Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

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

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

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.

Thanks!

Previous Open Thread here
New Open Thread here

4317 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 3801 – 4000 of 4317 Newer› Newest»

billyjay66 said...: When Fixed News viewers see Rev.Wright they see a 10 sec u-tube video.....they think they understand 20 years of sermons. They can't strain their minds to watch a few minutes context.

Of all those who have stated that Obama surely heard enough offensive material over 20 years that he should have stormed out......NEVER asked how many actual people did storm out of the church.; May 31, 2008 11:32 PM
Kujo said...: Experience:

So too often we see the propagandist saying things like:

Obama = Inexperience = disaster

CNN had a great peace looking back in history over our presidents and showed that Experience was not a messure of success in the White House. In fact the data showed the opposite.; May 31, 2008 11:33 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: apissedant -

Italy is rooting for Obama too :)

Goodnight to you, your wife, and the baby-to-be ;)

OBAMA/Sebelius '08; May 31, 2008 11:36 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: Rise Up, Harriet Christians.

To break open the Glass Ceiling.

The Macho Men will never yield.

They never give up their position! The High Priests of Evil Land.

They will steal votes and robe everything they can to keep their Macho Fist!

Trip the Apple Cart of the Empty Suit!

Bush = Inexperience = Obama = Disaster.

Stope Obama Now. He is ObaBush!; May 31, 2008 11:43 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: stopOBAMAnow / Yakama

Time to give it up.

It is time to let the party heal and everyone needs to unite.

Come on we know you want to too ;)

Obama '08; May 31, 2008 11:45 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: My guess for superdelegates that will come on out and endorse before Tuesday evening when the last two primaries are over:

Sunday - Four

Monday - Five

Tuesday - Five

Total of 14.

OBAMA '08; May 31, 2008 11:51 PM
Dave in NC said...: Yam,

Harriet is too busy popping open the glass bottle to be worried about the glass ceiling.

The way she hates Obama, what do you think she would think of you?

She would snap off your head and piss down your throat.; May 31, 2008 11:51 PM
tmess2 said...: Apparently, the Maine Convention has recessed for the evening. The announced delegate count -- Obama 15, Clinton 9 -- matches the estimate after the municipal convention.

On a different topic, now that we know the total number of delegates for each candidate in Michigan, how are they distributed in the different delegate categories? Not having heard things, I would think they would leave the district level as is (otherwise it would be real painful deciding which districts to make the switch in), but are they going to move two each for both the PLEOs and at-large or 3 for the at-large and 1 for the PLEOs (both of which make mathematical since since at-large is 60% of the state-level delegates and PLEO is 40% of the state-level delegates.

On both states, I am guessing some type of press release either late on Sunday or first thing Monday announcing how the ruling today will be implemented in terms of slating of delegates.; May 31, 2008 11:52 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Experience?

Try
State representative - 6 years
US Congressman - 10 years
Ambassador to Russia - 3 years
United States Senator - 10 years
Secretary of State - 4 years
Minister to Britain - 3 years

The candidate? James Buchanan, elected as the 15th President.

Lack of experience?

Try
State representative - 8 years
US Congressman - 2 years (and failed to be reelected because he spoke out against an impending war)

The candidate? Buchanan's successor as President, Abraham Lincoln.

Who do you think was the better President?

Mike; May 31, 2008 11:53 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: High Priests of Evil Land:

What happened to Obama w/o TUCC at Chicago?

All political theater!?

To gain street credibility as the "Black Candidate" to mug the AA voters in MS, VA and NC, which put him at the top?

Inexperience = Obama = Disaster.

Stop Obama Now. He is ObaBush!; June 01, 2008 12:01 AM
mumblin said...: since this is open thread.. I hope I can get my little question answered, and not be overrun by the usual inter-democratic party insult machines.....

How do "Obama Supporters" view Ron Paul ?

I am only interested in Obama supporters as you're generally a little bit more intelligent than the rest.. (FYI: I'm over in the UK, so can't guage any of this first hand)
Please limit your answers to less than 100 words !!!! (you know who you are...); June 01, 2008 12:07 AM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Ron Paul is just a little too odd for me, but do like some of his positions. He was better than McCain anyway. ;o); June 01, 2008 12:12 AM
PRDude said...: Hi Guys (and Gals)

Just got home since, due to the primaries tommorrow, our local "Dry Laws" go in effect and everyone must stop serving liquor at midnight the day before an electoral event... since we've never had elections on a Sunday, folks are none too happy, I can tell you that much! :)

Anyways, wanted to go on the record with my final predictions. Clinton 53, Obama 47. Turnout: 500,000 (very low). Absolute margin +30-50,000 votes. The higher the turnout the better for Obama, I think.

Imho, Clinton's last minute advertising blitz has been far more effective (much better ads, clearly used a local agency) and people have really appreciated the fact that she stuck around for the week (hope she got to visit the beach). Obama's radio ads with some Mexican sounding dude promising univeral health care (without even realizing that the PR government has a universal health care insurance card) and his quasi-sermonic TV spots are even worse after you see them for the 100th time.

Well, we'll see tommorrow... I for one, am excited.

Saludos from the tropics,; June 01, 2008 12:13 AM
Unknown said...: Hillary Mathematics ...
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/bensargent;_ylt=An_jlNLDoCfKGVNabTzwMV1N_b4F; June 01, 2008 12:15 AM
mumblin said...: Emit, Thanks.. (I got 1 reply.. thats 1 more than I expected); June 01, 2008 12:15 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Ron Paul.

Libertarian.

Libertarians, IMO, are fiscal reactionaries of the worst kind who also think they are 'liberal' on social issues.

In all actuality, I look at them as the Darwinist party - don't help anyone unless it will totally benefits the party member; the strongest survive, the weak die, so there is no need to even think about social programs; life sucks, so no need to worry about helping the less fortunate - after all, unless it helps the party member, it's not worth spending the time, effort and money.

IOW - Ron Paul is a Libertarian, and Libertarians are lying sacks of male bovine droppings.

I know Libertarians don't like the above description of themselves, but I really, really, really could not care less of their opinion.

Mike; June 01, 2008 12:16 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Ron Paul is someone that I really never did any research on so I don't really have an opinion on him.

I've been an Obama supporter since the 2004 Democratic Convention Keynote Address :)

.; June 01, 2008 12:17 AM
mumblin said...: Leah and Mike thanks for both of your opinions.

***Much love from Bedfordshire***; June 01, 2008 12:20 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Two things we won't hear Yakama say anymore:

'the LAST box on the left'

and

2209

OBAMA '08; June 01, 2008 12:23 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: mumblin-

Is Bedfordshire for Obama?

Are ya'll hearing much about Obama over there in the news?; June 01, 2008 12:24 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: Libertarians are for basic Constitutional Rights, Small Efficient Govt and Individual Efforts to better ones life.

They believe major Govt intrusions distort the functions of the Society.

Individualism triumphs, with minimal Govt intervention. Innovations come about by individual efforts, which must be rewards. Meritocracy and professionalism of the individual solve most of our problems!

That's not that bad, IMO.; June 01, 2008 12:27 AM
dsimon said...: Gator: For a Committee to award delegates to a non-candidate based on some voodoo calculations is a insult to all Democrats.

To recognize the results of an election that was so badly flawed as Michigan's and which can not reasonably be viewed as anywhere near an accurate representation of the eligible electorate would be an insult to democracy.

When an election process is so mangled (only one major candidate on the ballot, people told the vote won't matter, many eligible voters choosing instead to participate in the other party's primary), we do more damage by recognizing the results than by rejecting them. After all, the Soviet Union had elections too.

Given that the MI vote was not worth recognizing, the Committee had to do something. Given that many Obama supporters may have stayed home (voting "uncommitted" is not an adequate alternative to voting for a specific candidate), and that Obama has generally been stronger with more moderate voters who may have been more likely to chose to participate in the Republican primary, the Committee's allocation of the delegates was not unreasonable. Indeed, it may have been generous to Clinton.; June 01, 2008 12:29 AM
mumblin said...: hey Leah,

here in the uk we're not so much divided my states/districts/counties as y'all are.. (cause we're a piddly wittle island)

In general pretty much EVERYONE I know is for Obama.. except for a couple of republican american friends of mine. Then again Most people I know went to university..

Our news here still focuses on clinton.. for eg: last night the headline was "hilary didnt get the boost she wanted at the RBC"; June 01, 2008 12:30 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Here are the numbers from that spreadsheet the was accidentally leaked out from the Obama campaign several months ago. They said it was only one of several projections that they worked up.

Puerto Rico
Obama 45% (25 delegates)
Clinton 54% (30 delegates)

SoDak
Obama 57% (8 delegates)
Clinton 42% (7 delegates)

Montana
Obama 55% (9 delegates)
Clinton 44% (7 delegates)

It will be interesting to see how close they were :); June 01, 2008 12:34 AM
dsimon said...: How do "Obama Supporters" view Ron Paul ?

Well, I admire his ideological consistency.

But I don't think his budget numbers come close to adding up. We're not going to balance the budget by eliminating the Commerce and Education Departments, even if we pulled out of Iraq today. And as much as he might think Social Security was a mistake, the public won't get rid of it; they want it shored up. So many of his small government proposals just won't fly.

And I just think he's wrong on health care when he says we can fix it "by removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices" (from his website). The private market just doesn't put the incentives in the right place to achieve good-health outcomes. Most of our peer nations get as good or better outcomes for far less than what we spend, and they don't rely on the private for-profit market to do it.; June 01, 2008 12:38 AM
Yousri said...: Leah Texas4Obama said...
Here are the numbers from that spreadsheet the was accidentally leaked out from the Obama campaign several months ago.
It will be interesting to see how close they were :)
__________________
Hi Leah,
I have been looking into every primary since that "leaked: Projection and I can say for sure his campaign was very occurate for evry primary except WV and KY.

I believe the projection for PR might be a little off, but SD and MT will be exact.

Yousri; June 01, 2008 12:42 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yousri

I don't know.
At first I thought that Obama might win PR or come very close. BUT Hillary has been in PR all week drinking and dancing and riding around in the back of a pick-up truck - so her numbers might be better than I would have thought a few days ago.

