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 1001 – 1200 of 4317 Newer› Newest»

jpsedona said...: Yam,

DCW has updated their MI scenarios. IMO, option 1 and option 5 (your favorite), are extremely unlikey.

If the RBC were to adopt one of these five scenarios, I'd bet on Option 4 (1/2 pledged, full votes for SD's). I think that option 3 has a reasonable probability.

My favored scenario (seat FL delegates full & 69-59 full, and then penalize the SD's a 1/2 vote) is not a current option.

Nor is my second favored scenario (dpenalize just the SD's a 1/2 vote; then seat FL & MI pledged according to the primaries. MI uncommitted are contested ... Obama has received most but not all uncommitted at the district level, remainder selected by the MI central committee).

This later scenario is one that I believe you support should the DNC decide to penalize the states in some fashion.

In any event, even option 5, Hillary is actually more than 100 behind (given MI district conventions). I tend to think she'll be behind by closer to 115-120 when the RBC actually decides.; May 22, 2008 12:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Yamaka said:
Why I wont split the Uncommitted votes in MI:

1. BHO did not want the voters vote for him in Jan. The voting occurred on Jan 29, and there were 4 names in the ballot including HRC, and 4 names removed including BHO.

2. Whether a candidate withdrawn/suspended the quest for the Nomination or not, some voters meant to vote for him. How many meant to vote for Ed, Ob, Rich or Bid cannot be understood now. It is impossible.

Yamaka therefore concludes that the legitimate vote total for Michigan is 328000 for Clinton, zero for Obama.

328000, compared to 2.48 million votes cast for Kerry in 2004. That's 13%.

In comparison, in Florida there were 1,749,920 primary votes cast, compared to 3,583,544 votes cast for Kerry in 2004. That's 49%.

Of the other states with open primaries, Tennessee is the next lowest, at 60%.

That is the continuing Clinton/Yamaka definition of democracy.; May 22, 2008 12:41 PM
jpsedona said...: Hippo,

Last night you were asking about why we haven't heard more about the politicians in FL & MI that created the current mess. That's a good question... we know that there's been some spin from Hillary about FL & the Repubs (although Dem's were complicit in moving up the date).

You've identified a couple of the villans in this story. And another politician is Sen Carl Levin (MI), an Obama supporter, has been the real force behind moving up the MI primary in 2004 & 2008.

The RBC could administer a level of justice for this mess by penalizing the SD's in both states. I don't see them excluding the SD's (since they're needed in the GE), but I think it would be a good start to reduce them all to 1/2 vote.

And, should they still have SD's at all in 2012, they should rewrite the rules that penalize the entire pledged delegation 1/2 vote and strip all SD's if a contest is moved up ahead of the Dem Party Schedule.; May 22, 2008 12:44 PM
Random said...: meeting on 31st, Clinton appeals because she is going to keep demanding the most unreasonable solution (0% MI vote for Obama), then it gets decided by the DNC at the convention (which is how it works if I understand correctly). 2025 doesnt matter anymore, because as long as FL and MI are contested, there is no winning number.

Clinton holds on to her 48% delegates and goes to the convention with the her same argument (i lost the primary but im still the better canidate). its her only chance to win, by going to the convention.

so if I understand the system, there is no way to prevent her from draggin it to the convetion? and if she does that, there is no way to prevent her from drilling for SDs for 3 months? and going to the convention screaming about the rights of voters and why black people cannot win GEs and how she has been treated unfairly because she is a woman. all wedge issues. its the only thing she has since the 2 are so close on real issues.

I just dont see how the democrates win in Nov under that scenario. theres already a huge divide. it will be much worse by Aug, with little time for unity building. personally, id vote for either of the two, but why do we let 1 person divide the party?

really, what can stop that scenario? does anyone really believe Clinton intends to bow out in June? or take the VP slot? i dont, i think shes do or die, and if its a small % chance at the convention its worth it to her to risk the GE election. if she really doesnt believe Obama can win, then to her she is not even risking, she is saving it. very delusional, very dangerous thinking.

if Clinton doesnt bow out of the race by June 3rd, id give McCain a 90-95% to win. 4 more years of Bush, 4 more years of war.

plz tell me im wrong; May 22, 2008 12:47 PM
Ariane said...: grantwoods again.
I have been disgusted with all sides in this Fla. and Michigan mess.

The states went against the rules knowing in advance they were technically disenfranchising their own voters, because they thought because of their size they could force it. And it is not just the Republicans' fault as some like to claim about Florida - the Democratic legislators went with it too. In fact if they had made a good faith effort to prevent it, the DNC rules say they could have avoided the penalty. There is definitely a point to there being some consequences for breaking rules as a deterrence to more states breaking rules next time. I think it is very bad to allow a precedent of large states going early since it makes it almost impossible for candidates with less funding to have any early success which might enable them to then attract more funding to continue.

Yet it is still not the voters' fault. The voters got really screwed by their elected officials. So I might say just take away their superdelegates but I'm not sure that is enough of a deterrent - and even more importantly I believe it would be unfair to totally use the results of the votes where there was no campaigning and where people were told they would not count.

I really thought there should have been revotes which seemed like the only way to avoid one or another large group of people being extremely (and justifiably) angry. Seating delegates based on the non-campaigned popularity/name recognition poll is not fair - since A) we've seen there is quite a difference in poll results after they campaign in a state- and B) it is unfair to people who did not vote BECAUSE they were told it would not count - -or voted instead in the Republican primary since at least it would count 50%. This is especially true in MI where all but one of the top candidates took their names off the ballot to show good faith after all the major candidates signed a pledge not to participate in those unauthorized elections. - -and the candidate who did NOT remove her name said in an interview that it didn't matter since the election "wouldn't count for anything". It's ridiculous to say it's a regular fair election just because 40% voted for Uncommitted. Certain Obama and Edwards supporters in Michigan did try to get people to do that to avoid the publicity value of Clinton getting a huge percentage; but not everyone saw a protest vote as worth their while - -they were told the election would not count anyway and they knew there would be no way to know later who the Uncommitted votes were for. I've heard that there's also the problem that some people mistakenly wrote the names of Obama or Edwards and had it thrown out.

Nobody has come out looking good in this Fla. Mich, mess - not the state legislatures, not the state parties, not the DNC, not the candidates who both seem hypocritical - - and anyone who totally thinks their candidate is right and noble in this seems to me extremely naive. Obama looked lame for not calling for re-votes, but just saying blandly that he would go along with the DNC, apparently just hoping it would end up not mattering anyway - -it looks against his idea of new politics that he is just trying to ingratiate himself with the DNC. Even worse is the proposal of just dividing the delegates 50/50 that was ludicrously suggested by the Obama campaign - 50/50 is no different than zero/zero as far as the voters actually having any influence on the ratio. That is as ridiculous as saying it's fair to seat the Mich. vote based on that practically Soviet style election.

To me it seems it would have been smarter to be loudly calling for revotes - - he would have done better than he did in January and might have won Michigan according to some polls. AND would increase his chance of winning it in November. Not calling for revotes left an opening for HRC to convince people he is to blame.

But I learned that one of the Obama camp's major objections to the Michigan revote was that only people who had NOT voted in the Republican primary in January would be allowed to vote in the proposed re-vote, and there were some Democrats who had crossed over and voted in the Republican primary which the RNC had announced would be penalized 50% - -but at least they had a chance to have some vote counted by voting Republican (some of which may have been a Democratic version of Operation Chaos). Of course this was more likely for supporters of Democratic candidates who had taken their names off the ballot. Voters were NEVER told at the time that this would prevent them from voting in a Democratic revote. So not only was it unfair, there was a lot of chance of lawsuits that would hold it up.

But I'm also cynical about HRC's suddenly caring about the rights of the voters of those two states as soon as it would help her - -after signing the pledge to not participate and previously stating publically that the votes wouldn't count (and NOT saying that she thought that was a problem). Does anyone seriously believe she would now be for seating the delegations if it were not to her personal advantage? And to me it seems NUTS for her to call Michigan a fair election when she's one of the people who told voters it would not count.

The fact she is now going around saying she's ahead in the popular vote - -but to get that you have to count Fla and Mich but give Obama 0 for Michigan AND have to NOT count Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington - - is also totally nuts sounding to anyone not blindly partisan.

Without revotes I would say seat Fla at 50% since at least everyone was on the ballot and they did have a large turnout (though likely lower turnout among renters since one of the reasons for the turnout was an important property tax vote). It is still unfair but less unfair than Michigan. But strip them of the superdelegates. For Michigan I do not see any solution that is even vaguely fair to the voters without a revote. But they have to do something, I really can't see giving them nothing even though the politicians themselves deserve the strongest punishement. So I guess just let them have the solution the state has proposed.; May 22, 2008 12:48 PM
Martin said...: Dear Democrats:

Just an update:

Barack got so far 16,676,346 votes as per realclearpolitics line 1.

He is leading by 454K. At this point he is the Majority Candidate and HRC is a Minority Candidate (no pun intended here!).

SDs will have tough time to vote for a Minority Candidate, if BHO's lead maintains as of June 4, 2008. I believe hid lead will swell to atleast 600K, taking into a/c ALL legitimate votes polled.

DCW can create a new Box to tell the world as to the best number available on Popular Votes.

Now, Barack's Math is:

1964 + 61 = 2025, the Real Hurdle is 2025.

There are 240 undeclared SDs left, plus 86 Ds, 55 uncommitted and 20 Ed leaning Ds. Out of all this, his getting 61 is quite inevitable, IMO.

My Call to Barack Hussein Obama:

Lion, keep campaigning hard in all the remaining States as you have done so far.

Let HRC drink beer, buy pantsuits or dodge sniper fire. Just ignore her.

Keep shaking hands of all the voters.

Accrue more and more of Popular Vote lead and maintain the undisputed leader of the Majority Votes.

Just relax between June 4 and Aug 24.

Roar into the Podium of the Convention and ask the Delegates to Nominate the most popular vote getter, who has the broad support of the American People, to win the GE.

The SDs will respond kindly to your irrefutable logic of simple reasoning. For, the Majority should Rule the day. And you, Barack Obama, have already won the Majority.

There is no possible way for HRC to win this primary, so don't sweat it! Fuzzy math, goalpost moving and threats cannot save her now. I'm sure she will continue to be a fine Senator for the next 8 years!

God will bless you for your tenacity of purpose and excellent public service.

:-) :-); May 22, 2008 12:54 PM
Yamaka said...: Folks:

I just read a piece that BHO has asked Jim Johnson - the same man who picked the VP for Mondale and Kerry - to pick a VP for him!

I was reminded of what happened to Mondale/Kerry's quest for the WH.

Is there an irony in the making?lol

I thought our friends here suggested Michelle to be the VP!

Oh, no, BHO is disrespectful to the DCW fans of his!

:-(________________________

jp:

RBC clearly is in a very tight spot.

Whatever they do they cannot satisfy both the candidates!

This conflict is evident in the words and opinions of Gov Dean:

1. Don't punish the Voters of MI and FL. Punish the Politicians and Officials who did everything wrong in this case.

2. Satisfy both the Candidates.

3. See that the other 48 States are not hurt in any way.

He and the RBC are in no-win situation. This is unnecessary, and does NOT speak well of their real leadership at a very dangerous time for the Party.

I will prioritize and take item 1, very seriously and seat all delegates AS IS.

Item 1 is the Superior Doctrine here. Others are just political pandering/posturing.

Identify and punish the SDs who were really responsible for this Fiasco like Gov of MI and Sen Levin and a few more of the Officials (Maybe a total of 10-15 SDs in MI and FL).

Don't worry about item 2 and 3.

Stand on a Supreme Doctrine of Count ALL Votes and Seat ALL delegates, as per the wishes of the voters at the time of voting, period.

Going to RBC Meeting is a good idea.

Alexis Herman is very good friend of Hillary and Bill, as is James Roosevelt Jr.

:-)
_______________________________

Jay:

Just do whatever makes sense to you.

Be happy and humorous, if you can!

Life is short, smile a lot!; May 22, 2008 12:57 PM
Yamaka said...: martin:

Hilarious. Have fun. Enjoy.

:-); May 22, 2008 12:59 PM
Yamaka said...: "2025 doesnt matter anymore, because as long as FL and MI are contested, there is no winning number."

vixx:

Amen. Well Said.

All Votes Cast must be included, their delegates seated, as per Full Inclusive Representative Democracy!

State/DNC Officials and Politicians violated the Rule. Punish them.

Not the innocent Voters.

Punishing the innocent Voters is a sacrilegious act in Democracy.

Votes are holier than Pope!

Seat MI and FL as is, please.

:-); May 22, 2008 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Here are some more numbers, assuming that Florida and Michigan get ALL of their delegates.

If Florida is split 108-66 and Michigan is split 73-55, as per GreenPapers, that would give Obama 1778.5 pledged delegates, only 5 short of the 1783.5 needed for a majority of all the pledged delegates.

So Florida and Michigan can get their full contingents.

I very much doubt that any state will pull this stunt again in the future.

