? Everything we're hearing is that a deal over Florida and Michigan could be cut in the next few days. The Obama campaign apparently realizes they have plenty of room to give. The hurdle isn't Clinton and Obama anymore, though; it is folks in the DNC who believe those two recalcitrant states still need to be punished in some form, so states realize there are consequences to doing this in 2012. The latest offer from Michigan is a 69-59 split, with supers going however they want. The two state parties don't want to be halved, meaning their delegate votes become .5, a la Democrats Abroad. But it's clear to us that DNC types want some flesh on this issue. Many hate the idea of Florida and Michigan getting full delegations simply because now it appears their delegations won't make a difference in the process."

Amot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Will said...


We should start the "healing process"...

So, how about dedicating an effort to win over HRC supporters to Obama, so that they won't even think of voting for McCain this November?

We can start with policy contrast between HRC vs Obama, and HRC vs McCain...

Richard said...

Amot - what do you mean "decide to vote October instead of September"? As far as I know, there is no election in September.

And I misread your question to me last night. As far as SD goes, it is possible that McGovern's endorsement will help Obama in SD, but I don't think it will be enough to make it a blowout.

Amot said...

My question really is:

If ANY state decide to vote for President in October instead of November, will the votes from that state count?

Richard, I mistyped first time sorry!
I am more like hoping to see Obama losing with single digit in WV and since I don't know how active and influential McGovern is I was just wondering if his endorsement can be of real help? And you did answer, thank you.

Unknown said...

Leave your vote under your pillow and a candidate will be ptovided

Yamaka said...


No one has clinched the 2208.5 total delegates as yet.

So anything can happen between now and the Convention (only when the SDs really vote, technically - most of the delegates can change their mind till they vote at the Convention).

Before we play the Coronation Music, we need to wait a little bit. Be polite.

GE is totally another story. W/o the majority of the Other Candidate's supporters, the Winner cannot win the GE, for sure.

All this would be exercise in utter futility, IMHO.

Richard said...

Amot - the date for the election of electors is fixed by the United States Constitution. States have no flexibility in setting the date for that election. That is a completely different situation from primaries, which are not even contemplated in the constitution.

Amot said...

So do you want to say that the rules of the party are not important and only the rules of the country are?

Pablo said...


You mentioned the dad/flag thing a couple times.

I did not get to hear all of his congratulatory speech Tues. night, but I did hear a reporter afterwards (Fox I think but am not positive) where she was noted his about the numerous bits of patriosm throughout the speech. The female reporter I am positive listed his love for the country, his remembrance of his Grandfather's coffin draped with the flag, and the opportunities this country has given him and his wife.
Now, I like I said, I did not him speaking personally, only highlights. Googling the only mention I get of it, is from your post. I think you may have either heard incorrectly, or the reporter seemed to have corrected his gaffe for him and no one else in the media apparently picked up on this. Both of which would be very un-Fox like.
You do quite often mention his Kenyan heritage and his lack of American-slavery blood-line, fake blackness etc.. Does this somehow make him any less American? He was born in America, is there some doubt and does this matter at all? Please educate me.

ed iglehart said...


"That is a completely different situation from primaries, which are not even contemplated in the constitution."

The framers of the Constitution didn't envisage organised parties, and some were surprised and distressed when they emerged.

My own opinion is that Parties are a major impediment to true democracy
, but that if we must have them, then the more the better.

At present Scotland is moving towards a multiplicity of parties, and it makes for far more interesting politics.

Namaste -ed

jpsedona said...


How confident are you that 2208.5 is going to be the number?

I understand that's the number you believe is correct / hoping for since it truly reflects Hillary's only real chance of signififcantly cutting into Obama's overall delegate lead.

Independent of when MI & FL get resolved, how likely (percentage) do you think that the delegates from MI & FL will be seated in in their entirety with full voting privledges? How likely do you think it is (percentage) that the DNC will penalize FL & MI given that the DNC will look like idiots (more so than now) if they seat the delegations with full voting privledges?

Amot said...

for the last 20 years we had single party running my country during less than 5 :)
It is fun, we have coalitions and balance of priorities :)
Next time we can even face 4 or 5-party coaltion :)

Strange how people think of party rules as less important than constituion, that emerged as guidance book :)

jpsedona said...

For those of you that didn't watch Jay Leno last night, Jimmie Carter said that FL & MI delegations should not be seated at the convention.

This is the same ex-Presidnet who's built his post-Presidential reputation on mediating disputes & peacemaking (e.g. Hamas & Israel). It strikes me as odd that he wouldn't try to help reach a compromise within his own party.

Yamaka said...