Guess we will know by tomorrow evening :); June 01, 2008 12:47 AM
Independent Voter said...: Leah - "Hillary has been in PR all week drinking and dancing and riding around in the back of a pick-up truck"

---------

Yep, just what we need - a practicing LUSH in the WH.; June 01, 2008 1:07 AM
billyjay66 said...: I think Bill scored enough points in his two terms to carry Hillary. If she wins by 10-ish that would be very luke-warm considering their campaigning and Bill's efforts. And it would say they aren't raging racists like WV-KY.; June 01, 2008 1:08 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Hi everyone the reason I havent post is I've been sick all day can't breathe to well. My head is stopped up fever the usual things.Here is a picture of me. I think it's there. Jean; June 01, 2008 1:10 AM
tmess2 said...: I had the misfortune to grow up with Ron Paul as my Congressman so I got a chance to meet him on occassion and hear him talk to students. The impression I got of him (especially his revisionist version of history) was that he was slightly nutty.

As to projections for endorsements between now and Tuesday, I reserve the privilege to revise and extend these remarks based on votes from Puerto Rico (just kidding sort of).

My bottom line is that Senator Obama wants/needs to be at 14 delegates short of the nomination at 7 p.m. EDT on Tuesday. When he speaks on the site of the Republican National Convention, he wants to be speaking not as the leader in the race for the nomination but as the nominee. The phones will be ringing between now and Tuesday to all of the ones that have said not yet.

Sunday (including the one from Maine) -- 7 unpledged/Edwards delegate votes (i.e. Florida and Michigan count as halves)

Monday -- 10 unpledged/Edwards delegate votes

Tuesday -- 15 unpledged/Edwards delegate votes

I may be off on the days, and Puerto Rico can change the number, but between the Puerto Rico Primary, the Edwards delegates, and the unpledged delegates, Obama will get at least 52 delegate votes between now and the close of the polls in South Dakota.; June 01, 2008 1:17 AM
Hippolytus said...: Leah said:
"Hillary has been in PR all week drinking and dancing and riding around in the back of a pick-up
truck."
_______

She's going to have one heck of a hangover when she wakes up Monday morning and sees what's about to hit her.; June 01, 2008 1:25 AM
Hippolytus said...: Great news, Aunt Jean. Hillary got everything she wanted on Saturday!; June 01, 2008 2:16 AM
Hippolytus said...: That was a late April Fool's joke, Aunt Jean. Don't intend to be mean. Actually, sorry to hear that you're under the weather. Are your flu-like symptoms related to watching Saturday's proceedings? Hope you get some rest, and feel better tomorrow. The PR results should give you some (quickly passing)comfort. You might want to take some Advil and Maalox when you get up on Monday, though. It's going to be a tough week for you, I think. By the way, do you have a sister named Harriet that lives in NY?; June 01, 2008 2:25 AM
Hippolytus said...: No activity here. Looks like it's my turn to turn off the lights. Good night Ma, Goodnight Pa, Good night John Boy.; June 01, 2008 2:48 AM
Pablo said...: Hope ya feel better Miss Aunt Jean.; June 01, 2008 3:28 AM
Markk said...: Softspoken,

Well, my hope is that Senator McCain will show more fiscal responsibility than either the Republicans who controlled Congress until the 06 election where they were rightfully booted out as well as being more responsible on fiscal matters than President Bush.

While I recognize it's an unpopular view, especially on a Dem blog like this one, I actually still support having troops in Iraq and in the middle east. To me, the war was never about WMD's but about having a foothold in a region that, for whatever reason God saw fit, has a large percentage of the energy resources for the planet. The war WAS about oil... and I personally have no problem with that, tyvm.

At any rate, the Republican party has clearly lost it's way (smaller government anyone?) and it would not at all surprise me to see Senator Obama win in November. MY main concern with ANY democrat in the white house (especially with Dems in firm control of the House and Senate) is higher taxes. I simply have never seen the need to give what is obviously the most ineffiencient 'business' in America, that being the government, MORE money to spend. Until government can prove to us, the taxpayers, that they can spend what we ALREADY give them responsibily, I will never support someone who campaigns on raising taxes which is what Senator Obama is in essence doing. Would I support higher taxes if I was assured it would go towards paying down the national debt? Yes, certainly. But who actually believes that that will happen? Not I...

But at least Senator Obama strikes me as a man of honor and relative integrity (in Washington, that's about as good as it's going to get). Are there concerns what with the whole Rev Wright debacle and the Senator's candid and disconcerting views about 'bitterness'? Sure, but no candidate is ever going to be perfect and none of that peripheral stuff takes away from the man's drive, energy, and commitment to doing what he thinks is right. Will I agree with most of what he does? Probably not, but I will at least know that his intentions are good and that he will do the best he can for the country... something I don't believe I could say if Senator Clinton was on the ticket.; June 01, 2008 3:33 AM
Amot said...: tmess,
I have question about vetting and I would like to hear your opinion. I will ask about FL since I don't think MI should be vetted given the circumstances. In my understanding Obama can remove those pledged delegates he doesn't trust and replace them with aproved candidates that did not get enough votes at the state conventions. I hope there were enough candidates running in each district to apply such scenario. Is it the legal one or there must be revote at each CD? Or the candidate can chose between the two options? In my understanding the candidate can also directly choose the delegates but that should happen only in case there is no sufficient time for a normal selection procedure. I think the fact that all delegates are chosen does not do harm since the delegation will be seated with half vote each, i.e. the number of delegates is the original one.; June 01, 2008 3:49 AM
Unknown said...: Markk,
Finally, I see a republican in this site that makes sense. Although I disagree with your views, at least you have an opinion that you can back up with good arguments.

To be honest, I was meaning to say something about this blog becoming too much of one voice (more so than what it was before)... and to tell you the truth I've always liked to discuss things with people who assume an opposite/different stance.

Some might find this strange, but it often enlightens me to hear or read facts that prove me wrong, or at least, that make me think twice about my beliefs, views, and opinions.

Ok, I will try to be short... Republicans want to reduce gvt spending on social issues only, they make up for it in military spending. We spend around 1/2 the world's military expenditure (check the UN website).

We also use a big chunk of our budget paying interest on debt that always inflates on a republican's watch. So let's push for some "responsible" spending!

I've read that we had at least a 20-year lead on other countries when it comes to military technology, so let's start looking at educating our kids and providing them with affordable healthcare instead... and let's not turn our backs on our own, like we did with the Katrina victims.

We want to be this great nation we all talk about, then we need to assume our responsibilities!; June 01, 2008 4:59 AM
Peter said...: The question now is if Obama will reach 2118 with delegates from SD an MT or if he needs superdelegates after SD/MT. He is 64 short of the "magic" number after Yvonne Gates (NV) endorsed today. I think a consercative estimate from PR is 22 delegates, 9 from MT and 8 SD is a good way to start. That would give him 39 delegates. So he would need roughly 24 superdelegates before MT/SD because he will get one add-on today.

I think he will win with the help of SD/MT and that is so much better than having superdelegates tip him over. He can now say "With the help from people in SD and MT we have secured the nomination". That could probably give him a boost in both SD and MT. I think at least MT could come into play.; June 01, 2008 5:02 AM
Amot said...: Peter, you forgot about Edwards FL delegates - 4.5 or more will join too. In my estimation he needs 19 or 20 supers to claim it with SD and MT.
Give a source for the new endorsement, please!; June 01, 2008 6:10 AM
Squirrel said...: Amot the source for Yvonne Gates is:

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/obama-picks-up-nevada-superdelegate/n20080601034509990004; June 01, 2008 6:30 AM
Anonymous said...: I think peter is referring to the Maine add-on chosen today. The Maine party chairmen has already said he will choose an Obama supporter.; June 01, 2008 6:31 AM
Amot said...: Thanks, Suqirrel!
Plus ME that makes him 2 delegates closer to the nomination! 63 to go!!!; June 01, 2008 6:50 AM
Richard said...: Not to put a damper on everyone's excitement over the possibility of Obama clinching things on Tuesday, but I have a feeling that there will be very few superdelegates endorsing between now and then. Things seem to have plateaued for the moment, and I believe most of the remaining superdelegates will feel it is worth waiting two more days so they can say they waited until all the voters had had their say before endorsing. So I would expect that Obama will be at least 10-15 delegates short Tuesday evening and will not go over until sometime Wednesday or Thursday.; June 01, 2008 6:59 AM
Amot said...: Richard, what about the other side - no super wants he/she to be the one that gave the nomination to Obama and become mortal enemy of all Clinton folks... They will endorse today and tomorrow, before it is too late :) Plus Obama met the majority again, so some Pelosi club are possibly announcing too!; June 01, 2008 7:05 AM
Peter said...: RE amot

Yes, but we don`t know for sure that he will get Edwards delegates before tuesday. After all, they can do what they feel like...
Anyway, I think he will need something like 20 superdelegates to secure this on tuesday night, I think such a solution would be much better than having superdelegates deciding this by the end of the week and I`ll bet both Obama-camp and several superdelegates can see that point.; June 01, 2008 7:26 AM
Amot said...: Peter, about FL there are three possible outcomes:

- Edwards do not vet and do not urge endorsements;
- Edwards do not vet but he and Obama have a conference call with FL 13 today or tomorrow and they officially announce (at least 9 of them) support for Obama. There is an unofficial report there are at least 9 supporters so far;
- Edwards make a statement he will vet his slate in order to get only Obama supporters.

I think the second is the most probable scenario! We just can't agree with tmess will they endorse today or tomorrow :); June 01, 2008 7:38 AM
Squirrel said...: Although the RBC rulings on the seating of the FL and MI delegations was what everyone was waiting for yesterday, the big outfall in real terms was that 5 of the Clinton supporters on the RBC accepted that the race was over and voted for the MI compromise.

As Amot has said above Obama now only needs 63 more delegates, 20+ of them he will of course get today from PR, and for simplicity of maths lets say he gets 23, that results in Obama needing only 40 more delegates. Now considering that over a third of Clinton supporters on the RBC recognised yesterday the overwhelming reality that Obama and not Clinton is going to be the nominee begs the question which uncommitted SD is now going to declare for Clinton?

Whether the SD's declare before Tuesday or wait until Wednesday is niether here nor there, (also remember that there will also be those Clinton endorsers who were wavering and would like to make the switch to Obama before it literally becomes academic who may decide to move before Tuesday), the simple fact is that Clinton from here on in can only cause herself more harm than good by not conceeding immediately after the PR results today or tomorrow before South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday go to the polls (she has no prospect according to the polls of winning either anyway).

Now on a purely biased note, not being an American, may I finally jump up and down with joy that for the first time in many years we in the free world have the real prospect of a POTUS to lead us and whom we can actually look up to. We may at times disagree, but the prospect is that we can at least have a person whom we can look forward to respecting and beleaving in and will not treat America's friends and allies as dog muck that has been trodden in.

One final word about yesterdays RBC meeting.