Vixx said:
if Clinton doesnt bow out of the race by June 3rd, id give McCain a 90-95% to win. 4 more years of Bush, 4 more years of war. plz tell me im wrong

I think Hillary Clinton will take this to the convention and even to the courts. But she will lose. Big. Her position is so laughable that no elected member of the Democratic party will come out in favor of it. It will only make it easier for her current supporters to move towards Obama.; May 22, 2008 1:09 PM
Yamaka said...: Folks:

In the Democratic Party of today only 2 people have the legitimacy and track record:

1. William J. Clinton who got elected twice to the WH with 370-376 EVs, since FDR.

Bill is the undisputed Lion of the Party.

2. Hillary Rodham Clinton who got 17,639,952 votes, the most in any Presidential Primary, anytime in our Union, so far. This will increase further by June 4, 2008.

Hillary is the undisputed Lioness of the Party.

All others, step back, stand aside!

You are all perennial loser and/or fuzzy talkers with messy character, judgment and credibility.

SDs, are you listening?; May 22, 2008 1:19 PM
JayW said...: Yamaka,

I can picture you at home with your blow up dolls of Hillary and Bill. Do you have the Hillary strap-on model? Does the Bill blow up doll come with a bonus Monica Lewinsky doll? What about the horse-faced daughter? Do you have her doll too?

In all honesty, I do feel bad for you. It must be tough getting out of bed every morning knowing that you support a losing cause.

At least you sit home all day and post on the internet... someone of your mental aptitude shouldn't be out driving around on the roads endangering other people.; May 22, 2008 1:27 PM
Random said...: yamaka says: "Punishing the innocent Voters is a sacrilegious act in Democracy.

Seat MI and FL as is, please."

what about people in MI who wanted to vote for Obama, and were told a vote for uncommited was a vote for Obama. do those voters get punished as well? or do they fall into your count every vote?

how about the voters in Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington? do we count their votes as well? or do they not count?

do we only count the votes that help Hillary? and punish or ignore the votes that were cast for Obama?

please dont project your hypocritical views onto mine. tnxs

im honestly not concerned about Fl and MI voters. im concerned about thousands of dead Amercian soldiers over the next 4 years from the 11 billion a month war.; May 22, 2008 1:29 PM
jpsedona said...: This Post Includes a Political Test

Jim said: "It is frustrating to her, to see someone who has been beaten for three solid months claiming victory"

This a fair point. Maybe 1968 would be interesting in comparison.

In 1968, following Robert Kennedy's assination, the winner of the nomination was Hubert Humphrey.

Now the QIZ:

1) How many contests did Humphrey win? ZERO. He focused on non-primary states and did not compete in the primaries.

2) How many states held primaries? 13 states held primaries.

3) Who won the popular vote? Eugene McCarthy.

4) Where did Humphrey finish in the popular vote? Humphrey finished 8th.

5) At the convention, how close was the delegate vote? Humphrey 1759; Eugene McCarthy 601; McGivern 146.

6) So, McCarthy who came in second in the Presidential ballots while winning the most primaries was the VP choice? Nope, it was Edmund Muskie with 1942 votes; "Not Voting" was second with 604; McCarthy received 3 votes for VP.

7) So, who won the battleground states of FL, PA & OH? McCarthy won PA; Sen. Stephen Young won his home state of OH; Sen. George Smathers won his home state of FL.

8) But if Sen. Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, he would have won right? maybe, maybe not. Kennedy was killed after the CA primary and before the NY primary where McCarthy polled strongly in NYC with his anti-war message. But even so, at the time of his death, Humphrey was way ahead in Delegates: Humphrey (561), Kennedy (393) and McCarthy (258).

9) After Kennedy died, where did Kennedy supporters go? Humphrey as Johnson's VP was tied closely to the war. Although McCarthy held views closer to Kennedy, their primary battles were bitter. The majority of Kennedy supporters rallied around McGovern (who was a Kennedy supporter and joined the fray late).

10) So, what can we learn from 1968 Dem Nomination?
a) The candidate with the most delegates won.
b) The candidate with the most primary victories did not win.
c) The top seven candidates in popular vote lost.
d) The person coming in second was not selected as VP choice.
e) The person with the most caucuses won.
f) Winners in PA, FL & OH lost the nomination.
g) 2008 is not 1968.; May 22, 2008 1:29 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: As 'most' of us know Senator Kennedy is the LION of the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton is old news and has become divisive and has been on a leash held by his wife for the past couple of months!

As far as the 'lioness' - Pelosi has much more pull with the party at the moment than Hillary does.

To Martin: I loved your post ;)

To Vicki: Spero che tu abbia una buona giornata ;)

H
Obama '08
P
E; May 22, 2008 1:30 PM
ed iglehart said...: Yam,

You left this behind.

;-)
ed; May 22, 2008 1:32 PM
JayW said...: I hope Vicki has a great day too.; May 22, 2008 1:36 PM
Ariane said...: vixx
I am afraid I entirely agree with you on the likely result of taking this to the convention. If the convention was in June, OK. But it is the END of August. That is not going to be enough time for healing (and the rift will be even greater after months of further driving wedges). It's not just a matter of Obama won't win after that - neither would Clinton if she somehow managed to get it. If she keeps going on about how she is the Hard Working white folks candidate, and pounding this for months, then if she should happen to get the nomination, I don't see her getting 30% of the usual black vote. and a Democrat is not going to win without the Black vote. Not that most will vote for McCain either - - most Black folk ain't THAT crazy - but they just won't vote. There are a lot of Democrats, no matter what race or gender, who would vote for Clinton if she won fair and square and had the most pledged delegates, but not if she got the SDs to overturn the PDs. And if that happens there is a great likelihood of alienating all those new voters FOREVER - or for many years.
That's exactly what Republicans (like some on blogs pretending to be Clinton supporters) WANT to see.

But there have been some hints that it really will end in June. what I think will happen is that after all the primaries, the undeclared SDs will come out overwhelmingly for the leader in pledged delegates. At that point I truly hope the Clintons will see the light so she can go on to accomplish other great things in her career. There may be an "intervention" by close supporters and friends who see the writing on the wall when the Clintons still have campaign tunnel vision.

And the more sensible supporters will see reality. There are several people on here who supported Hillary's campaign and are now uniting with the (very) likely nominee, because they see the priority of beating McCain. Clintons and Obama's policies and positions are VERY close. People who just days ago were in the Anger stage are moving into Acceptance (See Al Giordano on recent columns by Erica Jong) Fear of Flying No More

BTW his blog The Field is a great place for political analysis and has helped many alarmists calm down and keep up the work for a Democratic victory.; May 22, 2008 1:37 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

you said: "Identify and punish the SDs who were really responsible for this Fiasco like Gov of MI and Sen Levin and a few more of the Officials (Maybe a total of 10-15 SDs in MI and FL)."

Although this might be justice, I don't see that as remotely probable. Do you believe that there is any scenario where the RBC starts a witch hunt? I mean really?

From a practical point, a penalty against SD's will be applied to all or none.; May 22, 2008 1:39 PM
Yamaka said...: jay:

Believe me I am at my Clinic - working to cure the brains of people!

I am a multi-tasker, blogging and doing more than one job at a time which enhances the synaptic growth and/or connections in my cortical neurons, if you can understand the lingo! All those of my age 58 must practice multi-tasking to avoid Alzheimer's later!!

_______________________________

Last time I checked Ted Kennedy lost the Nomination to Carter, who lost the GE to Reagan!

He cannot be the Lion of the Party. He is one of the perennial losers.

Pelosi would soon hit Retirement Home! She is just one confused legislator from the most liberal State.

She did NOT win a National Election or any election outside SF directly from the People!

How can she be the Lioness of the Party?

Ridiculous Personalities of FAR LEFT Ideology - the perennial losers of National Elections!
:-(; May 22, 2008 1:43 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

When you say "Bill is the undisputed Lion of the Party" and "Hillary is the undisputed Lioness of the Party".

Do you really want to start the comparison between the Clintons and animlas of a specific type? I think there are comparisons, but Lions wouldn't be it...; May 22, 2008 1:43 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: To those of ya'll on this thread that keep saying 'this is a democracy':

the U.S.A. is a 'representative democracy'.
The voters are represented by the pledged delegates. The delegates are chosen by the votes of their 'congressional district' - so far Senator Obama has the most DELEGATES gained from the congressional districts.

THIS IS A DELEGATE RACE for the democratic nomination. NOT a popular vote beauty contest.

The DNC RULES rule!

To the people that keep saying that FL and MI should be seated as is:

1) You are wrong

2) They (the states that have representatives that represent the voice of the people) knew the rules and defiantly broke the rules anyway.

3) The states must be punished in some way to prevent other states from ignoring the rules in the future.

4) The people that were told that the contests would NOT COUNT and therefore did NOT go to the polls to vote are being left out of the equation. You can not tell the people in two states 'before the election' that the election will not count and then change your mind and then count the votes - this is not fair and it is wrong.

.; May 22, 2008 1:45 PM
JayW said...: Yam...

If you are working in a clinic in any capacity other than a janitor... then I really feel sorry for the patients. It is the perfect example of the blind leading the blind.; May 22, 2008 1:49 PM
jpsedona said...: Aunt Jean,

You have derided Tyler for changing his opinion on the state of the race. He's no less a Hillary supporter than he was before. He's viewing things from a practical point of view based on where things stand with the delegate counts.

Disagree about whether Hillary can win or not, but don't use name calling when someone has an open mind and has applied reason to where things stand. He's not saying that Obama is the best candidate.

Some rationale people are open to changing their minds (openminded). Others, will look for someone to blame and deny the realities (like assuming that Hillary can still win if Obama reaches the magic number, whatever that number might be).

Instead of applying logic and reasoning, you always revert to name calling. Unfortunate.; May 22, 2008 1:54 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yakama said: "Last time I checked Ted Kennedy lost the Nomination to Carter, who lost the GE to Reagan!
He cannot be the Lion of the Party. He is one of the perennial losers."
__________________

You are assuming that the 'Lion' has to have been a president and I totally disagree with that logic.

Bush is president now and is no lion.

Whatever pull WJC once had with the 'majority' of the party has considerably diminished during this current election season.

LONG LIVE SENATOR KENNEDY - THE LION OF OUR DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

Obama '08
.; May 22, 2008 1:59 PM
Anonymous said...: jp,
Good history.
No, it is not 1968, but the similarities are stark. Partial Quote of your post below with comment

a) The candidate with the most delegates won. (In 2008 this would be Obama)
e) The person with the most caucuses won.(In 2008 this would be Obama)

the winner of the nomination was Hubert Humphrey. (In 2008 this could be Obama)

The Democratic Nominee got whupped in the GE. (In 2008 this could be Obama)

History Teaches Us; May 22, 2008 2:01 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Jim-

could = a hypothetical = not reality or fact

This election is unlike any other in the past.

We will just have to wait until the future to see the outcome and the facts of the matter.

OBAMA '08; May 22, 2008 2:05 PM
Martin said...: Yamaka said: "SDs, are you listening?"

I can assure you the answer to that is a definite no, they are not listening to you. And they never, ever will.

(I realize I'm ignoring my own advice by engaging Yamaka, but I couldn't resist this one); May 22, 2008 2:08 PM
Yamaka said...: vixx:

Sorry, if I had ruffled your feathers.

You seem to be one of a few thinkers in this site! Most others are simply jokers devoid of any democratic principle!

My opinion is the Date Rule was very poorly implemented. The villains are the Party Officials and DNC - punish them, not th 2.5 million voters who just obeyed their States calling for votes.

The Party is nearly split in the middle although Hillary has 63K votes more than BHO (this takes into a/c the four caucuses and FL MI)at this time. I hope this will swell to 150K by June 4 Morning.

Because of this closeness, only SDs can resolve it. SDs can really vote only at the Convention, till then what they say is NOT official and binding!

My suggestion is BHO can concede that he has a shallow and narrower constituency, thus he is a Minority Candidate, and step aside, if it is possible for him! It won't happen either.

Therefore, stay put and enjoy the ride: it's exhilarating to me!

__:-)______________________________

jp:

Your 1968 lines were thought-provoking. Many times history repeats, and new history is made other times! Let us see what happens in 2008.

On identifying the SDs involved:

Gov Dean can identify them, if he has the nerve. Punishing ALL the SDs from MI and FL appears very czarist and draconian to me!

We need not go on a witch hunt, either! IMO, 10-15 real villains CAN be identified, and punished.

Well, what do I know the inner workings of the DNC!?

:-)___; May 22, 2008 2:08 PM
Yamaka said...: martin:

You are very funny.

Keep writing.

I will read in between my work!

I love multi-tasking!! W/o which I feel very dull!; May 22, 2008 2:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Leah said...
Jim-

could = a hypothetical = not reality or fact

leah,
Correct, with equal probability of occuring or not occuring; May 22, 2008 2:12 PM
jpsedona said...: Jim,

Relative to the GE, yes, Obama could lose. Of course, so could Hillary. So could McCain.

However, let's face it, both parties have a habit of chosing candidates that can't win.

I've yet to find anyone who thought that Carter was the best Dem candidate in 1980.

Or Ford in 1976?
Or McGovern in 1972?
Or Momdale in 1984?
Or Dole in 1996?

There's also been a lot of dull candidates that might have made great Presidents.; May 22, 2008 2:21 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

you said: "Gov Dean can identify them, if he has the nerve. Punishing ALL the SDs from MI and FL appears very czarist and draconian to me!