Regarding what he said in the Speech:

As soon as he said that, my wife and I immediately rolled our eyes and asked, "What is he talking about?. Another Lie ?."

Here, a staunch BHO's supporter (I believe Leah) has concurred with what we heard. Maybe, he misspoke or what, we don't know. Until the media ask him hard questions vast majority of Americans will not know him very well.

The liberal media does not pay attention to his statements, they are interested in "the entertainment value" of it all. They want to Coronate him prematurely, using some arcane Party Rule.

Regarding the other historical issues. My only question to him is why is he hiding many of them?

His Kenyan Heritage is a fact.

His forefathers did not have the Civil Right Heritage of the Black Americans is a fact.

How American is he? He is a born American as 300 million of us are here.

How patriotic is he? He must show in action to the satisfaction of most of the electorate.

Some people question his patriotism, but I don't.

My only conclusion of him is He is just another Black Politician from Chicago, as his pastor says.

But he is peddling something larger than what truly he is!

Let us wait and see how the whole Drama come to an end in August.


ed iglehart said...


Carter is simply saying, "Rules are rules."

And this is especially true when all participants have agreed the rules in advance.

If the rules need changing or adapting, the right time is after the game is finished, but before the next game.

Salaam, etc.

Amot said...

when you negotiate a deal, both sides start as far from the possible deal point as possible...

Is it possible that Obama via his friends and supporters is trying to say '2025' is the final point?
He had mentioned several times that he thinks FL and MI must be seated changing the DNC penalty. Clinton used it and now she is proposing to seat them at 100%.

If Obama wants to reach a fair deal - like current MI proposal for the pledged, he must start from the other end. And the other end of the Nuclear option is 'Don't seat them at all!'

I think people have to remember that Mi&FL don't necessarily need to be seated and any seating is good will of Obama campaign.
That is what Carter is doing - reminding everyone that the Zero option is also valid. And it is as unfair as the Nuclear one...

RobH said...

As usual, Yam's wors are apply best directly to himself:

"All this would be exercise in utter futility"

With all the time and effort you've put in, just how does that feel?

Yamaka said...

"How confident are you that 2208.5 is going to be the number?"


IMHO 2208.5 SHOULD be the correct number.

I am fairly confident at the end of the day the real truth will prevail. Is it a cliche?!!!! lol.

What's going to happen with Alexis Herman's Committee Meeting, whether it will go all the way to the Credential Committee at the Convention are very hard issues to predict.

My only hope is the final number will be very close to 2208.5, the Legitimate Number, according to my view of the world.

A fair and legitimate conclusion is what I am praying for. Not a "quick and dirty" job on this matter, which will question the Process very seriously.


RobH said...


Funny that you use Rev. Wright as an authority:

"My only conclusion of him is ....., as his pastor says."

when it suits you, but ride him otherwise. Your flip=flops are showing,

jpsedona said...


Yes, I know you believe that 2208 should be the number. My question relates to the certainty that 2208 will happen.

So when you say "I'm fairly confident" about the 2208, what percentage is that? 70%, 80%, 90%, 99%? There's obviously some doubt and Since you are a strong Hillary supporter, I am just trying to get a measure for the uncertainty of the situation.

Also, I am trying to understand your thoughts about the DNC penalizing the two states.

Peter said...

Hillary is just making a fool out of herself now. Suddenly West Virgina is a key state.

It seems like Clinton thinks every state she wins (she is going to win WV big) is important and every state Obama wins is unimportant.

That means Clinton thinks USA should reduce the number of states from 50 to about 17-18....

Her comments today about race is also close to race-baiting. It is ok that she continue this race, but she should stop hurting the party by making dividing comments.

Unknown said...

My short visit to this blog will end soon.
Some observations.
The Clinton supporters are being driven toward McCain. They likely will vote in large numbers for him,
thus dooming Obama in 08 and rendering him Impotent for 2012.
Obama supporters appear to think Might Is Right and could care less about fairness, and respect for their fellow Democrats in MI and FLA.
Both sides are guilty of posting self serving half truths lack any
evidence of true or objectivity.
I will now exit stage left, never to return.

Emit R Detsaw said...

Ok, been on here for awhile now, and many of you know that I am an Obama supporter. But I am an Independent.

What I would like to know, is how many of you that state you would not vote for the nominated candidate of your party, why would you vote for more of the same or even worse? That is what McCain will bring you.

Being an Independent I might have a different perspective on it, but I could not vote for McCain to lead our country for the next 4 years. But I also couldn't vote for Hillary simply because I don't believe you could trust anything that she says. Just my opinion.

What are your valid reasons that you would abandon your party at a time the US and the World needs the US to go a different direction?


«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 1222   Newer› Newest»