Donna Brazile was absolutely fantastic. She put on record what many here and elsewhere have said for a long time, cheating is cheating.; June 01, 2008 7:40 AM
Amot said...: Donna Brazile was as usually the voice of sanity in the party! Outstanding!!! I am glad Dems have such a party insider.

And I second your joy about the free world :) As a foreigner I may say that I am glad USA will have a President of great humanity and sane judgement!; June 01, 2008 7:58 AM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Reflection:

The RBC was not about the candidates yesterday. It was about the people in Florida and Michigan. Period. They did an outstanding job reaching compromise in going by the "States" proposals and wishes, while maintaining the integrity of the rules.

No resolution would be "fair" to both candidates, but the resolution gives the "People" representation.

Good day for democracy.

(And thanks to the Transparency In Government movement we all got to witness the process.); June 01, 2008 8:15 AM
Amot said...: Well, unfortunately we were cheated and the debate was not public. I would like very much to hear the pathetic complains of Ickes and the argument about why first FL motion makes sense when it is completely against the rules!; June 01, 2008 8:21 AM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Amot,

I think that was just political posturing. Each side had to ask for something they couldn't have to make it look like each candidate moved to the center to satisfy the need to have the delegates seated. Politics as usual.

As far as Ickies and that Tina lady goes, they are paid members of the Clinton team. They were speaking up in hopes of still getting paid by Clinton. At least that is how I saw it. I think Ickies went too far with his comments on Michigan, but fully expected it.

The off camera discussions were probably not that intense Friday night and Saturday, or they would have been gone longer. They knew they had to come to a resolution, or look like bigger idiots.

All political posturing. ;o); June 01, 2008 8:29 AM
Amot said...: 12-15 was not posturing, they made real attempt to totally overrun the rules! I wis i could hear Donna Brazile's comment to Ickes ass remark :); June 01, 2008 8:44 AM
Peter said...: I don`t think it was posturing either, but the 27-0 showed us that they tried their way with a pro-clinton solution, but accepted a negotiated solution. But remember that only 12 voted for that, that means 1 Clinton supporter "left her" on that issue.

Michigan was more difficult, but I think Ickes and Clinton showed us how weak Clintons position is withing the party compared to Obama and that Ickes himself don`t have a strong position. But even MI passed with 19-8, so 5 supporters "left her". So, I think the MI solution will stand. The most important thing is if the Michigan party and Levin is satisfied with the solution. I think they are.

Harold Ickes has lost all credibility in this party. You could see how he was mocked by Carl Levin, Ralph Dawson and Donna Brazile. I think there was a lot of hostile towards Ickes in the secret "debate phase" of this negotiation.
The way Don Fowler voted for 69-59 also shows us how strong this 69-59 actually is.

I think Clinton will lose a lot of support if a democratic poll is taken in a couple of days, they way some of her supporters behaved was embarrassing. A couple also came up with extremly racist remarks. I also think a lot of people think Ickes swearing was completly inappropriate.

I also think Obama campaign telling Obama-supporters not to protest was a brilliant move, I think that will help the unification both among voters and the politicians.; June 01, 2008 9:06 AM
apissedant said...: Ron Paul,
A little nutty is an understatement. Ron Paul wants to rewind America's clock about 130 years. He talks about our, "fake money" and how we need the gold standard. Of course, we and the rest of the world came off the gold standard because it didn't work. There wasn't enough gold, and it was too international. It allowed too many people to mess with the value of the dollar, everyone except the US government.
Also, there is a grand total of about 3 trillion dollars in gold in the world. That is every wedding ring, gold chain, tooth, and bar. Our GDP is 13 trillion dollars. There is no way for us to secure 13 trillion dollars with 3 trillion dollars. Rewinding health care, business law, trade, education, and the military. Rewinding all these to a time when our people and our country had no control or security. Andrew Jackson was the first president that destroyed the national bank that had served this country for 40 years. The end result was the Panic of 1837. This Panic was followed by one in 1873, 1893, and several others.
Around 1913, the US came up the gold standard, and attempted to recreate a strong national bank, but it was done poorly. Not until we elected the great FDR did we finally restore the treasury department to the place that Alexander Hamilton had envisioned it. We have now made it nearly 80 years without a panic or a depression. The longest period in American history. We now flip out over small recessions, or inflation that breaks 5%. Why would we possibly choose to go back to instability and insecurity?
In fairness, there was also a Panic in 1819, prior to Andrew Jackson destroying the national bank. This recession is widely believed to be a direct outcome of the war of 1812, and the policy of simply printing money to pay war debts. This was in stark contrast to what Hamilton had proposed as the appropriate way to handle a federal budget.; June 01, 2008 9:52 AM
Meg said...: Polls close in PR at 3:00 Eastern.; June 01, 2008 9:57 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: you know, if I were HRC, I would surely know that this race was winding up for me. And if I were in PR to campaign, I'd probably be drinking and dancing, too - might as well have a good time, right?

Then, tanned and refreshed to campaign in SD/MT a bit (probably lose), then back to NY to cogitate, regroup, and concede. Then, at last, I'd get to have a good long sleep.

Anyway, let a chick have a good time, fer cryin' out loud. I'm sure she's blowing off some steam, and that's an okay thing.; June 01, 2008 10:41 AM
mumblin said...: APISSEDANT, thanks for your insight.

I wonder how much of the dollar today has to do with stability as compared to imperialism ?; June 01, 2008 10:55 AM
greywolf said...: Harold is on CNN crying and fussing with Blitzer this morning. Pretty much saying what he said yesterday.; June 01, 2008 11:21 AM
tmess2 said...: Amot, on vetting,

My reading of Rule 12 D, E, & F of the national Delegate Selection Plan is that the party sets a deadline for folks to apply for delegate slots. The candidate then gets an opportunity to review the lists. The candidate can veto some of the people on the delegate list but must give the body deciding the delegates (district convention or state convention/committee) a list of delegates containing at least 3 times the number of slots up for a vote.

I am not sure, and am not expecting to hear until sometime on Monday, if Obama can choose (and will choose) to accept the results in certain districts. However, the rule seems to be clear. He doesn't get to choose the delegates, he merely gets to provide narrow down the list and then the relevant group gets to vote as to whom from that list gets to go.

Note: There is an exception to the 3 times the number of delegates requirement for states that pre-slate delegates before the primary since in that type of state you do not know the number of delegates that you will actually get in a district. Of course, some of those states let voters rank the order of those pre-slates.; June 01, 2008 11:22 AM
greywolf said...: Blitzer said, "The Michigan state leadership, proposed the split and the RBC honored that request" Dont you think the state knows better as to what is fair based upon what happened"? Ikes needs to shut up and wonder off into his little wonder land where ever or what ever it is.; June 01, 2008 11:23 AM
greywolf said...: The way he talks you would think that Hillary was pulling his string and makeing him speak. He is a real mousy littl man; June 01, 2008 11:24 AM
greywolf said...: Why did Obama have his people TAKE those 4 delegates. I dont think Obama made any one do anything. That was the state that decided what was fair for their voters.; June 01, 2008 11:25 AM
apissedant said...: I made a few typos in my statement earlier. Around 1913 the US got rid of the gold standard. I believe I wrote they came up with it. That is reverse of what I meant to say. For about fifty years prior, there had been constant debates over whether to go with a gold standard or a silver standard, and around this time they decided that both were stupid. That was the correct decision, and soon the rest of the world followed suit. Great Britain and the United States were the first nations to get rid of the gold standard because their GDP had grown far beyond the gold they could secure. To keep the gold standard would be to prevent any growth in their respective economies.

I don't find imperialism in any way shape or form in our nation. We are a Republic. We have local, state, and federal officials that we elected into office. When we don't like them, we kick them out. The system doesn't work perfectly, but it does work.

Several people, including myself have posted very long and detailed accounts of how our nation got in the current predicament it is in.

My point of these last two posts, is that this predicament is historically nothing. It is bad, but we had much, much worse prior to FDR. What's worse, our current economic problems arise from bastardizing Hamilton and FDR plans, not because of following their ideas. Completely disregarding their plans would simply leave us even worse off. If we instead just adhered to the policies that these fiscally disciplined men proposed, we could avoid many of these problems.

If you honestly think we were better prior to Hamilton instituting his plans, simply look at Shay's Rebellion and the other major economic problems that happened between our independence and our adoption of the constitution.

Imperialism implies power in the hands of one man or a small group of men, while Republic implies power in elected representatives of the people. In either case, one small group holds a significant chunk of the power, but in a Republic, the people are elected, and can be fired if they goes against the wishes of the people.; June 01, 2008 11:25 AM
billyjay66 said...: RE TAKING 4 DELEGATES

Perhaps the Clinton delegation would only vote for something they could take forward and protest.; June 01, 2008 11:30 AM
apissedant said...: Definitely not Yam. They guy in the article basically said he liked Obama, just not as much as Hillary. He even raised the idea of having Hillary as Barack's VP. Plus there were no obvious spelling errors.

I really don't see 2 million voters turning out though.; June 01, 2008 11:31 AM
apissedant said...: Haha, I just checked Puerto Rico's population. Less than 4 million. This guy claims that more than 50% of the people will come out and vote. Not 50% of the registered voters, or 50% of the registered democratic voters, but 50% of the PEOPLE!; June 01, 2008 11:32 AM
ed iglehart said...: Ant,

Imperialism also implies an Empire.

As to Ickes, and his Achey-breakey heart, the article even includes seven stages of grief.
;-)
ed; June 01, 2008 11:38 AM
greywolf said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 01, 2008 11:41 AM
Meg said...: There's a link up on the Superdelegate blog for Nevada SD Yvonne Gates. Sounds like an endorsement to me. Perhaps Matt and Oreo are sleeping in this morning. Understandable.

http://tinyurl.com/5zgtkc

Harold said he thought it was sad that Obama had not even mentioned Hillary's name re: the second crazy pastor fluff. Obama should apologize? Obama is not talking about Hillary because she doesn't really matter anymore.; June 01, 2008 11:44 AM
greywolf said...: emma...

There is not need for obama to mention Hillary as it applies to his ex church. They were not his words, and Ikes need to grow up. If he thinks Obama needs to be held accountable for what comes from the mouth of someone else then maybe Ikes needs to be held accountable for what he said in that meeting yesterday. His swearing and accusing Obama of hijacking the vote. Obama did not draw up the state plan, the state leadership and govenor did. Ikes should be held accountable for slander and stupidity. lol; June 01, 2008 11:48 AM
apissedant said...: ed,
Yup, and I don't think there is any way to classify the US as an empire without sounding a little crazy. We're too disorganized and factional to ever have a successful empire.

grey,
Yeah, I'm amazed that people can go on tv, or publish articles in the paper that are so ridiculous. Do they not care about their credibility?