We need not go on a witch hunt, either! IMO, 10-15 real villains CAN be identified, and punished"

I agree he 'could' identify some of them but he's shown no 'nerve' or real leadership to date. I would have a lot more respect for him if he opposed seating FL & MI entirely.

As for punishing all the SD's, I think that's appropriate and more likely.

For comparison, at a local high school, a student stole the answers to the final exam in a class. This was supposedly shared with a number of people. The punishment was that all Freshman & Sophmores were forced to retake a new final exam. This decision was probably unpopular with 99% of those students. But the punishment sent a message. That's why SD's in FL & MI, if punished, will be punished evenly. It will disuade repeat behavior in 2012 by not only FL & MI, but other states as well.; May 22, 2008 2:39 PM
Ariane said...: jayw - Hey, I 'm the one with a cat walking across the keyboard. We have this crazy Siamese who likes to "play chicken" - if he is not getting attention one of his tricks is to sit on the desk and keep reaching - reaching - that slender paw at the keyboard, just threatening to touch it.

Could you try to hold yourself back from snide comments about Clinton supporters being "uneducated" and "low class"? I know some people without much education or money who are very wise individuals. Believe me I know that some people on here say some outrageous things that sometimes make me angry. But when writing you should remember what you write is read not only by the person you are mad at, but by others including probably plenty of lurkers... Making such condescending comments about people with less education or less money, or about middle aged unmarried women, cat lovers, etc. gives Obama supporters a bad name.

Now if you're a McCain supporter pretending to be an Obama supporter, I guess you're doing a decent job. I guess we'll know in the future which one you really are.

I bet you really are capable of civilized conversation. Just type out the nasty comments to get them out of your system but delete them without posting.; May 22, 2008 2:54 PM
Peter said...: quote Gov.Paterson, Clinton supporter from NY

“I would say at this point we’re starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support and I’ll support until whatever time she makes a different determination.”; May 22, 2008 3:15 PM
GrantWoods said...: Hello again. I see this forum has mostly returned to its continued state of name-calling and slander. Still, I would like to make note of the thoughtful responses made a few individuals to help me make a decision in this difficult 'nomination' process.

Still, I am not convinced about the FL and MI resolution put forth by anyone to date. Here is an opinion made by a non-aligned voter of either Obama or Clinton.

1. Whatever the decision that is agreed upon at the DNC Rules Committee meeting, it must satisfy two criteria:
a. parties on both sides of the debate, as well as undecided voters, must feel as though the process was fair.
b. every effort must be made to avoid punishing the voter while still penalizing MI and FL for violating party rules (caveat is, the FL Democratic party had very little say in the fiasco that allowed this nuttiness to occur).

Without accomplishing these two very important goals, NEITHER side will win the General Election. And, contrary to what some of you have said, winning this election at this point in history is absolutely vital for the future of the Democratic Party.

So, it stands to reason, that any proposed solutions that will cause large amounts of voters of either Clinton or Obama to vote for McCain or stay home must be cast aside, regardless of their validity or logic.

In my opinion, the consequence of this means that Florida's delegation must be allowed to be seated as is, and the penalty should only be that Florida cannot be allowed to vote earlier than its normally alotted date in previous elections.

Second, the state of Michigan should be allowed another opportunity to cast its votes. The state should suffer the same penalty as Florida in regards to future primaries, however. The primary should be held on August 5th in accordance with its already scheduled state primary, unless both parties agree to pay for an earlier vote.

Before you rant and cry foul, remember the goals that must be satisfied. Remember that you're trying to win the Presidency, not just a nomination. A few months is a small price to pay to earn the trust of the voters of the entire United States.

I fear that without allowing ALL votes to be counted, the results of this election will always and forever be held into question. Again, you cannot win this debate with logic or legal arguments...the majority of Americans will only hear the soundbyte! Unfortunately, that soundbyte will include the eternal addition of an astrisk by Barack Obama's name unless all 50 states are allowed to participate fully.

Thank you for your time.

I'm still waiting for someone from the Clinton side to convince me to support her...financially and otherwise (and that doesn't include silly name-calling and GOP talking points).

A few of the Obama supporters have began to attempt to convince me with calm reasoning, but I must admit to not being fully convinced.

To assist, here are my major concerns:

1. What will your candidate do to change the course of our economy? (this can certainly include oil and Iraq policy).

2. Does your candidate have any concrete proposals to narrow the disparity in wealth in the U.S.A.?

3. How do we fix the public education system? How do you recruit good teachers and how can their performance be properly measured? More importantly, how do we escape from the "property tax fiasco" where the quality of public schools is directly proportionate to the wealth of the community that supports it?; May 22, 2008 3:17 PM
Unknown said...: Yes, I know, we shouldn't take Yamaka's bait, but I couldn't resist.

Yamaka, Where pray tell, was it written that:

"BHO has asked Jim Johnson - the same man who picked the VP for Mondale and Kerry - to pick a VP for him!"

Only in the Republican world does the person assigned to manage the V.P. selection process get to pick the veep. That's what happened with Cheney.

With Democrats, those chosen to manage the selection process, manage the selection process. Obama is the only person who will pick a Veep.

Republicans excel at delegating all sorts of things that shouldn't be delegated. That's why the Democrats are going to win so big in November.; May 22, 2008 3:22 PM
Richard said...: That fact that something is hypothetical does mean that there is equal probability of it happening or not happening. I could hypothesize that filling my gas tank with water instead of gasoline will double my fuel economy. That is perfectly valid, but flawed, hypothesis, and it has zero probability of being proved correct.; May 22, 2008 3:28 PM
jean said...: Hey.
This is jean and nobodyelse.
Has anyone seen the Obama song on CNN.
This will not help Obama in November.
On another note.
If he doesn't cuddle up to Florida and Michigan he will never get elected. The polls are looking dismal for the swing states.
He needs to say SOMETHING.
This has been a long race but not really. Many have lasted longer.
If he can't withstand this he will never win against McCain.
After looking at comment after comment, it is the Obama supporters who are digging the hole. It sounds like a cheerleading squad.
A "dream" is great but some reality is necessary.
If the polls keep coming out like this for next few weeks. The supers are going to be busy.
The sad thing is they will not have the guts to say no because they don't want people to think they pulled it because of discrimination, when really it is for the democratic party.
jean; May 22, 2008 3:32 PM
jpsedona said...: Grant,

you said: "caveat is, the FL Democratic party had very little say in the fiasco that allowed this nuttiness to occur"

This is just not the case. The Dems in the legislature were complicit in moving the date up.

If the voters in FL & MI want to be angry, they should take out their anger out on their own state leaders. When there were more than 32 million voters in states that complied with the rules, why should the leaders in FL & MI feel that they should be treated differently under the rules?

They tried to change the party rules and defiantly ignored them. Seating the delegations in full isn't justified under any circumstance. Why is it that FL is ALWAYS a problem when it comes to casting and counting ballots?; May 22, 2008 3:34 PM
Ariane said...: vixx - after agreeing with you on the damage if it does go to the convention, let me offer this from Al Giordano . someone asked him about this today and he answered sort of what I was saying before

"The longer that Senator Clinton keeps up her irrational and erratic kamikaze mission, the more her own supporters will turn against her, first privately and then publicly. If she continued through the convention the big story - day after day, hour after hour - will be “another delegate abandons Clinton.” People are going to get very tired of this act soon enough, especially Democratic party insiders of the sort that are delegates. It has diminishing returns for the senator. At some point, even the most deluded person would have to wake up and say “this behavior is not getting me what I want, and is causing me harm.”

I’m not ready to set an over-under as to on what date Senator Clinton will wake up from the delusion, but I can definitively say it will be well before the convention. "
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248#comment-40632

Not saying the guy is omniscient but he is usually pretty insightful on politics.; May 22, 2008 3:41 PM
GrantWoods said...: jpsedona:

Only until they were told of the penalty. Then, they attempted to move it back to its original date but the Republican majority held firm, knowing that their penalty was far less severe.

Regardless, your proposed solution does nothing but alienate the VERY voters that Obama needs in the fall. That is dangerous water to tread in.; May 22, 2008 3:42 PM
jpsedona said...: Grant,

you said: "Regardless, your proposed solution does nothing but alienate the VERY voters that Obama needs in the fall"

True, but there are things such as principles. You can change the rules in the middle but that hardly makes the Dems a party of principles if the rules are changed.

If the Dems in FL weren't aware that there could be severe penalties for moving up their primaries, they're being dishonest or were just plain stupid. Take your choice.

Even today the Miami Herald has an article discussing the unease with the new voting machines and whether people will be confused. Of course, Palm Beach will be using a different type of ballot than most of the state.; May 22, 2008 3:54 PM
Bull Schmitt said...: Someone misheard.. Bill and Hillary aren't the undisputed Lions of the Democratic Party, they're the undisputed Liars of the Democratic Party.

Sen. Obama must be having fun with some of the posters on this board, holding back on new Super announcements for a couple of days - someone please tell me again about how Sen. Clinton has 210 of the remaining 240 Supers all lined up to announce for her... It's like "Of Mice and Men", where we hear about how life will be when you get to the farm, and how you're gonna raise those rabbits...; May 22, 2008 3:59 PM
Yamaka said...: patrick:

I read this on ABCNews site.

Other sites may also have this information!

___________________________________-

"That's why SD's in FL & MI, if punished, will be punished evenly. It will disuade repeat behavior in 2012 by not only FL & MI, but other states as well."

jp:

For the 2012 and coming years:

We need to seriously think about grouping the States into 5-10 and each group will go to polls in the order determined by a lottery system. Not a pandering system.

The Gov of each State must sign a binding contract with the Party that they will NOT jump the predetermined line.

Some such thing may be helpful in the future.

Our concern right now is what will happen this year?!!

__________________________________

Jay:

I am the Boss of my Clinic; I have a dozen employees to help me!

I pay nearly 20% of my earnings to the Federal Coffer - a lot of money! (Payroll tax is separate!!)

That's why I need someone who can be a good Custodian of the 3 Trillion Dollar a year US Treasury.

BHO is just a Novice to me. He cannot be the Custodian. He MUST wait another 8-12 years to gain useful understanding of the US Govt!

That's why I fight him tooth and nail. There are at least 30 million more who will oppose this naive Light weight in the GE!

In my mind this Minority Candidate is NOT Electable, period.

:-(; May 22, 2008 4:10 PM
Random said...: Ariane, its is nice to hear the wise people in the party say they dont think this is a problem. however, i really dont believe it.

2 weeks ago, ok. she is going to push to Jun 3rd, maybe go for $ or VP, but not anymore. Clinton is focused on Aug, has basically announced it over the last 2 days, and now im starting to think they had this planned since Feb. its why they could so easily ignore the math, because really they knew it wouldnt matter in may/june. I dont think its a coincidence that she waited till late May to stand up for voters rights.

the problem of course is Clinton is dragging 49% of the people with her, and she is using very divisive attacks. the SDs should have been acting this month, not in Jun or July. once the results on the 31st get contested, there is NO WAY to make a peaceful resolution before Aug. If its up in the air, even a mass SDs push to Obama is going to leave the whole thing tainted as Clinton screams sexist racists bloody murder. If Obama gets 100 SDs in the next 2 weeks it wont close the race down cause of FL and MI being contested.

it seems like $ is one of the things that usually stops losing runs, but Clinton already pulled an $11 million dollar bill out of her pocket. (omg, how can that be legal??)

the way i see it now, Clinton has a much larger chance of losing the WH for any democrats in Nov then she has of getting the nomination. whats the odds of her destroying the GE election? 10% 50% 90%? dunno, but the ramifications are HUGE this time. its too important to even have a small % of losing.; May 22, 2008 4:12 PM
Peter said...: RE Jean

The reality is that Obama is leading Clinton in most polls, 26 points in Zogby. He is allready doing better against McCain in most GE match ups nationally.

Regarding swing-states. What are swing-states? Clinton does better in OH and FL at the moment, true. But both carries PA and Obama is doing better in Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia.

And in addition to this we have a "frustration"-effect, that some Clinton voters claim they will vote for McCain, most of them will probably not. Obama-voters on the other hand are not frustrated and most say they would vote for both Clinton and Obama against McCain this fall.

The reality is that this is always, the question isn`t if Clinton will lose, the question is HOW.

By the way, calling other peoplpe for "dreamers" without a good reason, because you are frustrated because of Clintons loss, doesn`t help anyone.; May 22, 2008 4:13 PM
Unknown said...: Yamaka,

First you write that Obama hired Johnson to pick his VP. And now you give the so-called source.

"I read this on ABCNews site. Other sites may also have this information!"

ABC has a post today, likely what you read:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/wireStory?id=4909031

I quote:

"Obama has asked former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson to begin vetting potential vice presidential picks, Democratic officials said Thursday. Johnson did the same job for Democratic nominees John Kerry in 2004 and Walter Mondale in 1984."

Nowhere in that article does it say that Johnson is going to pick Obama's veep. Obama will pick his veep. Johnson is responsible for the vetting process.

Kerry selected Edwards in 2004, and Mondale selected Ferraro in 1984. Johnson "picked" neither. He ran the vetting process.

Maybe you have another source that says that Johnson has been hired to pick a veep.

I doubt it.

Be as critical as you want, but this guy's been in the vetting process for 2 of the last 5 elections. He knows how to run a vetting process.