Wolf is out of control. I have watched CNN in like, 4 years. I don't remember him being this crazy back then. What happened? I'm going back to my usual diet of MSNBC and Comedy Central.; June 01, 2008 11:52 AM
RobH said...: MORE FUN WITH NUMBERS!

But on a completely different tack.
Want to congratulate everyone here for establishing one HELLUVA community.
You all have made my spring richer than it otherwise would have been.

You see, I was going to go back through the threads to see if I could find my original “first call that ‘it would be those reddest of red states MT & SD to put him over’” when I discovered, how needle in a haystack that would be. I knew we had become prolific, I just didn’t realize HOW prolific:

Thread 1: 3/18 – 4/21 907 posts (26 per day)
Thread 2: 4/21 – 5/1 1560 posts (156 posts per day)
Thread 3: 5/1 – 5/7 849 posts (161 posts per day)
Thread 4: 5/7 – 5/13 1222 posts (204 posts per day)
Thread 5: 5/13 – 5/19 1537 posts (256 posts per day)
Thread 6: 5/19 – 6/1 3910 posts (300 posts per day)

Our 3925th post on this Thread (sometime today – in about 15 posts) will receive a special prize as our 10,000th poster!!! Swag to be revealed at a later date. (actually we’re reserving the spot for Leah….. or Amot, or Dave, or Mike, or Ed, or softspoken, or apissedant, or Aunt Jean, or Jim, or tmess, or countjellybean… or

Wouldn’t it be ironic if StopObamaNow hit it on the head. Come on Yam, JOIN THE PARTY (pun intended.)

Thank you all.; June 01, 2008 11:53 AM
billyjay66 said...: Greywolf & Blitzer

Remember "Quien es mas macho?" on SNL way back?

Who is more of a wuss....... Wolf Blitzer or Bob Schiefer? Wolf not only irritates me with his bias but his questions are so idiotic and whinny and inane.

robh

Can we get matt to pitch up a big neon ...whatever it is that pops up and says you are the 10,000 poster?; June 01, 2008 11:58 AM
ed iglehart said...: Guilt by association?

I still maintain that it's a shame Obama felt the need to distance himself from Rev Wright. All Wright has ever done is remind US of OUR complicity, and that's the job of a man of God.

Just my opinion.
xx
ed; June 01, 2008 11:59 AM
Meg said...: My favorite question by any pundit to any politician is "Why do you think issue "X" has been such a big deal in the news lately?" Give me a break.; June 01, 2008 12:01 PM
Independent Voter said...: For those who feel that Obama "stole" MI - something you need to take into account is that he made the concession to Clinton. Especially since he had the votes needed for a 50/50 split; June 01, 2008 12:11 PM
ed iglehart said...: Take the test

;-)
ed

P.S. It seems I'm Pfleger ;-((; June 01, 2008 12:15 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Emit:

Just saw your post (yesterday) about Obama sponsoring a car in a NASCAR race. There are some cars without good sponsorship that would probably do it BUT those cars / drivers / teams are obviously not all that good (thus not likely to win).

The best car number for Obama that he could sponsor this year for obvious reasons is the 08 car.

Can you see it the "Obama 08" car!

The 08 car was last used by Joe Nemechek in one race last season. The car finished 43rd (last)... In fact in the history of the 08 car goes back to 1975 and it has never won.

Still trying to figure out which team OWNs the number because that would make a difference on how good it could be this year...; June 01, 2008 12:16 PM
apissedant said...: ed,
Why does that make you said? Pfleger's sermon was correct, and good. Screw the mainstream media, say what's right and ignore the ignorant. I would rather be right and lose than be Bush.; June 01, 2008 12:21 PM
apissedant said...: haha, I tested the same Ed. The description is hilarious.; June 01, 2008 12:25 PM
RobH said...: Wow, I'm Rev. Wright.; June 01, 2008 12:27 PM
Unknown said...: HRC is a pathetic loser of a candidate who ran a horrendous campaign...entered a contest, spent millions of dollars, and simply did not even know the rules...it is like playing a baseball game and swinging for the fences the whole time and complaining because your opponent is hitting singles and scoring more runs...she is a disloyal, self serving, disgusting vile creature...who lacks the dignity and competence to be President. Harold Ickes is even more disgusting- and it is clear that the Clintons lose all credibility by trying to say Obama deserves 0 delegates in Michigan...; June 01, 2008 12:30 PM
apissedant said...: To all willing to read this,
I have a rather pessimistic view of our country's future, and I am hoping someone here can show me some good evidence that my view is incorrect.
First I would like to say that I believe Barack Obama will be our next President, and this will be a very positive change.
Second, I believe Barack Obama will only be a one term president. I believe that we have been going down the wrong path for too long, and that there is no way for any one person to fix our nation in four years. Due to this, I foresee continued economic decline over the next four years. Obama will of course be blamed for this, because he will be president during this period. This will be in no way his fault, but I don't think the average voter will care.

So here is what I would like: Someone please explain to me how our country can be economically repaired in four years, so the average voter is economically better off at the end of Obama's presidency instead of worse off.

There is a second option. You can concede that our economy will continue to contract, but the voters will be smart enough to know that this is not Obama's fault. They will realize that his changes as president will give us long term economic health and stability, despite the fact that in the short term, we will be no better off.

Can anyone explain to me how one of these two scenarios could occur?; June 01, 2008 12:32 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Now that I'm hitting stage5...

Robh-I wanna be the 9,999th visitor!!!!; June 01, 2008 12:32 PM
ed iglehart said...: We've all seen Saturday Night Live, now here's Sunday Morning Live

Which is worse?

;-)
ed; June 01, 2008 12:33 PM
apissedant said...: My grammatical errors are off the chart today. I apologize for my inability to type today. I don't know why I said said instead of sad, or said they instead of the, or any of my other mistakes this morning. I should put in my contacts so I can actually read what I'm typing.; June 01, 2008 12:33 PM
Independent Voter said...: Just to address the whole notion of sponsoring a NASCAR - car.

My problem with that is somewhat as Oregon Dem pointed out - if it is not a "winning" car, this would clearly not be a good idea.

Can we say Eight Belles?; June 01, 2008 12:36 PM
ed iglehart said...: Ant,

You've expressed my fears as well as I could have. Sadly I don't have an answer, or I would have finished my MSc degree in Human Ecology. The assignment that whipped me was to devise an optimistic outcome, and I just couldn't ;-(((((

Never mind, I've paid my mortgage, raised my kids and buried my ancestors, so I've completed all the tasks of middle-age just in time for old age.

xx
ed; June 01, 2008 12:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Apparently very low PR turnout....

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/06/
puerto-rico-polls-close-in-3-hours-very.html

It may be sinking in that HRC's role will ONLY be that of supporting Obama....; June 01, 2008 12:39 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Be patient with the backtracking please-

OR Dem-#1 agree
#2 ? don't understand
#3 probably but presumptuous
#4 agree
#5 agree

mike in md-I commented on your 3:56a.m. post and added if ANYBODY wants to submit a title and author my librarian friends at a university will be buying books with any remaining funds they have and usually go to BAMM. Our fiscal year ends on June 30.

Markk-Like I've said before, I can respectfully agree to disagree. I think is article is relevant to our discussion-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080601/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_australia

Jason-You'd be surprised how much I would probably disagree about some issues like immigration and abortion but for now I don't think they're part of the big picture.

Squirrel-Feel free to jump up and down!...this has been one of my issues between the Dems.; June 01, 2008 12:50 PM
RobH said...: Apissedant

I don't have the economic consequences for my suggestion, but I think the next President should make the centerpiece of his admin - announced in the first 100 days, so to speak - a JFK-like to-the-moon national commitment, towards energy independence, with goals far more agressive than many now proposed.

The American people at large share your dismal forecast, and so are prepared to hear "it will be tough anyway." So let's make it REAL tough, but enlist a COMMON objective for all - that is to LEAD the world, instead of IMPEDE the world. That's what everybody is waiting for.

It would require that we reset our compass vis a vis our consumerist culture, but I think Obama will have a mandate.

Green jobs, grean expertise, green leadership? I don't know, but I hope...; June 01, 2008 12:58 PM
RobH said...: softspoken, well done, you did snag 9,999.

And ed, as I wrote the final line inviting Yam to JOIN THE PARTY, I added in parens (but my money's on ed.) I took it out before I posted 'cause I thought it detracted from my pun to Yam.

But I knew I could count on you - and I bet you weren't even trying.
Kudos to you, our 10K man.; June 01, 2008 1:00 PM
ed iglehart said...: Drinks are on me (virtual, of course)!

Mine's a Guinness, thanks
xxxxx
ed

And you're half right. I wasn't (really) trying. ;-); June 01, 2008 1:06 PM
RobH said...: apissedant,

I should have said, obviously, that my "proposal" (or more like "hope") falls in category two of your request.

I have this inextinguishable optimism that our nation, at large, can get the bigger picture and right our course, but seeing certain "things" in our daily transactions always challenges my optimism. These "things" include blatent pandering and hypocrisy (easily evident yesterday) and the role that the media plays in framing our context.

I think a major course correction can occur when the media decides it's a good idea. So far, their versions of good ideas are "horse races" and "dividing constituencies" (Fox:MSNBC, Hannity:Olberman, Limbaugh:Matthews, Hagee:Wright, sniper fire:bitter, etc, etc.); June 01, 2008 1:11 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Obama's website is reporting that he has received the endorsement of Nevada super delegate Yvonne Gates:

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has picked up the support of Nevada superdelegate Yvonne Gates, nudging him closer to the nomination.

The former Clark County Commissioner and member of the national party's Rules Committee told The Associated Press late Saturday that she had been impressed by the Illinois senator's campaign.

"I have been admiring, just from afar, looking at the way they run the campaign. I have been pretty impressed with this operation," she said. "I think he would make a great president."

64 more to go!; June 01, 2008 1:17 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Softspoken:

Sorry about #2 - I reread it and it makes no sense at all (probably cause I changed it about 3 times...):

My thought was that I do not believe Obama has super delegates "in his back pocket" that HE controls as to when they come out and endorse. Thus it is my "prediction" that we will get to Tuesday night and Obama will be a few delegates short of clinching. At some point on Wednesday or Thursday Obama will get enough supers to go over the top. This is kind of unfortunate because it would be nice to end this and clinch using the voters in the last two primaries.