And Obama knows how to pick the best candidate, just as he knows how to win the primary, just as he knows how to win the general.; May 22, 2008 4:26 PM
ed iglehart said...: Grant,

The following appeared on a BBC blog
, and I thought it might throw some thoughts into your head, especially the last sentence.

The more I learn about Eisenhower the more respect I have for his intellect and Washington-like sense of restraint, with swift action when clearly needed. He gets credit for a no-nonsense approach to enforcing at Little Rock the Supreme Court decision for school integration; for effective foreign policy (caution about exaggerating the extent of Soviet arms build-up, his 'open skies' program); Middle East diplomacy (his actions opened doors with Egypt and for Lebanese democracy, although Europeans may resent his Suez stance); and his infrastructure program and 'dynamic conservatism' New Deal continuation at home. He sought considerable advice from the scientific community without mistrust or political 'spin'. He was an effective bipartisan president.

His failures or mis-steps as president seemed to result from too much faith in intelligence services (rather than the current White House who cooked up Iraq intelligence over CIA objections, Eisenhower on the contrary may have been over-trusting of CIA and cabinet counsel about Mossadegh in Iran and the U-2 overflights of Russia).

As far as McArthur's opinion - he has always reminded me of the staunch anti-communist US official in China, who when met with a note from Mao, delivered by US military officers, asking to meet with the US president to discuss the future of China - discarded it without any communication furhter up the chain of command. So much for not talking to people you don't like. If there was any chance of avoiding the full human cost of Korea, Vietnam and the Cultural Revolution, it was literally thrown away by not talking then.

More to the point, Eisenhower was effective because he was not anti-intellectual, he tried to be bi-partisan, pursued both miltary and diplomatic solutions, and he recognized restraint and compromise as political virtues when time allowed them to temper policy and legislation. Most of those traits would be a "change" from presidential practice today.

Hope that's interesting.
Salaam, etc.
ed; May 22, 2008 4:26 PM
Yamaka said...: "he knows how to win the primary, just as he knows how to win the general."

patrick:

You have your opinion.

Last time I checked BHO lost most of the large Primary States like PA, OH, MA, CA etc. He won most of the Caucuses in Red States, which will never vote for any Democrat in the GE!

He is leading in delegates now, and lagging in Popular Votes by 63K (realclearpolitics line 6)

He has NOT clinched the 2209 the Real Hudle to earn the Nomination.

You have to wait till the Convention to know for sure who is the Nominee.

You can have all the sweet dreams you want. That's fantasy.
:-(; May 22, 2008 4:33 PM
Unknown said...: Yamaka wrote:

That's why I need someone who can be a good Custodian of the 3 Trillion Dollar a year US Treasury.

Clinton has clearly demonstrated an inability to manage money effectively. She had a quarter of a BILLION to spend on this campaign, and grossly mismanaged it. So much so that she is in the red and not paying her bills.

Clinton has also demonstrated an inability to pick a good team, and to effectively resolve disputes among the senior ranks of her team.

Enjoy campaigning for McSame. I wonder just what you will do, once Clinton supports Obama, to fight Obama tooth and nail.

Just what is your plan. More posts on this site perhaps? Sounds more to me like toothpick and nail file.; May 22, 2008 4:34 PM
Mike Ruth said...: Thank you Leah, for stating obvious reasons why so-called Popular Vote does not count.

To amplify your points:

The ONLY RULE that counts is who has the most DELEGATES. Pop Vote is irrelevant. Whether he or she won a red or a blue electoral college state is irrelevant. Whether someone won a big state or a small state or people of a certain skin color or gender or age is also irrelevant.

Pop Vote can't be reliably counted by ANYONE. I live in a caucus state where we assigned our delegates by the RULES (the caucus process). We don't have a reliable pop vote count in our state.

Many people in states where it was well known that the primary did not count (because they were told to follow the Party RULES) did not cast a vote in so-called "beauty contests."

So, everyone should quit talking about the Popular Vote in the nomination process.

If we don't follow the rules, then the rules won't count in future nominations, which means Democratic Party chaos and disaster.

The candidates all knew the rules and pledged to abide by the rules. Attempts to change the rules at the 11th hour to adopt "popular vote" and over-ride the DELEGATE COUNT are dangerous to the whole process and party. IF this (or some other end-run around the rules) is allowed to sway the nomination, then those who played by the rules will be screwed and the nomination outcome will be corrupted, perhaps fatally.

I suspect that over-riding the delegate count would ensure the Democratic party would be dead for a generation. (Maybe that's actually the goal of some who advocate the popular vote over delegate count, eh?)

"Real" Democrats should STOP TALKING ABOUT POPULAR VOTE as a metric for nomination. PV can't be reliably computed, it's not in the rules, and it undermines the Democratic Party and puts the November election outcome seriously at risk.; May 22, 2008 4:35 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

you said: "We need to seriously think about grouping the States into 5-10 and each group will go to polls in the order determined by a lottery system. Not a pandering system.

The Gov of each State must sign a binding contract with the Party that they will NOT jump the predetermined line"

A rotating lottery system is a bad idea IMO. The cost will elimintae many potentially good candidates who could not afford to compete in a large set of inital primaries. This year's best example is Huckabee for the Repubs. Maybe Clinton wouldn't have emerged in 1992.

Smaller states means less cost for ads, people, staff, etc. Do you really only want people who are extremely rich to run?

As far as Gov's certifying the primaries, what happens when the Gov is a Repub?; May 22, 2008 4:35 PM
RobH said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 22, 2008 4:39 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: GrantWoods - I’ll give it a shot (a few weeks back I started writing Emit’s Issues):

“To assist, here are my major concerns”:

1. What will your candidate do to change the course of our economy? (this can certainly include oil and Iraq policy).

The economy is a complex issue, because there are several factors that roll into affecting the economy. It was Emit’s Issue #1. Long story short, to heal the economy you must either end the Iraq war, or take over the country and steal their oil. Since the later isn’t going to happen, you must end the war. We are spending excessive amounts of $$ on a worthless war. The war in Iraq was Emit’s Issue #2. That recoups only part. Another factor is Outsourced jobs, service, and commodities. Not the outsourcing in itself, but the fact that we give breaks to those companies and countries. A third part of the economy issue is Illegal Immigration. Since they can not even estimate the true number of Illegal’s in the country, we probably can’t know the full impact they are having on the country. Illegal Immigrants were Emit Issue #3.

Obama has covered his Economic Plan in a speech the same week as the Race speech, but it wasn’t covered much. News Media wanted to cover dirt, not issues. You can find more details on Obama’s plan at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/. The long and short of it is a Middle Class Tax relief, Fair Trade agreements (including reworking NAFTA so that it benefits USA), Job Creation in Tech and Innovation to include Green and Lean technologies, Strengthen Labor, crack down on fraudulent lenders and brokers and work to create a fund to help homeowners avoid foreclosures, address predatory credit card practices and more.

2. Does your candidate have any concrete proposals to narrow the disparity in wealth in the U.S.A.?

This one is more complex that the simple question. Obama has proposed doing away with the Bush tax cut that benefited the wealthy. He as also talked about looking into the corporate top structure that even pays the top execs millions when they bankrupt a company. He also has several plans to attach the poverty. You can read about them at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/.

3. How do we fix the public education system? How do you recruit good teachers and how can their performance be properly measured? More importantly, how do we escape from the "property tax fiasco" where the quality of public schools is directly proportionate to the wealth of the community that supports it?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/ would be the link to his education plan. He has plans to recruit with incentives for high-need field and locations, create a Teacher Residency Programs that will supply 30,000 exceptional teachers to high-need schools, and the reward teachers that consistently excel.

The biggest pain to Obama’s education plan is that he plan’s to pay for it by delaying the NASA Constellation Program. I like NASA stuff, but isn’t it about giving the kids a better education. That is the building block for America’s future.

With Obama, the right building blocks will be paid for and laid down.; May 22, 2008 4:42 PM
Yamaka said...: patrick:

If you care about the voters and the number of votes,

Hillary has 17,639,952 the most of the ALL polled.

This is the highest for the Popular Vote in any Primary since the birth of this Union!

That's why I call her the Majority Candidate, and BHO a receding Minority Candidate.

If you keep calling McCain as McBush, McSame, that's the sure way to hit the dust the way Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry did in the past 30 years.

You need to be very intelligent in creating slogans.

So far the Dems have failed miserably, IMO.

What will I do if Hillary is mugged in the broad day light at the Convention?

Majority always wins over Minority, in true Democracy.

This is not Kenya, is America!

Stay tuned.

Cheer, Smile and Vote for Hillary the First Woman POTUS.
:-); May 22, 2008 4:46 PM
RobH said...: Patrick,

Yam is pulling your chain, getting you to spin your wheels.

Did you notice that his 4:33 post didn't have a word refuting your Jim Johnson query, which constituted 80% of your post at 4:26?

But he used his response to spew "lost big states", "cuacuses don't count", "63K poploar vote lead", and "2209 delegate hurdle."

Get it? You see what he's doing? It's how his game is played. He needs you to respond to him so he can keep spinning. If nobody responds he'll end up just yelling at the clouds.; May 22, 2008 4:51 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: How Obama Ended Up On (And Off) The Michigan Ballot

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/how-obama-ended-up-on-and_n_103132.html

.; May 22, 2008 4:52 PM
jpsedona said...: Patrick,

What's interesting about the ABC story and other news soucres about Johnson & vetting is that they are starting early.

So, what could that mean? Maybe one of these:

1) They don't think Hillary would accept a VP slot.
2) They don't plan to offer Hillary a VP slot.
3) They are trying to head-off Bill Clinton who may make the claim that Hillary is the only real choice for VP.
4) Obama wants to select a VP as soon as possible to cut-off any potential pressure to pick Hillary as a VP candidate.

Just for comparison purposes, Johnson began his work for Kerrey in March 2004. Johnson has been a donator and supporter of Obama for a long time.; May 22, 2008 4:53 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Grantwoods-

Senator Obama covers all the issues and his plans on his website. If you go to www.BarackObama.com and then click on the ISSUES tab at the top you will find TONS of information on his views and plans.

H
Obama '08
P
E; May 22, 2008 4:55 PM
RobH said...: Everybody, please.

A case study in Yam's technique.
Read Patrick's post at 4:26, Yam's response at 4:33, and my critique at 4:51. It's not about a discussion. It's about giving him the platform he requires.

We're enabling this guy.; May 22, 2008 4:56 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

I know you like accuracy.

So, when you say: "Hillary has 17,639,952 the most of the ALL polled. Hillary has 17,639,952 the most of the ALL polled."

That's not technically correct when you put "ALL" in caps. Since "ALL" would include the 4 caucuses unreported; TX caucus; advisory primaries like WA; etc.

Since there were delegates at stake in TX caucuses and the other 4 caucus states, there were contests. So, try saying "all reported contests" instead of "ALL polled".

when you say: "This is the highest for the Popular Vote in any Primary since the birth of this Union!"

Was this a typo? Did you mean nominating process or are you meaning one specific contest?

you said: "Majority always wins over Minority, in true Democracy."

If Hillary can win the number of delegates then she holds the majority; if not she will be the minority. SO, I guess we can believe that the majority rules.; May 22, 2008 5:07 PM
jpsedona said...: RobH,

Yes, we're enablers... sort of playing the same part that Hillary plays to Bill...; May 22, 2008 5:09 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Obama to deliver commencement address for Kennedy
Posted: 04:30 PM ET

(CNN) – Barack Obama will take Sen. Ted Kennedy's place in delivering the commencement address at Wesleyan University this Sunday.

According to Kennedy's Senate Office, Obama offered to take the Massachusetts senator's place earlier this week after Kennedy was diagnosed with brain cancer.

"Senator Kennedy accepted knowing it would be an historic opportunity for the school and all those attending, including his daughter Caroline Raclin who is graduating and his son Ted Jr. who is attending his reunion," Kennedy's office said in a statement. "He's enormously grateful to Senator Obama and the support he's received from all of his colleagues this last week.”

.; May 22, 2008 5:12 PM
jean said...: RE: Peter
Please make note that I did not call anyone a dreamer.
My reference is to the untimate "dream" of change that has not enough specifics from Obama.
I do not believe he could possibly win without Florida, Ohio.
HRC is ahead in Florida,Ohio,Missouri, and whatever.
The point is not that he has the nomination, the point is I do not think he can win the general.
That I believe is the frustration factor.
His health plan just doesn't cut it,
and he says he will withdraw the troops maybe if perhaps if it looks ok,when Iraq has millions if not billions of dollars sitting in the bank while we spend ours on them and not on our country.

The main problem I have for not voting for him is the appointments to the Supreme Court that are coming up. He is going to have to negotiate with the Republicans to get what he wants and I do not know what he will give up to do that. I guess you would call that old politics but that is what happens.

His experience is so lacking it is scary.

Professionaly I would never recommend him for a CEO of a corp.

I do not want a nice guy for president, I want someone of action who knows how to get something done.