I hope I am wrong and enough supers do come out today, tomorrow and tuesday morning so that the wins on Tuesday night clinch it.; June 01, 2008 1:27 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Aunt Jean-I hope you're feeling better...they say 3 days to get it, 3 days to have it, 3 days to get rid of it...try local honey, Claritin, Mucinex or Robitussin, but I use the Walgreen's brand of those medicines, I know I've got allergies, so I don't need to pay a PA every 3 months to remind me. I'm having a Riccola honey lozenge as we speak/post.

Robh-apissedant-Leading the world-I don't have an optimistic view of this country...we were never an empire...I can see similarities between us and the Roman Empire though-my husband and I were discussing this last night...who are we to push democracy or Christianity on every other nation?

ed iglehart-beer no, Guinness yes.; June 01, 2008 1:30 PM
apissedant said...: robh and ed,
Thank you very much for responding. At least between the three of us, the consensus is that there is definitely no quick fix. We have a lot of hard work ahead of ourselves as a country and as a party.

robh,
Yours is the most optimistic outlook that I could possibly see as viable, though I have little faith in it. The people of this country have the intelligence, the problem is simply in taking the time to understand.
Historically I'm afraid the deck is stacked against us. I can not think of a single president who was unable to improve the country in the short term, and was given still accepted at the time as a good president. It makes me think of John Adams, Van Buren, and George H. W. Bush to name a few. Van Buren is not a great example, because he was terrible, but both of the other two made a lot of terrific changes to the benefit of our nation over time.
I also cite the current problems in Michigan as an excellent example. Granholm has done her best, but there is no quick fix, and on state level, there is almost no fix at all. She still suffers an around 70% disapproval rating.

I truly hope I'm wrong on my analysis, and I truly hope I'm right on Obama becoming president. Only time will tell.; June 01, 2008 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...: It is indeed a sad day for Democracy.
This is not change I can believe in. It is subversion of the Party Creed.
Next time it may well be that the self appointed "Gurus of voter intent" may apply their assumed wisdom to another State.

I say 'REMEMBER THE FOUR"
To support a candidate who would support such Gerrimandering would go against my principles,
so I say, either Clinton or "No Vote"; June 01, 2008 1:35 PM
ed iglehart said...: Softspoken,

It would be possible to embark from Palnackie harbour 1/2 mile from here and sail to Dublin and up the Liffey, but I'd probably just stop at the Glen Isle Inn in Palnackie, where the Liffey Water flows from a tap.

Slainte!
ed; June 01, 2008 1:39 PM
apissedant said...: soft,
I agree with you. We should not be pushing our beliefs on everyone else. It is actually rather un-Christian of us. Christianity is about acceptance, not intimidation and coercion. That is one of the main reasons I turned away from organized religion. There are many good organized religions though, my sister and my brother-in-law are both ordained priests. They are wonderful people, and they have a wonderful church. My brother-in-law is from a little hick town, and his brother came out of the closet a few years back. Both the church and his family accepted him for who he was. I thought that was fantastic. I feel it is unfortunate that a few religious people spoil the reputation of all religious people.; June 01, 2008 1:41 PM
suzihussein22 said...: jim-All I can say is do you think this primary was worse than the other precedents already set in previous primaries? The HRC campaign got 4 less delegates than was expected.; June 01, 2008 1:44 PM
Amot said...: Folks, any news on the turnout? I would like to start my prediction charts but I need the turnout data :); June 01, 2008 1:45 PM
greywolf said...: Just some interesting reading for those that are curious as to what the Hillary camp is thinking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/us/politics/01dems.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin; June 01, 2008 1:46 PM
suzihussein22 said...: apissedant-Not starting a soapbox...for me it's about faith, not religion. I'm not the most popular member at my church, and I think that's a good thing.; June 01, 2008 1:49 PM
Anonymous said...: softspoken22 said...
jim-All I can say is do you think this primary was worse than the other precedents already set in previous primaries? The HRC campaign got 4 less delegates than was expected.
Far worse.
We could have the RBC look at the exit polls in previous primaries and ascertain the intent of the voters. They might conclude that Obama got more delegates than the vote reflected.
They could surely do so in Texas.; June 01, 2008 1:56 PM
greywolf said...: apissedent...

I do not think it is as bleak as you see it. There exist one main factor that everyone seems to be over looking. There are a lot of republicans up for re-election in the next few years. If the democrats can gain a majority of the seats, and assuming Obama will cross party lines and draw upon a consesus/majority working group; there exist a strong possibility that he can accomplish a lot. It will take a lot to really turn this country around economically, yet if he can (and I believe he will) get the country turned in the right direction we will see some serious rebounding in 09. With that said, and providing he sticks to what he said and is able to pull a lot of it off, there will exist many reasons for him to be re-elected for a second term. We must be optomistic and do our part in that if we have to tighten up then we do it. I am willing to forgo any relief on my taxes to get this economy turned around, providing Obama rolls back some of those breaks corporate america receives and takes a bigger chunk from those making 250K or more as he stated. We just have to be more vocal and help where we can.; June 01, 2008 1:58 PM
apissedant said...: Wouldn't it be best if the Pelosi club was the final push over the top for Barack? That would remove the problem of a single SD getting the credit or blame, or the SDs getting the credit or blame as a whole. It would be the group of SDs that wanted the process to work properly, with the voters deciding the nominee based on PDs.; June 01, 2008 1:58 PM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 01, 2008 1:59 PM
greywolf said...: As he said he will listen, and we may not agree all the time, but if he can pull off at least half of what he wants, it will be a major improvement.; June 01, 2008 1:59 PM
Aunt Jean said...: jcaesar91

it's remarks like this that will ensure McCain in office. It's people like you that keep the anger and hate of Obama that will be the reason for his lost for the white house. People like you won't let it go. Let it be and quit showing so much disrespect for Hillary she doesn't deserve it. This is what you said about her:
she is a disloyal, self serv
ing, disgusting vile creature...who lacks the dignity and competence to be President.

Where it stands I will be voting for McCain or not voting at all. But people like you and a few more on here makes me madder than hell and all it makes me want to do it vote for McCain to spite you. Is that wrong yes but we are only human and can only take so much crap from people like you.Why don't you try alittle self control it might work wonders instead of acting like a child. Jean

Softspoken22 thank you so much for the tip about my illness but that is what I'm doing but it was appreciated.Well I'm tired this has worn me out getting upset so I'll go take care.Jean; June 01, 2008 2:02 PM
greywolf said...: Aunt Jean,

I understand your frustration, but is it about the candidate or is it about party unity? Granted some will be upset about their candidate not winning, but is Obama that bad? I do not think so.
McCain would be a lot worse for this country. Its the lesser of the two evils in my book. Yes I am an obama supporter, but I would have voted for Clinton had she won, even if I do not Particularily like the clintons I still would have voted for her to keep McCain out of office.; June 01, 2008 2:07 PM
apissedant said...: greywolf,
I agree we must stay focused and continue doing all we can to make the situation better. I agree that Obama will make the situation better, and I agree that we will pick up a few seats in the Senate and in Congress that will allow him to do more.

I disagree with the amount of time this will take. It isn't that we're headed in the wrong direction, it's that we are currently in the wrong spot all together. We have a huge nation debt and deficit. We have a huge trade deficit. We have huge bills in interest and military expenses that cannot go away anytime soon. We are spending on average, 105% of our income. We are all living beyond our means. We are depending on loans to us as a nation, as states, as cities, and as individuals in order to finance our way of life.
These will not be fixed with a single bill in Congress. These will take years of tightening our belts and using fiscal discipline on all levels to fix. This will lead to extending the "recession" or "economic slowdown" in the short term, in order to become stable and self-sufficient in the long term.

President Bush is correct in one thing, you can buy your way out of a recession. We did it in 2003. We borrowed and spent so much money that we allowed our economy to continue growing. The only problem is alway we did was delay the serious economic problems until now. We fixed nothing, that would have taken more time and work, and people don't like waiting.; June 01, 2008 2:07 PM
greywolf said...: And is that not what this is all about? Removing the republicans from office and starting a new and much better direction?; June 01, 2008 2:08 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: on another topic, any word from PR yet?; June 01, 2008 2:10 PM
apissedant said...: greywolf,
I would go beyond even party loyalty. I am not loyal to my party, I am loyal to my country. It just so happens that I almost always believe my party is what is best for my country.

I think that we can all agree that John McCain and the policies he has advocated on the campaign trail are most definitely bad for my country.; June 01, 2008 2:12 PM
apissedant said...: I meant "our" country, not "my" country. Freudian slip.; June 01, 2008 2:16 PM
JayW said...: To all the people, liek aunt jean, that wont vote for Obama because you support HRC...

WHO CARES? He can win without you!!!!

Look at the polls. In heads up polls (Obama vs. McCain)... Obama wins every time.

These polls take all you HRC supporters that wont vote for Obama into account. (Obviously if HRC isnt one of the choices, the people that think like you chose McCain in the polls.)

So... as much as you like to think that you are really putting the screws to Obama by not voting for him as a protest for Hillary... OBAMA can win without you!!!

If you want to support Obama and vote for a winner for once... I am sure he will be accepting of it. But, if not, NO ONE CARES!!!!; June 01, 2008 2:16 PM
greywolf said...: apissedent...

Granted what you say is true, but I think that with getting out of Iraq, that will take a large burden off our expense chart. Yes it is a huge debet, yet lets say that those of us on the lower end of that totem pole tell Obama that we are willing to forgo any relief for the next 4 years (taxes), but we expect him to hit corporations, eliminating their loopholes, roll back the tax breaks for the wealthy to where it was before all these tax breaks came in. What will that provide in extra revenue.
And lets say that he does enact some of those ideas, creating more jobs in areas like MI, OH, PA , WV (the worst hit industrial areas). Lets assume the economy does start picking up in a year or two, will not that bring in more revenue?
Lets also consider that our debt no longer continues to grow but shrinks 10-20% and our government finally starts working on a ballanced budget, spending less than we take in for a change. Do you not feel that will be a significant accomplishment in the right direction?
Granted this will not be fixed over night or in 4 years. If we keep putting the right people in office;demanding from them fiscal responsibility of our local state and federal leadership, we have a great chance. Especially if they continue in the direction Obama takes us (if it is a good direction). Dont you think there will be a good light at the end of that tunnel in the years to come?