I am not frustrated. I just hate Kool-Aid and would rather have a Martini.
jean; May 22, 2008 5:12 PM
Unknown said...: RobH

Yea, you're are right, we shouldn't enable him, but I just can't help myself. He gives us such a big target. :-)

There are blind people like Yam who think they can will Clinton into the White House, but we all know this this thing is over. Obama has been masterful at managing this campaign. Clinton had such a HUGE advantage. There was no question that Clinton was going to win a lot of states, and a lot of big states. The media morons who claim "Obama can't close the deal" are finally saying, "Clinton can't win."

Her strategy has failed miserably. The WSJ just had a story that Clinton's team was forecasting a win of 58 PDs on Super Tuesday. She lost by 14. That's a whopping 72 PD difference. What a ginormous miscalculation.

And we all know on top of that, Obama dealt her 11 straight losses racking up 122 in PDs for the rest of February

And we all know that to answer Obama's overwhelming success, she managed to come up with a whopping 19 PDs to date. All the firewalls, all the big wins, all the big states. 19 PDs she's racked up since thin. Big Deal.

What is just so wonderful about this process is how much character Obama has shown throughout this end-game. He says that Clinton should continue as long as she wants, and praises her whenever he talks about her.

But you know and I know and aside from a few koolaid drinkers, we all know that this is IN THE BAG. Uncommitted DNC members are in Obama states 2-1 over Clinton states. Same with unselected add-ons, same with Senators.

She has tapped out her pool.

Everyone here is all excited because they don't understand what the end-game is. I say, Obama should have by now earned our trust that he will roll out the supers when it's right. And with the big stink Clinton is making right now, perhaps next week might be the right time.

This baby's in the bag. And it's fun to write about it. Been a long time coming.

So yea, I'll take some more of yam's bait.; May 22, 2008 5:19 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: jean (NOT aunt jean) said: "His health plan just doesn't cut it,
and he says he will withdraw the troops maybe if perhaps if it looks ok,when Iraq has millions if not billions of dollars sitting in the bank while we spend ours on them and not on our country."
____________________

That is just a bunch of bunk!

Senator Obama's healthcare plan is basically NO DIFFERENT than HRC's EXCEPT that Hillary's plan would FINE people MONEY if the did not buy insurance.

As are as the Iraq comment you made - I believe you 'made it up'. Obama has never said such a thing. He was the first candidate to say that he would start bring the troops home in the first 60 days of his being in the Oval Office and projects to have them all home within 16 months after taking the oath of office.

Obama '08; May 22, 2008 5:19 PM
GrantWoods said...: re Leah:

I've been to Obama's website, and yes, he has some very good information there. Plus, I must admit, it is my duty as an informed voter to learn as much as I can on my own volition, instead of prompting all of you for answers.

re Ed and Emit:

Thank you for your excellent feedback.

re jpsedona:

I understand your logic, and I actually agree with all of it on a intellectual level. My issue is that still doesn't win the general election. Without a solution to the FL and MI problem that is seen as fair from BOTH sides, the Democrat will not win the election.

To everyone else:

My initial hope, although I did a very poor job of explaining, was to get all of talking about the real, substanative differences between Obama and Clinton. Also, I was hoping to see if there are other solutions to the FL and MI problem that we can find common ground on.; May 22, 2008 5:21 PM
RobH said...: Leah,

Something getting ready to happen with superdelegates. Check Hardball tonight - Chuck Todd at about 13-15 minutes into the show.

A letter from Murtha to the House Dems today urging them declare by June 10. The remarks by Todd are really heartening - that "all these delegates are leaning one way, and they're ready to put Obama over the top. If they moved as a group now, it would be game over."; May 22, 2008 5:23 PM
RobH said...: And if you watch, check the next segment regarding McCain's belligerent response to Obama's statement on the floor today regarding the GI bill debate.

I've not paid that much attention, but that guy "McCain" comes off as a little unhinged.; May 22, 2008 5:24 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: GrantWoods-

I listen to Obama's rallies everyday on CNN live.

Obama has never said that MI and FL should not be seated. He has been saying all along that they SHOULD be seated.

Michigan put a proposal on the table for Clinton 69 Obama 59. Obama said ok. Clinton said NO.

Even though it is Clinton on the TV getting the majority of airtime talking about MI and FL - it is Obama trying to come to a resolution and Clinton has so far put up roadblocks.

And now Clinton's supporter Geller has filed a lawsuit even though they know that the RBC will be hearing this issue on May 31st.

I think in the end this is going to backfire on Clinton because she is not being very upfront with the American people.

.; May 22, 2008 5:26 PM
Yamaka said...: Folks:

A taste of what at least some women think of what's going on with the Democratic Party:

A slice of what my wife, a hyper-educated intellectual - a non-partisan - moderate, talking to my daughter, a Cornell U Student, over the phone:

"It's disgusting. I thought the Dems care about women a lot. See how they treat Hillary. OMG, what has happened to them?

They pander too much with Minorities and throw the women under the bus! Unbelievable!!

They have to remember women ARE the majority in America, and every where else..When are we going to break open this Glass Ceiling?

If not now, when? If not Hillary, then who? Do we need to wait another 20 years? These men at DNC are mean and anti-women, for sure"

Believe me, these ladies are truly non-partisan. But, care about America a lot.

:-); May 22, 2008 5:26 PM
jean said...: RE:Leah

I believe that he said he would withdraw the troops according to the reccomendation of the generals
on how it would be done.

If not everyone has healthcare and pays for it then it means the people who do not pay into the pool and use it will drive the premiums up for those that do pay.

Hillary would also give a credit etc.

Be back. gotta get kids.
Stop being so angry all the time.
Get some Merlot, we know what happens with Vodka;)

jean; May 22, 2008 5:28 PM
Yamaka said...: Huffington Post, MSNBC, ABC and CNN are very Left Leaning Liberal news outlets!

Don't go there for any objective news, IMO!; May 22, 2008 5:30 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Regarding Florida:

Obama Suggests Half-Sized Florida Delegation As Compromise
By Eric Kleefeld - May 22, 2008, 12:15PM

Barack Obama is now floating a compromise on the Florida situation, telling the St. Petersburg Times that one idea would be to cut the delegations' sizes in half -- a step back from his previous stance of splitting the delegates 50-50 between himself and Clinton, but a far cry from the Hillary camp's insistence upon seating them in full.

Obama also rejected the idea that the Florida primary represented a true test of electability or popular support: "In all these races if I didn't campaign at all and this had just been a referendum on name recognition, Sen. Clinton would be the nominee."
_________

OBAMA IS TRYING TO RESOLVE MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA. DON'T LET THE CLINTON SPIN MACHINE FOOL YA!; May 22, 2008 5:30 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: jean (NOT aunt jean) said: "I believe that he said he would withdraw the troops according to the reccomendation of the generals on how it would be done."
________________________

That is not exactly what he said. He said that HE will SET THE MISSION and that he will depend on the generals to implement that mission on HIS time table. Now, he did say that he would rely on the generals to 'advise' him on the best and safest way to get the troops out.

___

I wish everyone would do a bit of research and find the actually things that Senator Obama has said in the debates, his rallies, in interviews, and in press conferences before mis-statements are posted here on this thread ;); May 22, 2008 5:35 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka said: "Huffington Post, MSNBC, ABC and CNN are very Left Leaning Liberal news outlets... Don't go there for any objective news, IMO!
_________________

Yakama-
That leaves FoxNews for all of you Republicans that believe everything that O'reily, Rush and all the other propagandists have to say!

.; May 22, 2008 5:39 PM
Yamaka said...: "in press conferences before mis-statements are posted here on this thread ;)"

This DCW is mostly infested with the Propaganda Machine of BHO's Children!

They are the subsidiary of the Goebell's & Co creating mass hysteria over the Messiah!

The Piper is going down hill from now onwards! Watch out Children.

:-(; May 22, 2008 5:40 PM
GrantWoods said...: re Yamaka:

After watching what the "right" has done to our country, why should I avoid "left leaning" media?

In fact, why should I apologize for being liberal?

Why has liberal become a bad word, while conservatism is okay?

Liberalism is what developed Social Security, Unemployment insurance, Medicare, any been far more succesful balancing budgets and making our country more fiscally sound.

I'll stick to MSNBC thank you very much. With no apologies.

Still, what does that have to do with solving our serious problems?; May 22, 2008 5:40 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

you said: "Huffington Post, MSNBC, ABC and CNN are very Left Leaning Liberal news outlets!"

is CBS ok?
Fox?
NY times?
Washington Times?
LA Times?
Surely, the Houston Chronicle?

What sources do YOU recommed?; May 22, 2008 5:42 PM
Hippolytus said...: jpsedona said...
"Last night you were asking about why we haven't heard more about the politicians in FL & MI that created the current mess.
You've identified a couple of the villans in this story. And another politician is Sen Carl Levin (MI), an Obama supporter, has been the real force behind moving up the MI primary in 2004 & 2008."
________________

I knew that Carl Levin was one of the "masterminds" in Michigan, but I was not aware that he was an Obama supporter. Are you sure that this is the case? I don't believe that he's formally endorsed anyone.
Thanks.; May 22, 2008 5:49 PM
Unknown said...: Yam said,

"If you care about the voters and the number of votes"

Actually I care that the candidates participate in a contest with agreed to rules and that they abide by the rules.

Please feel free to continue with your cheerleading. Right now there is no real issue, but if Clinton really tried to take this to the convention, she would not only lose big, big, big, but she would tarnish her and her husband's legacy, for years to come.

Look, Bill let the cat out of the bag today. Hillary wants veep. But it seems that Obama has different ideas.

So she's playing this game that she has the power to mess up the whole process by demanding that MI and FL be settled on her terms. Translation, she takes this to the convention.

Some are unnerved that she may have the power to do that (Rachel Maddow e.g.). But she really doesn't. Only the supers do. And only the koolaid drinkers believe that the supers are suddenly going to go for Clinton in big numbers.

For those of us DCW addicts, those who have run scenario after scenario, those that count, count again and recount, we recognize that Clinton has as much of a chance winning mass numbers of supers as Brittany Spears does.

Clinton has put an enormous amount of pressure on supers to hold off until the 4th, and they have honored her wishes. The party elders have said, as has Clinton's campaign said, that this would be settled in June. That's not going to change.

The supers have done her an enormous favor giving her time to make her case. And at the same time Obama has made his case. And the super turnout in May has shown the way they feel. They overwhelmingly support Obama.

So in this end-game period, we can listen to the likes of yam shout out, "popular vote, popular vote (with nothing for Obama in Michigan)", or "supers don't vote until the convention, they don't vote until the convention."

What yam fails to mention, is that it doesn't matter that Obama is up by 155 PDs, that he's up by nearly 30 supers, that he won the most states. That he raised the most money, that he generates the largest crowds, that he came from nowhere to beat a candidate with enormous advantages in name recognition, party loyalty, and intense support from women.

And the reason yam and his ilk believe that Obama's amazing accomplishments don't matter is because to them, there is only one thing that does. Obama pulled his name off the Michigan ballot.

If he had not done that, Clinton would have no claim to anything. No claim to the popular vote, no claim to want to help disenfranchised voters. She would have nothing to take to the convention.

That's all this comes down to.

But not to worry. Only two weeks left of melodrama before yam can hang that McSame sign out in his front yard and campaign feverishly for him.

Meanwhile the rest of us can watch as Obama really takes off in the polls, as the media tries and fails to denigrate him as they did Kerry, Gore, and both Clintons.

We can watch with glee as the republican brand continues to become more and more toxic to voters.

And we can watch this country elect this great man, along with a newly energized and fortified DEMOCRATIC Senate and House.

We'll be a part of the future. Yam and his fellow McSame supporters will be firmly a part of the past.; May 22, 2008 5:50 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: jean (NOT aunt jean) said: "If not everyone has healthcare and pays for it then it means the people who do not pay into the pool and use it will drive the premiums up for those that do pay.

Hillary would also give a credit etc."
____

Sorry but you are only telling HALF of the story again.

Under Senator Obama's plan the cost of healthcare would go down. Also, he has ALWAYS said that he proposes a $4,500 credit per family per year. His plan would be like that of what the senators now have in congress. No one could be excluded due to pre-exiting conditions. If you want to keep the insurance that you have now you can keep it. If you can't afford premiums to buy into the government plan funding would be available. He believe that the price of prescription meds should be negotiated for the lowest price. Etc. etc. etc.
The ONLY major difference in the Obama plan and the HRC plan is that under her plan American citizens would be FINED if they did not chose to buy insurance.

Everyone that WANTS coverage under his plan will get it!; May 22, 2008 5:55 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Btw-

During the several months that I have been typing on this blog I celebrated with a few drinks ONE evening... so don't even go there!

LOL ;); May 22, 2008 5:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Everything is cyclical including pd’s, SD’s and popular vote.
Every time one cycles up, the proponents of the candidate on the rise get giddy.
The cycle for pledged delegates is nearly ended and I pronounce Obama the winner.
The cycle for Super Delegates is at it’s peak for Obama and will now trend toward Clinton
and after that may have a switch back.
The cycle for Popular Votes is on the up trend for Clinton and I pronounce Clinton the winner.
Just for clarification, a popular vote is one for a candidate legally cast, counted, and certified according to a particular states election law.; May 22, 2008 6:15 PM
Yamaka said...: jp:

As a Centrist, now Left-leaning, many of the news outlets seem to me are biased against women and Clintons and more liberal than I am.