Yes it will take time, but it is more up to us then it is up to them in that we as americans have to finally start living responsibly, as well as holding our elected officials accountable for the same.; June 01, 2008 2:23 PM
apissedant said...: greywolf,
I completely agree. My problem resides in the voters. Will they see that as enough? Will they forgo instant gratification for long term security, stability, and overall success? I see little reason to have faith in the maturity of the American people.; June 01, 2008 2:30 PM
greywolf said...: You are right it is not about the parties, or the candidates, it is about our country. But sadly we the american people as a whole are just as responsible as our leaders if not more because we with blinders, lack of thought, and that me me me attitude, failed to hold our city, state and federal elected officials responsible. We bought into their bull ****, and blindly followed them like sheep into oblivion where we now sit on the brink of total economic destruction. Maybe we need a major depression, maybe the whole world needs a major depression simular to that in the 30's to wake us up and start us in the right direction of being financially responsible and good stewards of this planet and the future of the world.; June 01, 2008 2:31 PM
suzihussein22 said...: greywolf-Just a thought when I read your link-They couldn't make to a caucus but they made it to this hearing? Where were their priorities?

ed iglehart-Thanks for the directions. I would go in a heartbeat...but I'll probably have to win the lottery first.

Jim-I'm a breathing contradiction of the "demographics" from polls in Appalachia. The averages of the results to date might be a better example, including the caucuses. I's easy to say it's not fair now that we're almost done with the primary. I had no idea it would be this close back last winter. I would have guessed HRC would have been way ahead by Super T, but I still voted for Obama.; June 01, 2008 2:35 PM
greywolf said...: If presented with the truth I mean the real truth, and the options, yes I truly believe they will. I honestly believe Americans are tired of politicians telling us what they think we want to hear. Americans want the hard bitter truth pill and they will swallow it with pride as long as our government does their part. Yes I do believe in the American people in that they finally realize that the truth, no matter how bitter or hard it will be to accept is a far cry better than the crap we have been fed for many years in the past.; June 01, 2008 2:35 PM
apissedant said...: greywolf,
I hope you're right. I still have to write to papers on special education, so I'm going to get that started. Another good chat.
Regardless, almost all on this site agree that we are now, finally heading in the right direction. They are just premoves, but they are still moves.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend everyone.; June 01, 2008 2:41 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: jayw

It's attitudes like yours that are not needed. Be respectful.

Thanks

Independent 4 Obama; June 01, 2008 2:41 PM
greywolf said...: I personally would love to see Obama and his finance guys sit down with our current national number and give the American people a jolt of truth for a change. I mean really sit down and go over the numbers, the real hard truth numbers. And then present a plan that will resolve those issues... and ask the American people to support those changes that need to be made. That would be ballsie, but I honetly believe it will work.; June 01, 2008 2:42 PM
greywolf said...: As many people have said this year, he talks to us like adults. So lets be adult about it and talk to the American people like adults and tell us how bad our economic situation really is. DOnt gloss over it, break it down into reality and then give us a solid plan that will take us in the right direction.

That is one of the main reasons I support him because he is the first candidate that openly admits he is not perfect that he will make mistakes, and he does talk to us like adults. I hope he remembers that and is very blunt and honest no matter how much it may hurt.; June 01, 2008 2:45 PM
Unknown said...: Hillary would have us believe that she didn't mean anything disrespectful to the Kennedys when she brought up the fact that RFK was assasinated in June of 1968. She said that she was merely bringing up an historical example of the nomination contest going into June and reminding us that "anything can happen".

I have decided to take her at her word. Let's look at what happened in 1968 as an example, merely, of a candidate continuing to press for the nomination even after his opponent had apparently sewn it up.

The fact of the matter, as this video illustrates, is that the candidate who had already sewn up the nomination was Hubert Humphrey and the candidates who were contining to pursue the nomination despite the mathematical impossibility of winning were Kennedy and Gene McCarthy.

Back in '68, unpledged delegates were the majority at the convention. The big issue was whether or not we should continue to fight in Vietnam and the Kennedy/McCarthy forces were unable to persuade a majority of these unpledged delegates. President Johnson called on them to consider the fact that it wasn't going to be a contest between Humphrey and Kennedy -- it was going to be a contest between Humphrey and the presumptive GOP nominee, Richard Nixon. The best thing, many long time Democrats were arguing, was for the anti-war candidates to drop out, unite behind Humphrey and beat Nixon in the fall.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Kennedy died, but his campaign continued on under the leadership of George McGovern. The hope they kept alive was that they could pry enough of the unpledged delegates out of the Humphrey camp to deny him a first ballot victory. Then, they hoped, popular opinion would force the Democrats to nominate an anti-war candidate.

What ended up happening? The Chicago convention of 1968 was the most rancorous and divisive convention in American history. The nation (which was very liberal in those days) was horrified and Nixon had an opening. He refered to his supporters as 'the silent majority'. Why did that happen? That happened because the Kennedy and McCarthy loyalists refused to give up -- even an assasination wasn't enough to get them to toss in the towel.

The lesson of 1968 is that a party that won't unite behind its nominee can lose an election they ought to have won. The Democrats continued to lose until 1976 -- when the Republicans continued to battle each other through the Kansas City convention.

I know these things because I lived through them. The Democrats couldn't get me to support Humphrey because I -- like a lot of people -- was following the lead of Kennedy and McCarthy and continued to press for an anti-war candidate even when it was impossible.

Some people are as eager to elect a female president in 2008 as I was to elect an anti-war candidate in 1968. I wonder if these people are going to end up regretting their inflexibility just as I now regret my inflexibility.; June 01, 2008 2:47 PM
apissedant said...: Emit,
Although I don't agree with his presentation, I don't find jay's post disrespectful. He gives his honest opinion without calling names.; June 01, 2008 2:47 PM
RobH said...: apissedant,

I wish I could witness (not live thru, but witness) the 30's to see how FDR did it.

He was re-elected twice. His first re-election in 1936 was at the depths of the worst times!

So a lesson might be drawn from his presidency - how'e he do it?

Oh, that's right - HE RESET OUR COMPASS with the New Deal. A further argument for my Manhatten Project type (Energy Independence Initiative) proposal.

A new PARADIGM, that's what we need.; June 01, 2008 2:47 PM
JayW said...: Emit,

My attitude, that of a realist, may not be "needed", but that does not make my assertions any less correct.

You cant fake the math... the "Bitter" HRC supporters that wont vote for Obama (and there are actually very few of them) AREN'T NEEDED!!!!

The polls show that I am right.

I am just sick of hearing them complain and threaten with their votes when any intelligent person realizes that Obama can, and will, WIN WITHOUT THEM!!!!

By the way... my earlier post was pretty respectful... at least for me.; June 01, 2008 2:49 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: OK

The delegate box on the left has been updated, and there is one more SD for Obama than earlier, but still no note on the "Superdelegate Endorsement Notes" page as to who it is. And that has been the situation for more than an hour!

Matt, Oreo, et al?

Can we get an update?

Mike; June 01, 2008 2:51 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: apissedant, I find jayw trying to distant or discount voters. We need to point out the great points of our candidate, not tear down someone else.

In some States like Texas, I would rather have Aunt Jean vote for someone that can impact our country and the world in a positive way, not continue to destroy it like we have seen the last several years under Bush.; June 01, 2008 2:51 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Mike in Maryland-

6-1-08 - Added DNC Yvonne Gates (NV) for Obama

It is listed on the Superdelegate endorsement page.; June 01, 2008 2:54 PM
greywolf said...: polls close in pr in a few minutes.; June 01, 2008 2:57 PM
Unknown said...: greywolf,

The things you say about voters believing politicians' lies about the economy are true -- but it goes so much deeper than that. Ever since Reagan came to power with the logic that "government can't solve our problems, government IS our problem", people have gotten used to the idea that, rather than striving to have good government, we ought to satisfy ourselves with no government (or at least a government that "gets off our backs").

I won't be satisfied if Obama simply wins the presidency. I want him to alter the stupid thinking we've been believing since 1980.; June 01, 2008 2:59 PM
Amot said...: Only officially, long lines are waiting to vote at many places... Like I use to say- the only certain thing about PR is the great uncertainty.; June 01, 2008 2:59 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Leah,

It is there, but when you click "Latest Endorsements" (which is where I always click to find the LATEST endorsement), the Gates endorsement is not listed. Latest listing on that page is "5-31-08 - Added DNC Claude "Buddy" Leach (LA) for Clinton".

I deduced that it was Gates from going to the "DCW Superdelegate Tracker" link and finding her in the Obama column.

Maybe there got to be too many places to list the endorsements?

Mike; June 01, 2008 3:00 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 01, 2008 3:09 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: MSNBC has a breaking news header that Obama has two SDs today. Figure there will be more, but would be nice if they put the names up. ;o); June 01, 2008 3:11 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Maine add-on for Obama!

"Delegates ratified the party chairman's nomination of Gwethalyn Phillips of Bangor, a former state party official, as an "unpledged add-on" delegate as specified in party rules. But Maine Democratic Party Executive Director Arden Manning said Phillips was recognized as an active Obama supporter."

----; June 01, 2008 3:13 PM
Unknown said...: Mike,

I see what you mean about the 'latest endorsements'. I imagine Matt and Oreo are catching their collective breath for the onslaught of new delegate endorsements that are soon to come.; June 01, 2008 3:15 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Mike in Maryland-

I stopped looking on the Latest Endorsement page when they started putting the latest endorsements at the TOP of the Superdelegate page - the top part of that page is updated quicker ;); June 01, 2008 3:15 PM
Peter said...: Clinton is winning big in PR, but turnout is low. My guess is that we will see something like 10-15 superdelegates endorsing Obama tomorrow, that will take the edge of any media talk about PR and will give him some momentum towards MT and SD. This will also give him a chance to get the majority by winning SD and MT instead of having superdelegates tipping him over the top on wednesday.; June 01, 2008 3:20 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Mike in Maryland said...
OK

The delegate box on the left has been updated, and there is one more SD for Obama than earlier, but still no note on the "Superdelegate

Come on Mike - I posted who it was at 1:17 today...

Oregon Dem said...
Obama's website is reporting that he has received the endorsement of Nevada super delegate Yvonne Gates:; June 01, 2008 3:27 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Oregon Dem said...
Come on Mike - I posted who it was at 1:17 today...

YES I KNOW THAT GATES WAS THE ENDORSER. JUST BE PROMPT IN UPDATING.

What I am saying is that the "Latest Endorsements" is where is ALSO should be posted.

If someone who has not been on DemConWatch for a while, they don't know where to look. Since there is a link that says "Latest Endorsements", isn't it logical to think that the latest Endorsement would be listed there?

All I'm asking for is that there be some type of consistency and promptness in posting the information (unless there is some reason for not doing it, such as the site being down, which doesn't seem to be the case right now).

As I said earlier, maybe there are too many places where the information is recorded, and some of the links need to be taken down. However, as long as the links are in place, they should be updated in a reasonable time frame.

Mike; June 01, 2008 3:51 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Mike in Maryland-

I understand what you are saying.

Perhaps you should email Oreo and Matt at:

demconwatch -at- google groups.com

Replace -at- with @ with no spaces.

They are not going to see your concern here on the OPEN THREAD so emailing would be more productive.

OBAMA '08; June 01, 2008 3:56 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Congratulations HRC campaign.; June 01, 2008 4:04 PM
RobH said...: Leah,

Aren't these great times?

After all the anxiety...
The solr message in the media is...
inevitability,

It feels great.

I just wish some supers wouls announce alreasy. They're killin' me.; June 01, 2008 4:04 PM
jpsedona said...: RobH,

re your comments on FDR...

In his first term, my perspective is "he did what he had to do". He got people back to work and restored confidence in government and the economy. He also introduced necessary government reforms (e.g. FDIC) and others to secure the financial systems. His pumping of dollars from the Fed government into the economy lifted the economy.

Clearly one of our great Presidents.

However, there are many extremely negative aspects of his presidency. His creation of the Social Security system, generally socialist approaches to redistribution of wealth and enlargement of the Fed government set future Presidents (and all of us) on a disasterous path.

I would agree with you about the need for a 'Manhatten Project' (or maybe more appropriately a parallel to the 1960's space program) for energy independence.; June 01, 2008 4:07 PM
Dilbuck said...: HRC: "I am winning the swing states like Puerto Rico."; June 01, 2008 4:14 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: RobH -

Yep - these are great times, but I am still waiting for the moment that Obama reaches 2118 then I can really celebrate :)

What I heard earlier is that Obama probably will have enough supers to come on out to put him within 10 delegates of winning and then let the results of MT put him over the top on Tuesday evening. I hope he gets to 2118 so that he can announce the nomination Tuesday evening at his big rally.

OBAMA '08; June 01, 2008 4:15 PM
RobH said...: Leah,

I have a feeling that a certain group of bloggers will be on their favorite site (here) on Tues night, and we'll have a whole bunch of messages that synthezize down to:

TES! YES! YES!, YIPPIEE!

IUt will be fine.

And now I'll self-promote for the very last time. When MT is called for Obama on Tues night, and he gets ready to speak, perhaps you'll recall my prognostication from way back regarding this night, and say "ya' know, even though I won Amot's contest, there was this guy Rob.....

Only kidding....

Happiness is ours today, and tomorrow...; June 01, 2008 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...: to all obama supporters.
I f Clinton decides to take it to the Credentials Committee, that 2118 number becomes moot again.
I think she will.
Sorry.; June 01, 2008 4:31 PM
JayW said...: Jim,

I hope you are right... I hope HRC does take it to the Credentials Committee.

That would be AWESOME... she would be committing political suicide and would never be elected to another public office again. I think that would be GREAT!!!! For once we would finally be rid of the wicked witch of the democratic party.

I am just waiting for her to break down into tears again... afraid of sniper fire. "Tears of a clown!"; June 01, 2008 4:42 PM
jpsedona said...: Jim,

Any credentials challenge by Hillary would lose at this point. The reason is that the Obama supporters on the committee + the Howard Dean loyalists are not going to allow the challenge to stand.

Someone challenging from the floor would fail as well (since he'd have the majority of the delegates on the floor without MI and/or FL.

She would only challenge MI under a circumstance where she wins the bulk of the remaining SD's. If Obama covers the margin in MI for uncommitted plus 4 allocated by the RBC (+29.5 full delegates), she won't challenge.

Chances of winning seating delegations at 100% is zero.

If Obama captures the majority of the remaining delegates, the Obama camp will place a floor motion to allow FL & MI their full votes.

But the chances of Hillary forcing anything... zero. Chances of Obama winning the nomination ... priceless?; June 01, 2008 4:43 PM
Betty Renaldo said...: If I could talk to all of the super delegates....I'd tell them how it is disturbing to me that H.Clinton agreed to the terms beforehand about FL and MI and then was the only Dem. to campaign in FL and the only Dem. to put her name on the MI ballot and feels that NOW these states should count when it really does not truly represent all of the people's choice in these states.

That's just not John Wayne.

It's more like the little girl I knew growing up with the angelic face and always won at all the board games and card games because she kept changing the rules and was strong-willed and mean.

I am a middle-aged white woman and I have lived to see the day that a sharp, intelligent woman is running for president and it makes me upset to even think of her becoming president.

I have an eleven year old daughter and she doesn't need to have H. Clinton become president for her to believe that she can become the President of the United States.,,she always belived she could be the President of The United States and it was her goal in life since kindergarten, but now she wants to be a surgeon.

Honor is more important than gender or position. I want my daughter to have a president that sets an example for my daughter by being a president with honor, more than any other trait.

The way that H. Clinton has conducted herself with FL. and MI has not been with honor and not with class. Even more disturbing is that she is misleading others in the process and hurting her political party.

My daughter doesn't need H. Clinton to show her how to be a 'fighter' and a 'scrapper'. My daughter knows how to stand her ground for what is right and true and what she believes while maintaining her dignity and sense of honor. Because of this, other children naturally follow my daughter.

I have friends with children in high school. They are telling me that there is a huge increase of girls exploring being lesbian because....'oral sex is not really sex'. There are girls in my son's jr. high that willingly perform oral sex on boys because...'oral sex is not really sex'.

(I have friends that ask me how I can realistically expect our sons to remain chaste until they're married. My reply to them is how can I realistically expect my sons to exhibit control and remain true and faithful to their future wives if I can't expect them to exhibit any control before they are married?)

The point is if H. Clinton left Bill when he was unfaithful she would of sent a message to all of our country's young girls and woman what TRUE STRENGTH is....and to all of our young people...'oh yes, oral sex IS sex.'

H. Clinton does NOT represent strength or honor to me. She is NOT in my mind a good example for my daughter in the least bit, or my my granddaughters...or my sons.; June 01, 2008 4:43 PM
billyjay66 said...: jpsedona

Social Security = redistribution of wealth.

Let's see now.....any income above $110K is free of being taxed by SS. Are you actually saying this tax is collected from above and distributed below???; June 01, 2008 4:44 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Jim-

Once Obama reaches 2118 there isn't anyone going to take it away from him. The goal posts have been moved too many times. After 2118 is reaching there will be many many many more SDs jumping on the band wagon and if HRC takes her complaint to the Credentials Committee it isn't going anywhere. Michigan is the one that worked on that Michigan proposal and they are not going to budge on it. And besides if Hillary does make a fuss about Michigan it is going to make her look bad and she has her future to worry about now so she is not going to do anything that will affect her negatively. Just my opinion but I think that is how it is going to be.

Needed to win:

OBAMA 64
Clinton 240.5

There is no way HRC can win even if she had ALL delegates from Michigan!

Everyone is just letting HRC have some time now to go out gracefully while the clock runs out.

OBAMA '08; June 01, 2008 4:47 PM
jpsedona said...: billyjay66,

Distribution of wealth policies were different than social security. FDR is the creator/father of the welfare & entitlement system in the US.

HAD there been a safe and secure method of saving the Social Security payments made into the system since it's introduction, instead of spending them, there'd be monies there today.; June 01, 2008 4:49 PM
Oregon Dem said...: All:

MSNBC is now saying Obama has 49.5 to clinch it - not sure where their numbers come from - have been paying too much attention to the NASCAR race....; June 01, 2008 4:51 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Or Dem

Think they have already added in PR.

They also say two SDs today for Obama; June 01, 2008 4:52 PM
apissedant said...: FDR had something huge in his favor: we'd already hit bottom. We haven't hit bottom this time. The fact is, when FDR ran for reelection, the country was in better shape than when he had started in 1933. He was a great president, and I truly admire what he was able to do, but unfortunately it isn't fully comparable.

Emit,
Like I said, I disagree with the way he says it. I would rather to bring those voters back into the fold and increase the unity of our country. This is one of Obama's main talking points after all. However, it is still his right to say it, and it is no where near as terrible as the things that aunt jean, yama, or the other Clintonites have said.; June 01, 2008 4:53 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yep - MSNBC is projecting PR delegates because they just said that Obama now needs only 46 more to win the nomination ;); June 01, 2008 4:54 PM
magia said...: Jim said...
to all obama supporters.
If Clinton decides to take it to the Credentials Committee, that 2118 number becomes moot again.
I think she will.
____

So do I, and so would I. I don't think it will really cost her any more money, which is the one barrier always, and there is a validity in the arguments.

If there are rules - and there are - that (1) the actual vote MUST be used to allocate delegates and (2) there can be no votes for anyone not on a ballot, then the MI allocation could be at 50%, but needed to start from 73 and 0.

It's just not up to this committee to change the criteria. That is why I said yesterday that Obama should have agreed to that element, then gone forward with the next three races, taken his SD's and it would have had legitimacy.

Now, we have another delay as this new wrinkle is settled. Not smart on his part.

Oh, and if any of you think he couldn't have orchestrated this result, you are delusional. (Did I steal that word from someone here? Oops.)

And again on pastor-gate,
while I have believed that Wright "acted out" so that BO could flick him off with no questions as to his loyalty-factor, that and this latest really seem wrong. If Obama can be so easily "divorced" from a deep-seated loyalty to his church, does that bode well? It appears calculated, not honest. He has not evidenced a backbone here, so the church factor becomes a lose-lose. Again, not too smart on his part (in my opinion.); June 01, 2008 4:57 PM
RobH said...: Jim.

I'm an Obama supporter and you're a Republican.

2118 will not be moot.

You think she'll take it to the Cred Committe, but you'll be wrong.

Yes, we know you're...just... plain...sorry.

I predict you'll post again.
Prove me wrong.; June 01, 2008 5:03 PM
RobH said...: Hey Magia,

When all else fails, let's go back to pastor-gate.

You're out of chips.; June 01, 2008 5:06 PM
billyjay66 said...: Jpsedona

I reread your post. See what you were saying. You are right, SS surpluses are just a big cookie jar to dig into. Government officials complain that SS surpluses are no longer going to grow, so they can no longer milk the cow for more each year.; June 01, 2008 5:07 PM
greywolf said...: Hmmm he is not winning as well as everyone though. Darn sure wish I had stayed with my original thoughts. LOL; June 01, 2008 5:08 PM
jpsedona said...: magia,,

I think it would have been better if it had been 73-55 from a strategy perspective. Obama would have been allocated the majority of the uncommitted. The 69-59 was unnecessary.