I subscribe to WSJ, Newsweek, Economist, Money, Smart Money, Science, Nature and Houston Chronicle

My Parachute is more modest and of different Color than many of you!; May 22, 2008 6:24 PM
Random said...: lol, what is it about the last year that makes anyone think that Clinton is not only willing to fight to the convention, but has all but said she is going to. The entire race she has, and is stil saying that she will not quit. and i dont think she is going for VP either.

when is the magic delegate swing for Obama going to happen? its not. he might make 2026 in June, but that doesnt stop Clinton, who has redone the math for 2210.

which means it gets decided AT THE convention, in Aug, where all these declared SDs can change their mind. e.g. open race again.

we are further from the finish line this week then in Feb. meanwhile, McBush gets a seven month head start on the GE.

while everyone agrees there probably wont be a mass exodus to Clinton, why does everyone think she will stop campaining and dividing the party after Jun 3rd?

She said she wont (unless she was lying again). I still think she would take her 5% chance at the nomination even if theres a 50% or 90% chance or ruining the GE, for either her or Obama. or a run at 2012 after Obama loses and rather then it being Clintons fault, she will spin it as "i told you so"; May 22, 2008 6:25 PM
RobH said...: "Every time one cycles up, the proponents of the candidate on the rise get giddy."

"The cycle for Popular Votes is on the up trend for Clinton and I pronounce Clinton the winner."

Giddy-up!; May 22, 2008 6:27 PM
Random said...: Clinton this week:

"I believe the Democratic Party must count these votes. They should count them exactly as they were cast," Clinton declared to a crowd of about 700 at Century Village near Boca Raton

Mrs. Clinton told The Associated Press on Wednesday that she would support those states if they had to carry their fight to the convention.

"Yes, I will," she said. "I will, because I feel very strongly about this."

And Geoff Garin, her pollster, told MSNBC that she could campaign beyond the primaries because "there are enough uncommitted delegates left for either candidate to earn a majority."

She also sought to whip up populist sentiment, telling voters in Boca Raton, where the 2000 election played out vividly, "You didn’t break a single rule, and you should not be punished for matters beyond your control."

She argued with fervor that the nomination should be determined by popular vote. She has claimed to have the lead in the popular vote by including Florida and Michigan in her tally.

"The outcome of our elections should be determined by the will of the people, nothing more, nothing less," Mrs. Clinton said. "And we believe the popular vote is the truest expression of your will."

She does NOT want resolution on FL,MI. She does NOT care about the delegate math anymore. She wants to go to the convention and try to toss over an Obama win. and she is willing to, and activly dividing voters doing it.

how is this not true?; May 22, 2008 6:37 PM
Anonymous said...: vixx,
"while everyone agrees there probably wont be a mass exodus to Clinton,"
Change that to almost everyone.
I for one think there will be a mass exodus to Clinton and mass defections from Obama.
Surely you know the SD's are aware that Obama has been losing ground to Clinton in PD's and popular vote for three solid months.; May 22, 2008 6:38 PM
JayW said...: Yam,

Regarding your post at 4:10.
You seem to have a concern over the economy. Understandable.
Why would you vote for a woman who can not even keep her own campaign above water? If she cant manage that budget, I am pretty sure the budget of the entire country will not be much easier for her.

Obama has a firm grasp on his budget and how the economy works... Clinton does not. She has not helped out Upstate NY at all while she has been the senator for NY...

Explain to me why you think HRC would be better? Try using actual facts as well, that would be a refreshing change.; May 22, 2008 6:40 PM
Peter said...: Vix

It won`t happen. A lot of her supporters (supers) are getting worried, she have promised that she won`t hurt the party. If she steps over the limit she would lose massive support, I think she is close to the limit, but not over it and I don`t think she will pass it.

She doesn`t control the RBC, getting busloads of supporters for Clinton there, doesn`t help her, my guess is that we will see just as many Obama suporters.

There are 28 members of RBC. 13 supports Clinton, 8 Obama, 7 not known. Several of those 7 are at least Obama leaners (I`m 100% sure Donna Brazille supports Obama).

There is no way the RBC will go from no delegates to all delegates and Obama none from MI, that is the only solution where Clinton has a small chance of winning this thing, that solution won`t happen. It is highly likely that Obama will get all the "uncomitted" delegates and it is not likely that the delegates will get 100% vote. Even Harold Ickes more or less admitted that 2210 will not be the magic number (That means the delegates will not get a 100% vote).

Clinton doesn`t control the RBC and I don`t think all those 13 who supports Clinton will go for an unfair solution. Even though they support Clinton, it doesn`t mean that they would walk through fire for her.

This is kind of like a negotiation. Obama starts at splitting 50/50, Clinton starts at seat as is with no cut, that means no delegates for Obama in MI. WE will end up somewhere in between. Probably at a solution where Clinton nets a couple of dozen more delegates than Obama or something like that.; May 22, 2008 6:48 PM
RobH said...: Vixx,

The issue you keep raising is essentially:

"Since when is this party satisfied allowing itself to be held hostage by one family?"

That's the crux of things. I was very satisfied when Bill was in office, but I'm asking myself a lot lately, "why are we all satisfied allowing him to frame the terms of debate?"

Today I hear people say "He's really pushing for her to be VP - 'she's owed this', 'she's earned it'" I say: SAYS WHO? WHo put you in charge?

I don't see things quite as darkly as you do, 'cuase I don't think she has the unilateral power that you think she does.

I beleive we are going to see a DEFINING showdown between June 3 and June 10. At stake is simply "who runs the party anymore, the Clinton's or everybody else?"

And I'm optomistic about the outcome.; May 22, 2008 6:48 PM
Yamaka said...: To All the anti-Clinton and anti-Women Crowd:

1. Bill Clinton earned his superior ranking among the Party Leaders by virtue of winning two terms of WH. Who among you has that distinction? Stand up and be counted!

He is the Party, all others are perennial losers, period.

2. Hillary Clinton has so much respect because she has the broad coalition of supporters, and who earned the most votes polled so far.

She earned this distinction by very hard work.

She is Centrist, a moderate than BHO who is a FAR Left Liberal of the mold of Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry, the demigods who belonged to the Graveyard of Dead and Gone.

Any more question?; May 22, 2008 6:58 PM
RobH said...: What have you done for me lately....

Oohh oohh
Oohh oohh

What have you done for me lately....; May 22, 2008 7:04 PM
Anonymous said...: To Emit R Detsaw,

You asked what is the candidate's plan to reduce the growing discrepancy of wealth in this country.

What is happening in the U.S is happening throughout the world. As anyone who works in the tech, medical or other high skill sector will tell you, the growing disparity in wealth is largely caused by the the fact that economic contribution (or increasing the pie) of the world is increasingly based on the technical skills that one possesses. The world increasingly gives montary rewards to those with the most valuable technical skills. That's why graduates with bachelor degrees in electrical engineering, biochemistry, physics etc command six figure salaries right out of college. The individuals that can run businesses, develop the I-phone, or find the genetic breakthrough to fight alzheimers are worth a lot of money.

That's not to say that all skills are as a result of education. Some of the best salespeople I know didn't graduate from college but have developed great sales skills over time.

Conversely, those who just graduate from high school with no job skills and never develop any valuable skills are not going to get paid much. The days of a high school graduate getting a lifetime job on a production line at GM for $20 per hour are just about gone and aren't going to return.

Suggest that you read the Bell Curve or the Earth is Flat. Government can not do much to significantly change this. Its up to the individual to go to college, major math or science instead of poli sci, and get trained in skills that are valued by society.; May 22, 2008 7:06 PM
RobH said...: Hey, kudos to Jim and Yam.
Their longed for landslide of superdelegates in HRC's direction has begun.

She out-endorsed him today 1-0.
Look out! AVALANCHE!!

(PS a day without superdelegate endorsements is like a day without sunshine...; May 22, 2008 7:06 PM
Peter said...: RE RobH

I`m not pesimistic either. Clinton is trying one last shot, she is negotiating by using a ploy. I won`t work. Donna Brazile, uncomitted RBC member, didn`t like Clinton comparing FL/MI with Gore in 00 and she knows something about that election...
I think the RBC will handle this in a good way. A 50% cut is likely and Obama is probably going to get a good portion of the MI delegates. It is highly likely that no matter what RBC come up with, that Obama has won the pledged delegates including MI/FL before PR, SD and MT.

When GOV in NY calls Clinton desperate she is on thin ice to say the least. She will never drag this thing to the convention, it is just empty threats.

We will have a fair solution on may 31. If this goes any further Obama will have the control regarding the solution, so there is no reason for Clinton to take this any further than May 31.; May 22, 2008 7:07 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka said: "To All the anti-Clinton and anti-Women Crowd:"
_______________

Yakama:

You are lost.
There are no anti-Women posters on this blog.

H
Obama '08
P
E; May 22, 2008 7:08 PM
jpsedona said...: Jim,

you said: "Surely you know the SD's are aware that Obama has been losing ground to Clinton in PD's and popular vote for three solid months"

If it's that evident AND meaningful, why is it that he's thrashed her in endorements from those same SD's???

Pick your timeframe since Super Tuesday, and the one thing that's clear, Hillary has lost ground in total delegates AND superdelegates.

How many Clinton SD supporters have abandoned her? how many have abandoned Hillary? any evidence in a increased level of support by SD's? NO.

Hillary 'Could" change the mind of SD's, but at this juncture Obama is likely to finish ahead in pledeged delegates by a wide margin. For a mass deefction from Obama to occur, she should probably start with fliping one Obama supporter. She should be able to do that, right?; May 22, 2008 7:09 PM
RobH said...: The Earth is Flat is a powerful book by a very insightful author, Thomas Friedman.

Ed iglehart,

I wonder if you've read this, and, given Friedman's utility for globalism, and your stance on localism, I further wonder if you'd care to share your views.; May 22, 2008 7:11 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: RobH said: "I beleive we are going to see a DEFINING showdown between June 3 and June 10. At stake is simply "who runs the party anymore, the Clinton's or everybody else?"
_________

RobH I wish I wrote down Obama's exact words today from his rally in Boca Raton, Florida. The one thing that stuck out like a thumb was how he said basically 'I have not won the nomination yet but I like winning and I AM IN THIS TO WIN!" Then the crowd applauded like crazy.

Anyway something like that and he said it VERY strongly compared to in the past.

Obama '08; May 22, 2008 7:14 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

If Hillary "has so much respect", why are her negatives always hovering around 50% or higher?

Why be concerned about the anti-Hillary crowd if they're such a small group and she has so much respect?; May 22, 2008 7:15 PM
jpsedona said...: Peter,

When the Gov. of NY characterizes Hillary as sounding desperate, maybe he's concerned about losing his job to her in the next NY Gov race?; May 22, 2008 7:17 PM
RobH said...: Peter, I agree with you, a 50:50 split is most likely, that's why I ran the nums to establish a new target (yesterday.)

That belief also drives my optimism about the outcome of the party showdown 6/3 - 6/10. The RBC will do the fair thing, all avenues for HRC will close, and we will find out if the party insiders (both bigwigs and hacks) have the strength and courage to pull Hillary (albeit stomping her feet) off the stage.

My fear is she will emasculate the RBC's decision by announcing she will appeal, with the implication that 'all numbers remain open.' That's the moment the insiders will have to step up - that's the moment of the showdown.; May 22, 2008 7:18 PM
jean said...: RE: Leah
Back.
Surrounded by storms on both sides with flood warnings and hail.
This is not supposed to happen in San Diego.
In reference to health insurance noone really wants it.
You have house insurance if it burns down so the bank is covered for the mortgage and the investors in the bank do not take the loss. The prior investments cover the cost.
It should be that way so everyone has health insurance so they do not have to pay for someone else who does not. This is what happens now to hospitals. They take the loss for individuals who cannot pay and pass it on to the people who do pay with higher costs which makes higher premiums for insurance companys.
I do not see how his plan will benefit and how he could possibly lower costs if only those who want it can have it.
Someone has to pay and it will be the individual consumer.
With everyone with health care the cost will be much lower and it will be fair.
Noone plans on sickness and to start paying premiums just when you start getting sick and not prior is wrong. If people can do this with no prior condition to be turned down for insurance the system will not be able to pay for itself.
jean; May 22, 2008 7:20 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Superdelegate Switches

Here's the complete list of superdelegate switches from Clinton to Obama:

* May 9 - Rep. Donald Payne (NJ)
* May 7 - DNC Jennifer McClellan (VA)
* May 1 - DNC Joe Andrew (IN)
* Feb 27 - Rep. John Lewis (GA)
* Feb 27 - DNC Senfronia Thompson (TX)
* Feb 20 - DNC Dana Redd (NJ)
* Feb 15 - DNC Sarah Swisher (IA)
* Feb 14 - DNC Christine "Roz" Samuels (NJ)
* Feb 14- Rep. David Scott (GA)

Superdelegate Switches

from Obama to Clinton ZERO

.; May 22, 2008 7:21 PM
jpsedona said...: RobH,

Any threat by Hillary to appeal the seating to the credentials committee is hollow.

In the credential committee, there will be Dean loyalists plus Obama loyalists that won't grant an appeal and overturn the RBC. The appeal would get heard before any votes on the floor (meaning no FL or MI delegates participate until there's a decision).