However, that said, they also should have first had a motion that the MI election was flawed and invalid contest. That was implied, but should have been in their motions.

I think they would have done that if they went to 50%-50% route. Apparently there were enough votes to do that. So, Hillary came out better than she could have.

As far as unity is concerned... the RBC was not a real effort at unity. It was an exercise in closure.

For Hillary, it's over.; June 01, 2008 5:10 PM
greywolf said...: billyjay66 said...
Jpsedona

I reread your post. See what you were saying. You are right, SS surpluses are just a big cookie jar to dig into. Government officials complain that SS surpluses are no longer going to grow, so they can no longer milk the cow for more each year.

They have taken so much from the SS so called surplus that now if they do not put money back in; the system will be bankrupt before I pass on.. and I am 57. That sucks for all those in my age bracket, and all those that will be coming in behind me.; June 01, 2008 5:11 PM
Independent Voter said...: grey - Exit polls. One thing that I found interesting about the exit polls conducted by msnbc - you know the questions favorable, unfavorable, not sure.

Obama had a 52% approval, 10% disapproval and 37% said not sure. So what this really says it's not that they didn't like him, they just don't know him.; June 01, 2008 5:12 PM
greywolf said...: Independent....

They dont know him because, and I am being honest... he put no real effort in PR. Once it was obvious he was winning he backed off. I think if he had made a real concerted effort in PR, he would have kicked her hinney.; June 01, 2008 5:15 PM
greywolf said...: but he didnt and that now falls as water under the bridge. I just wish he had stayed on the campaign trail as if he had lost, then there would be no questions anyone could raise because he would have done much better across the board and maybe even won some of those states he lost.; June 01, 2008 5:17 PM
jpsedona said...: grey,

There is NO money in the syetm. It does not exist. Every dollar of every person who has paid Social Security is GONE. There is no trust fund. If no money means bankrupt to you... then they are bankrupt today...; June 01, 2008 5:17 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Well now this is how I see it...

Hillary has three options, she can retire in West Virginia, Kentucky, or Puerto Rico where the people adore her ;)

OBAMA '08; June 01, 2008 5:18 PM
tmess2 said...: Based on what the Clinton campaign said yesterday, 2118 is the final number. The dispute now is about 29.5 delegate votes from Michigan.

Some misstatements have been made about the rules. The rules do not require the party to use the results of the Michigan Primary. The party is free to (and by a vote of 19-8 did) find that the Michigan Primary as certified by the Michigan Election Authority was invalid under party rules. In the absence of an election which fully complied with party rules, the issue then becomes how do you allocate delegates to reflect the preferences of Michigan voters.

I disagree with how the RBC estimated the delegates. My preferred solution would have been to keep the 73-55 split with Obama getting the right of review over the 55. That, however, is a disagreement with the RBC on a factual issue (how much weight to give to a fatally flawed election in trying to figure out voter preference). No rules were violated by the RBC decision.; June 01, 2008 5:19 PM
greywolf said...: 68-32 is not the kind of numbers I would have settled for had I been in his shoes. Some say he was backing off to give her some glory, if that is so, I still would not have done so. I would have made every effort to seal the deal so tight that it would make sure she did not make any attempt in 2012 against me if I decided to run again.; June 01, 2008 5:19 PM
greywolf said...: tmess...

I agree whole heartedly; June 01, 2008 5:21 PM
tmess2 said...: Jpsedona, while I disagree with a lot of how Social Security is run, there is an error in your statement that Social Security is bankrupt.

Social Security currently holds a significant amount of government bonds in its trust funds. Those are assets and pretty good assets at that. The U.S. has never defaulted on its debts.

My problem with the trust fund as a trust fund is that it still government property. Without defaulting on its debt or incurring any legal liability, those assets could be transferred to any other government account.; June 01, 2008 5:23 PM
RobH said...: Well, hallelujah,

The one remaining talking point the Clinton campaign dies today on teh horns of lower than expected turnout in PR. (That argument being the lame pop vote contention.)

Obama led going into today by 166K, not even counting the four causcus staes and VI, Amer Samoa, and Guam (gotta count them if HIll counts PR, right?) Looks now like HIll will only pick up 100K votes today. Obama will extend his lead on Tues night.

Looks like the only way to believe Hill's claim is for you to count the asterisk of MI. Every time they try to claim they won pop vote, they'll need to answer to fantasy math.

Well, hallelujah.; June 01, 2008 5:25 PM
JayW said...: Betty Renaldo...

I 100% agree with everything you said in your 4:43PM post.

---Obama '08; June 01, 2008 5:29 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
That is silly. The government borrows money all the time. If you own a government bond, then the government borrowed money from you. That is all they did with the social security fund. Instead of borrowing money from China, they borrowed money from us. Big deal. I would rather they borrow the money from me, and give me a decent interest rate, then borrow the money from China, and give China a decent interest rate.; June 01, 2008 5:30 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: magia,

Your child comes to you and tells you they will be out past the curfew you set for them.

You ask them why, and they tell you "Because I want to."

You tell that child 'No, and if you do, there will be consequences.'

They obey the curfew that day/night/week/whatever.

Later, your child comes to you and again tells you they will be out past the curfew you set for them.

Again, you ask them "Why?" and again they tell you "Because I want to."

You tell them to reconsider, and/or propose a different time they will return, or why the curfew is not right and fair to them now, and that you will discuss it with them, but until they get permission or the curfew changes, the current curfew remains in place.

They tell you they will not change their mind, and that they will stay out past the curfew.

Again, you tell them "No, obey the curfew, or there will be consequences."

What do you do when they actually stay out past the curfew, and have no reason for doing so except that they want to do so?

This is the situation that Michigan and Florida put the DNC. The rules stated that the primaries and caucuses would be held in a certain time frame, and anyone who violated those time frames would be penalized.

Michigan, in 2004, threatened an early primary, earlier than the date the rules permitted. They were told by Terry McAulliffe (then-DNC Chairman) that if they held an early primary that they would be on the outside looking in at the National Convention. Michigan backed down.

This time, both Michigan and Florida scheduled an early primary, earlier than the date the rules permitted. The DNC told them to reschedule, and gave them one deadline, then another deadline, then ANOTHER deadline to submit alternate plans for their primaries.

Both states refused to change their primary dates, or to select a date to pick delegates in a caucus or some other method (Michigan KNOWS how to hold a caucus, as they held one in 2000 and again in 2004).

Even though the DNC bent over backwards before imposing the penalties on the states, they BOTH told the DNC where to stuff it.

And you think that someone, other than Michigan and Florida, was unreasonable?

If you do, you are perpetrating a false argument, and a wrong argument. And if you really believe the argument that Senator Clinton is using, you have been deluded, or you cannot look at life as it actually exists in reality.

If you have a child, and they defy you on a curfew, will you tell them that they can defy you with no consequences? I bet you won't.

Think about it. Then apply the same logic to Michigan and Florida.

Mike; June 01, 2008 5:32 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Okay everyone stand up sway your hips and clap your hands and holler

Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Halleluuuuuuujah ...

Let us wave 'our' magic wands so that the sky will open up and the celestial choir will sing for our nominee!!!

OBAMA '08
.; June 01, 2008 5:34 PM
apissedant said...: mike,
What about New Hampshire? New Hampshire broke the rules and "stayed out past curfew."; June 01, 2008 5:35 PM
apissedant said...: What I wonder... The guy that published the article earlier claiming that the turnout would be over 2 million people... will he have the gull to publish an article in the next week?; June 01, 2008 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...: jpsedona said...
Jim,

Any credentials challenge by Hillary would lose at this point. The reason is that the Obama supporters on the committee + the Howard Dean loyalists are not going to allow the challenge to stand.
jp,
Good try, no banana.
It only requires 20% of the committee members to push ittothe floor.; June 01, 2008 5:43 PM
greywolf said...: according to the green papers ....

Hillary now has a popular vote lead of 210K; June 01, 2008 5:43 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Regarding Social Security - There IS a surplus. And the Social Security System will continue to receive more monies than monies paid out each year until (currently estimated) 2018. At that point, the monies paid out each year will exceed the monies paid in each year.

There is NOT a 'trust fund' in the sense that there is a 'bank account' where those funds are stashed. Any monies that go into Social Security in excess of the monies that are paid out are invested in US Treasury bonds. In other words, the Social Security funds are part of the funds used to finance the deficits each Fiscal Year, and thus are part of the national debt.

Once we cross the threshold when more money is paid out than is coming in, you can consider it similar to a personal savings account. You start out putting 'excess' funds in, it grows and earns interest. You might make an occasional withdrawal, but generally it continues to grow. At some point, you start withdrawing more money than you are putting in. Does that mean, at that point that there is nothing in the account?

If you think so, you might believe that I have ocean front property in Kansas you might want to buy.

Mike; June 01, 2008 5:48 PM
JayW said...: Jim,

Although some of her supporters are... HRC is not stupid enough to think that it is worthwhile to take anything to the Credentials Committee. She knows that if she does she will NEVER be elected to public office again.

The democratic party is becoming very sick of her maneuvering as of late. They have been tolerant up until now... but the game is over. Obama has won.

She can either get with the program and begin supporting him or she will be fed to the sharks all alone.; June 01, 2008 5:49 PM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; June 01, 2008 5:49 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: In this democratic nomination race the ONLY thing that counts is the DELEGATES.

For those that are looking at pop. vote you have to look at the totals WITH caucuses and WITHOUT Michigan.

http://realclearpolitics.com/

.; June 01, 2008 5:50 PM
jpsedona said...: apissedant,

If the US Government loans money from Social Security to itself (the general treasury) to fund the budget & pays interest, we are merely racking up debt that as taxpayers we eventually have to pay.

I'm sure that you could come up with a better socialized approach to government given the chance...; June 01, 2008 5:51 PM
Meg said...: Hillary is about to take the podium in PR.

Aunt Jean, was that really necessary?; June 01, 2008 5:53 PM
jpsedona said...: Jim,

20% to take it to the floor? Good try... wouldn't matter. As I said before...

If it gets to the floor, Hillary loses. How could she win if the majority on the floor (which won't include the challenged delegations) are Obama supporters?; June 01, 2008 5:55 PM
Meg said...: 5 minutes into her speech and she's asking them to visit her website and make a donation.; June 01, 2008 5:57 PM
greywolf said...: so Leah...

what is the real number in Popular vote lead.. ? The lines in RCP are confusing...tell is it the yellow lines?

If that is so then what are the news media people saying. They say she has the popular vote lead; June 01, 2008 5:58 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 3801 – 4000 of 4317 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

4317 comments:

Tags