She could try to take it to the floor, but without FL & MI being seated, the majority of all the delegates will belong to Obama (assuming that he gets roughly a split in remaining pledged delegates & a quantity of the remaining SD's).

Obama supporters are not going to grant an appeal by Hillary, period. She knows she wouldn't win. So, if she were to go to the convention, she would be doing it to be vindictive (and to reduce Obama's chances of winning in Nov).; May 22, 2008 7:28 PM
RobH said...: Hey hey everybody,

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Just 410 days 'til the US National Debt tops $10 Trillion.

I wonder how they're going to add an extra digit to the clock in Times Square??

http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

Thank God Republicans are the Party of fiscal responsibility, eh?

Fell free to share with your friends.; May 22, 2008 7:28 PM
Peter said...: Re RobH

Even Bill Clinton said it would be fair to cut the delegates with 50%. There is no way, they could seat all delegates without some form of punishment. It is important to seat the delegates, but i also think both DNC and the RBC will show that you can`t bully your way into some solution that suits you after you agreed to the rules.

The thing is that Clinton campaign argument about "every voice should be hear" etc is completly bogus when you look at their claim regarding MI. They say that all 55 uncomitted delegates should be uncomitted, because there is no "proof" that "uncomitted" supported Obama, that is just plain wrong and cynical at best.
There where less than 600 000 votes cast in MI, AA turnout was low compared to previous elections and exit polls shows Clinton with around 10% lead and Obama+Edwards doing better than Clinton when combined. Giving Clinton majority of delegates from MI wold actually be a solution that is giving her more delegates than she probably should have. Claiming that Obama should have zero delegates, is just stupid and is extremly offensive towards Obama-supporters in MI.

But, as I`ve said earlier, I think RBC will solve this in a good way. Talking about Zimbabwe, Gore and MLK is not going to help Clinton here....; May 22, 2008 7:30 PM
RobH said...: jpsedona,

Agreed, but even announcing a plan to appeal extends the time frame from June to August, and suspends our ability to finally declare a victor since the metrics will be in flux.

He may have 2030 (vs 2025), or 2150 (vs 2118), but if FL and MI are resolved by the RBC, but left in suspension by an appeal, then no one has the right to "remove her by math."; May 22, 2008 7:33 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: jean (NOT aunt jean) -

I really don't want to get into a long drawn out debate about the two healthcare plans.

The main thing I believe is that the government should not fine people for not buying insurance.

I do know that there are some provisions in Obama's plan that wouldn't let the people that don't buy insurance and then take advantage of the system will be penalized (I can't cite them off the top of my head). Which makes more sense to me than fining Americans right off the bat is get a bill passed and get people signed up and covered and then later gradually get the small percentage of folks that refuse to buy insurance into the program.

As it is now insurance premiums have added costs to cover those that don't have insurance but if you lower the number of people that are not covered then that cost goes way down.

One other reason I think that the Obama plan is better is that it has more of a chance getting passed - the possibility of Hillary getting healthcare passed in my opinion is zero.

I'm Leah and I approve this message ;); May 22, 2008 7:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Peter said...
Vix

“Clinton doesn`t control the RBC and I don`t think all those 13 “
Peter
Do you think Allan Katz (FL) will vote to penalize MI; May 22, 2008 7:39 PM
jpsedona said...: RobH,

You said: "Thank God Republicans are the Party of fiscal responsibility, eh?"

Unfortunately, only Congress can spend money... and both parties have been irresponsible. When Clinton had a surplus, what did Congress do? They looked to spend it... instead of retiring debt and continuing some restraint in spending, both parties went pork wild.

Even if spending on the war in Iraq were to stop immediately, we're still in financial trouble.

Why is it that after controlling both houses of Congress that they still rank considerably lower than Bush? Bush? How is that even possible?; May 22, 2008 7:39 PM
RobH said...: Peter,

Agree with everything you say, but the exposure is, as I said in my post to jpsedona, that the RBC decision is not final. An appeal could keep the math indeterminate.

Regarding MI and delegates, check wikipedia for the seperate article on that primary. while Clinton won the primary 55:40 over "uncommitted", when asked where there vote would have gone if Obam and Edwards were on teh ballot, the results would have been
46:35:12. In other words, if you believe Edwards support would largely go to Obama anyway, the results would have nee 50:50. So yeah, she's getting a better deal than reality.; May 22, 2008 7:40 PM
jpsedona said...: RobH,

I think that any statement by Hillary after an RBC decision (whatever they decide) to take it to the convention will drive SD's to Obama's column. They will deliver the message... you could say that it would Eight Belles for Hillary... do not ask for whom the Belle tolls Hillary, it tolls for you...; May 22, 2008 7:46 PM
billyjay66 said...: robh

When Regan took office in 1980 the total debt was just short of 1 trillion. When George HW Bush left 12 years later it was 4.5 trillion. In the next eight years under Clinton the debt rose just over 1 trillion. Therefore of that 10 trillion.

George Washington thru Jimmy Carter plus Clinton = 2 trillion. (all presidents except Regan Bush-Bush)

Regan-Bush I plus Bush II = 8 trillion; May 22, 2008 7:46 PM
jean said...: RE: Leah
Ok, we are done, but the less amount of people who have insurance will make insurance costs go up because of the costs of the people who are not insured and cannot afford the hospital costs and not pay.
It is 4:50 pm and 5pm somewhere and it is time for cocktail hour;)
jean; May 22, 2008 7:52 PM
RobH said...: jpedona @ 7:26, that is exactly my hope, and what I meant by a DEFINING showdow.; May 22, 2008 7:54 PM
Peter said...: Re Jim

Both states are allready penalized. I think most RBC-members agree that some sort of "punishment" is needed or also you would more or less say that breaking the rules is ok.

Even though someone supports Clinton or Obama, it doesn`t mean they will do anything for them. This is the same RBC who agreed to penalize MI and FL in the first place. There is no way we will see i 360, specially not at this stage.

RBC should find a solution which is good for the party, that means i compromise. You need a solution that reflects the will of the voters in some way. Giving Obama zero delegates in MI is not the will of the voters. But seating the delegates is important for the party.
The other important thing for the party, is to tell people that you can`t break the rules without being punished in some way.; May 22, 2008 7:54 PM
Random said...: Peter, i think you mis-understood my concern. from what ive seen, i dont think Clinton wants to win the FL,MI debate! She doesnt even want her best case deal.

She need it to be an issue past the 31st so it will be decided in Aug at the convention. She wants to move the race outside of the delegate count. per her own words.

RobH, hopefully you are right and im just parinoid. everyone has expected for months there would be a flood of delegates, and there never was. Now the rally is Jan 3rd.... and i just dont see it.

Clinton has made her Aug argument this week, she has her perfect excuse to not quit (FL,MI). She has been using every dispicable tactic at her disposal, and she still seems to have plenty of support.

After the 3rd its all about backroom deals and arm twisting. My guess is she will get real quiet in the media, and everyone will try to do what they have this month (campain past her), but she wont quit. She doesnt need the voters after the 3rd, just convention delegates.

of course the whole point is it doesnt matter who wins the nomination, if she contests past the 3rd, then we are a split party in Aug and the damage is done.

i really hope im wrong!!!; May 22, 2008 7:55 PM
Mike Ruth said...: Yam says of Bill Clinton: "He is the Party, all others are perennial losers, period."

Wow, my 8th grader is reading Animal Farm (by Orwell) ... this sounds like a quote from the lead pig Napoleon. I guess Yam is a Leninist now?

(Why can I not resist posting back to this guy, anyway?); May 22, 2008 8:00 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Okay I am not stupid but I can't figure out what the difference is between 100% compared to 50% in regards to seating the delegates.

The difference in margin would be the SAME if you seat 100% or give 1/2 since the percentage of the whole for each candidate would not change.

Does that make sense?

And since FL and MI would be the last states to be added into the total they would determine how the end totals would come out.

120/80
is the same as
60/40

And also the number needed to secure the nomination would change but the outcome would remain the same in regards to the margin.

Come on RobH - help me out here LOL !; May 22, 2008 8:01 PM
Anonymous said...: To Hillary:
The hacks say that if you take the fight all the way to Denver, you could split the Party.
I say, YOU GO GIRL. Please split it and form a third party.
The new Party could be made up of your supporters, middle class Americans
The old Democratic Party would then have the AA’s and could fight for the elite and intellectuals
with the depleted GOP.
The moderate Republicans would defect to you.
The GOP would then have the Neocons and religious right and could fight with the old Demo’s for the elite and intellectuals.; May 22, 2008 8:02 PM
tmess2 said...: Four things to remember in the debate over Florida and Michigan.

First, the Delegate Selection Rules were issued in 2006 but the dates of the primaries were not changed until 2007. (The Republicans had adopted their rules at the 2004 Convention). Those rules in both parties included the penalty provisions for scheduling a primary too soon.

Second, the rules of both parties require that a participant in the nomination process can only participate in one party's nomination process. This rule was not a problem in Florida which had a closed primary but was a problem for Michigan.

Third, the main stream media treated the decisions of the two parties regardinng Florida and Michigan as binding and told voters that the Democratic Primary in those two states didn't count.

Fourth, the leadership of the Democratic Party in Michigan and the Democratic Party in Florida -- having been told the consequences of insisting on a binding primary before February 5th -- refused to go with a post-February 5th caucus. In particular, after it's initial plan based on the January 29th primary was rejected, the Florida Democratic Party was given 30 days to submit an alternative plan that did not use that primary but declined to do so.; May 22, 2008 8:03 PM
jpsedona said...: Leah,

Proportionately 120/80 and 60/40 are the same. It's' the difference that counts:

120-80 = 40
60-40 = 20

A 20 vote difference...; May 22, 2008 8:07 PM
Peter said...: No, I don`t think I misunderstood.
But thing is that she can`t take this to the convention if a proper solution is worked out in RBC. If RBC agrees to a solution which Obama accepts, there will be no way Clinton could get away with rejecting it. Remember that RBC has a number of Clinton supporters including Harold Ickes. Rejecting a solution from RBC that seems fair would make her look pathetic. Remember that Clinton is allready polling really bad against Obama at the moment. There comes a point where even her major backers would agree to put the party over her.

There is only one possible solution from MI/FL which put Obama a long way from winning the majority of delegates, that solution is not realistic because it includes him getting no delegates from MI. All other possible solutions will mean he has still won the pledged majority and that he is less than 100 delegates away from winning total majority.
Obama will most likely get around 40 pledged delegates or more from PR, SD and MT. He will probably get 5-6 add-ons this weekend. He doesn`t need that many supers to secure the majority including MI/FL.
Clinton can`t take it to the convention if Obama has the majority because she would be politically dead and she can`t reject a fair solution from RBC which Obama accepts because supers will push her out of the race and she will be politically dead.

I think she is bluffing and that there is no way she would take this to the convention.

The main reason that i don`t think she would take it to the convention is that she can`t win there. Obama will have the majority of delegates and they will push on with a solution and Clinton will lose.; May 22, 2008 8:12 PM
tmess2 said...: I hate directly responding to those who use bogus arguments but the argument that the women supporting Clinton represent the majority of the country acts as if she has carried the majority of all segments of the female population when she has not.

Women are only the majority if you include African-American women and women under 40. Since those segments tended to favor Obama, you can't claim that going with Obama is disrespecting all women.

The thing that has gotten me most ticked off with the fervent supporters of Clinton is that one strand of the argument is the childish position that "we get to choose the nominee because we might walk."

As much as I want to win this November, sometimes it is better to be right than to win. And it is wrong to give any segment of the party a veto over who gets the nomination. The nominee should be decided by the rules in place when the first votes were cast. Barring a major surprise in the rest of the races, on June 21st (after all the delegates have been selected) Obama will have picked up the additional 62 delegates necessary to give him the majority under those rules.

If you change the rules in the middle to get a different nominee than the one who won under the old rules that is "stealing" an election by any definition.

Senator Clinton has a right to fight all the way to the convention (as did the losing candidates on the Republican side) but she knows that doing so merely hurts the chances to accomplish her legislative agenda by helping John McCain. So the question for Senator Clinton to answer is whether she wants to be President more than she wants to achieve or more just and prosperous United States.; May 22, 2008 8:28 PM
Random said...: peter, she has been campaining this week in FL saying that ALL votes should stand "AS IS". including 0 votes for Obama in MI. How can she even back out of that position in a week?

i agree its an ludicruis and unfair proposal, but this gets to my question... why do you think she wont contest?

she said she would, and she said she was going to take it to Denver. do you really think she is lying or bluffing today about something coming up in 9 days?

mathmatically she couldnt win after the last few primaries, everyone said she would drop out, but she didnt. why? because she knew she was going to fight it in Denver?

Obama has the majority of PDs TODAY, and i see no sign of her slowing down or being politically dead. In Aug, everyone who has endorsed can switch.

everyone is waitin for the 31st, or the 3rd, and I think its tooo late.

again, it doesnt matter if she has little or no chance of winning in Aug, if she TRIES to do it, she stand a good chance of giving the GE to McBush.

how else can her actions and words be viewed?; May 22, 2008 8:31 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: jean said...

RE: Leah
Ok, we are done, but the less amount of people who have insurance will make insurance costs go up because of the costs of the people who are not insured and cannot afford the hospital costs and not pay.
It is 4:50 pm and 5pm somewhere and it is time for cocktail hour;)"
____________________

Yes but the point here is that once the Obama plan would go into effect there would be more people covered than there are 'now' so the premiums would go down.

I was looking at it from the view point of how many people are uncovered now and their costs still need to be picked up. Compared to more people paying in and there for less uncovered people and less cost to be picked up.

I am not saying that 'everyone' under Obama's plan would be covered (since a small percentage of people would opt out and refuse to pay premiums) but more people would be paying then than they are now, so premiums would go down.

Cheers - salute!

.; May 22, 2008 8:31 PM
jean said...: Leah
I had to stop the Salute.
I forgot about baseball practice.
Darn.
I really think that the problem will be that not enough people will go under the plan and without enough people the cost will be too excessive.
If Obama would adopt HRC's plan that would be a huge plus.
When we fix Social Security, Medicare and Universal Health Care , well it does need to be done.
jean; May 22, 2008 8:40 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: jpsedona said: "Proportionately 120/80 and 60/40 are the same. It's' the difference that counts:

120-80 = 40
60-40 = 20

A 20 vote difference...
_________________

You still have not convinced me because the number to win would also change.

I am sure this must be 'simple' and that I am looking like a fool LOL - but I've been outside here in the heat all day and I guess my brain is malfunctioning ;)

***** Ah ha!
Okay, while typing this it finally sunk in. It would be easier to make up 20 delegates than it would be 40 (getting the difference from the SDs). Right ?; May 22, 2008 8:41 PM
Yamaka said...: jp and others:

You all believe that Hillary has as much as 50% of negative ratings.

I don't agree.

Those measurements are all by some fraudulent sources who massage data to fit somebody else bidding.

This is what I believe:

In large battle ground State Primaries like

TX OH PA WV and KY, BHO got beaten by good margins by HRC, even though he out-spent her nearly3:1 plus he had free liberal media push.

If you average the margins, you will get at least a 10% lead, which tells ME that her support level is 55% and his is just 45% in a broad swath of America.

That's why I say her support is broader and wider than his in spite of enormous BigMoney Advantage.

Therefore, she is the Majority Candidate, and BHO is the Minority Candidate, IMO.

SDs: Please make a note of this.

:-); May 22, 2008 8:44 PM
RobH said...: Leah, on a conceptual level, jpsedona responded accurately regarding proportionality.

Specifically as regards this race, let me summarize what I said the other day.

The target hurdle number changes from 2025 to 2118 (plus 92), because the 368 total delgates of FL and MI, get cut in half (184), and then each candidate needs to get half to succeed (plus 92.)

But Barack Obama's acheivements in the MI and FL primaries netted him 134 full delegates (pledged and super), which now become 67 delegates. So Obama's to go number increases by 25, ne needs a n additional 92, but earned only 67 based on results (if he gets uncommitted and no 69:59 deal is struck.

BTW, and this is the big deal. I agree completely with Vixx.... Clinton has NO interest in seeing MI and FL resolved. Only by assuring they are unresolved, can she continue her quixotic quest. If she agrees to ANY deal, even a generous one, she'll be mathematically closed out. That's why you see the Obama campaign beginning to say they'll go more than 50:50, and still Clinton will not agree.; May 22, 2008 8:51 PM
RobH said...: Leah, to follow on,

The point is, by agreeing to a 50% penalty with no special provision, Obama marginally increases his challenge to succeed (in my estimation from about 15 'non PR', non MT', nonSD', non add-on', to about 40.) But that is an easy thing to accept, IMO, since the upside would be the removal of the fuzzy math hurdles.

Additionally, Leah and Jean, I read your exchanges with a full heart. THIS is how the discourse should happen, and I think you guys should get together.; May 22, 2008 8:57 PM
RobH said...: PS, I'll bring the Syrah, or the Merlot, or the Cab, or the .....; May 22, 2008 8:59 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

You seem to like the polls when they work for you...

well RCP, does track favorability for the candidates. Looking quickly, it seems to be better... only a 46% unfavorable!

as for using primary info... "TX OH PA WV and KY"... she can win in TX, WV and KY in the GE? I believe that about the same as Obama could win UT & ID...; May 22, 2008 9:05 PM
jpsedona said...: RobH,

"PS, I'll bring the Syrah, or the Merlot, or the Cab, or the ..... "

stick & stones?
papers, rock & scissors?
guns & knives?; May 22, 2008 9:08 PM
RobH said...: jp,

??? Huh?

Did I miss something?

Leah and Jean (not Aunt Jean) are getting along famously. Their dicourse is a model for us all.; May 22, 2008 9:13 PM
jpsedona said...: With Hillary winning 1/2 superdelegate to zero ... percentage wise, she won infintely more SD's than Obama today. 'atta girl Hill... only another 490 half delegates to the nomination!

disclaimer: actual results may differ; void in FL & MI, or prohibited by rules of the DNC; May 22, 2008 9:15 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Obama has won Texas - the person with the MOST delegates wins - Obama got more delegates in Texas than HRC.

Obama is beating McCain in the polls now in PA avg. Obama +5.

We can win the GE without Florida and Ohio. Obama is strong in other states that will come into play this time.

H
Obama '08
P
E; May 22, 2008 9:17 PM
jpsedona said...: RobH,

my appologies... I thought you meant Aunt Jean... thinking more about a Leah & Aunt Jean meeting, I suggest skipping the wine and heading straight for the bioilermakers & hand granades...; May 22, 2008 9:17 PM
RobH said...: Vixx,

if you're still around...
Fill me in.

If I recall, when you joined us just a few days ago you presented yourself as a "young-ish, newly engaged" (my rememberance)participant. Yet your posts strike me as remarkably synthesized to the issues, concise, deliberate, and pointed.

Look, I've got a 17 yr old son and while he's engaged politically, he's not on the same plane as you.

What's your background?; May 22, 2008 9:21 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hehehehe yeah I was having a pleasant conversion this afternoon with 'jean (NOT aunt jean)'

It's nice to be able to discuss issues like two adults.

Btw, I think the count is up to five days now on that other issue. I'm patting myself on the back - I'm usually not able to restrain myself that long ;); May 22, 2008 9:29 PM
ed iglehart said...: What does HRC's behaviour (having no interest uin a solution) remind me of?

it's on th tip of my tongue......

Got it! ISRAEL!

Clever lass!

DAMN!; May 22, 2008 9:34 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: RobH-

So if the delegatess are seated whatever way, then they will probably still recognize the SDs as is?

I looked on the 'superdelegate' endorsed page the other day and Hillary doesn't have that big of a lead in SDs from MI and FL. So, I am not too worried about those SDs.

.
p.s. Pat Buchanan is on MSNBC again talking about HRC as V.P. I wish he would go on vacation :) The media is guilty of keeping the idea of a joint ticket in the minds of the HRC supporters and it infuriates me!; May 22, 2008 9:35 PM
jpsedona said...: If you haven't read this article on Slate related to FL primary, it's worth a read:

Were Florida Dems Really GOP Victims?

Who supported the measure to move up the primary? ... "Every single Democrat in both chambers voted for the early date except for one House member"; May 22, 2008 9:36 PM
Yamaka said...: BHO Supporters:

I guess McCain threw a Larry Holmes' Left Hook on your Messiah!

Why did he go against him on National Security and Foreign Policy?

McCain is a Mountain and BHO is a mound on these matters. BHO knows it, Michelle knows it and Axelrod knows it. You all know it for sure.

BTW, why didn't BHO join ROTC and serve the Country for a few years?

Just a qn. Don't go bananas on this Military Experience!

He does NOT have experience in ANYthing, IMO, let alone Military!

Cheer, Smile and Vote for Hillary, the First Woman POTUS.

:-); May 22, 2008 9:36 PM
RobH said...: I'm thinkin' VP's again,

Leah, if you missed Hardball tonight, Matthews had a panel talking VP options. He offered up Clinton, Edwards, Bayh, and Bloomberg. After discussion , Matthews attempted to say Clinton was the clear choice of the panel (of these four) and the panel took him to task.

Two out of the three said "no, your list doesn't have the right folks on it" and named Sebelius as the preferred choice. TWO OF THREE! Other names included Vilsack, Strickland, Rendell, Nunn.

Nobody even mentioned Webb.

I've weeded out the dark horses and the special cases. For me, the short list is Webb and Sebilius, with Strickland near third.

Webb: foreign policy, military, cross party, whiteguys, independents.
Sebelius: women, over 50, 'Ohio', red state. fiscal expertixe, governor/not senator.
Strickland: Hill supporters, Ohio.

I'm almost there on Sebelius.; May 22, 2008 9:39 PM
Yamaka said...: "the idea of a joint ticket in the minds of the HRC supporters and it infuriates me!"

What infuriates me is

He is NOT a Presidential Timber.

But She is.

In case she is mugged at the Convention, I want her to act like Ted Kennedy in 1980- the Lion - and walk out of the Place.

Roar back in 2012 to recapture the Paradise Lost. Yes,,, She...Can!

:-); May 22, 2008 9:40 PM
Yamaka said...: Michelle is the best VP, IMO!!!!!!!!!!; May 22, 2008 9:41 PM
RobH said...: Leah at 9:35,

The SD issue at 50% vs. 100 % is unresolved. Chuck Todd's math to get to 2118 as the new target persumes 50% for pledged AND super delegates.

If supers are at 100% (instead of 50%), then the new target is 2131. Most plebe's (like us) think it should be 50% for the pledged and 50% for the supers (at best - if not zero). I, and many others, wish it would be 100% for hte vopters (pledged) and 0% for the supers, since they're the ones who foulded up.; May 22, 2008 9:49 PM
apissedant said...: To Grant, and all other posters.

To borrow from the wonderful President Bush, "there is no magic wand." Our country and our corporations have had terrible leadership for three decades. Our corporations didn't fund their pension programs, and are all now claiming bankruptcy and asking for financial assistance to pay for their retired employees health care and pensions, which should have been put aside over the past three decades. The Unions knew the corporations weren't funding these programs, but they were making ridiculous money, and were rather corrupt at the time, so they did nothing. Our government not only ignored the problem, but used the same silly ideas to run their social security program, and the national deficit.
Environmental, conservation, financial, trade, and human rights issues were ignored for way too long. This WILL NOT magically disappear in January, regardless of the President. We have a long, hard road ahead of us. Things will continue to get worse before they get better. These problems took decades to create, and they will take years to fix.
My hope... no, my belief is the Barack Obama will be able to make these hard choices. He will not bend and cave to political pressure, but will instead do what is right for our country's future. He will not focus on reelection, or on public opinion. He won't give silly tax rebates because it will boost approval ratings, he won't approve NAFTA because his wealthy campaign contributors will make a fortune on the deal. He will stand up to public opinion, and make the decisions that we elected HIM to make, instead of relying on the latest poll conducted by ZOGBY.
Barack Obama is a man of integrity and intelligence. He is everything in a leader we have needed, and sadly lacked for way too long.
I supported Bill Bradley in 2000, John Edwards in 2004, and now I support Barack Obama. I trust these three men. I have faith in them. They are great men, and I am convinced that any of the three of them could do great things to start repairing what we Americans have squandered and abused for way too long.

P.S. Sorry for quoting Bush, but it is the first true thing he has said since being elected.; May 22, 2008 9:51 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: RobH-

Thanks for the update on Hardball - that part was on when I was in the kitchen trying to get my dog to eat (he is being finicky the past couple of days) - Btw, he is an Obama supporter too ;) When Obama is on the TV and I tell him "There's Obama Obama Obama" he wags his tail at and barks ;)

Talking about animals, CNN has that video still up with the PARROT that is an Obama supporter too:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/

Scroll in the politics videos to find the one with the parrot!

.
p.s. and thank you both RobH and jpsedona for the info earlier ;); May 22, 2008 9:53 PM
RobH said...: Leah, sorry, I didn't even get there. MI:FL, supers are Clinton:Obama 8:5, 7:5, thus overall it's 15:10 at full strength, 7.5:5. No big deal.; May 22, 2008 9:53 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Here's a better video and better link for Smokey saying 'Obama, Yes We Can'

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

How great that is !!!; May 22, 2008 9:59 PM
RobH said...: Leah,

I'm having huge flashbacks tonight. Fell a great sense of connection. I'm remembering the first time Aunt Jean trashed you when she first joined here, and you had previously been nominated for Sec'y of State, and I admonished her for it. Geez.. how longa go was that,,,,forever??; May 22, 2008 10:00 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: RobH-

It seems like I've been on this thread 'forever' YEARS AND YEARS but it's probably only been what 2 months or 3 at the most.

Every time I have thought that this race is over it keeps on going and going and going just like the energizer bunny!

.; May 22, 2008 10:04 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka said: "Michelle is the best VP, IMO!!!!!!!!!!"
___________________________

Yakama:

That is ridiculous and YOU know it.

Michelle will be busy being wife, mother, and FIRST LADY of the UNITED States of America!; May 22, 2008 10:09 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: apissedant -

Welcome to the thread.
I enjoyed reading your post ;)

H
Obama '08
P
E; May 22, 2008 10:16 PM
Cat said...: Regarding the Florida vote - it is not just about Hillary and Obama. It is about the voters and democracy. See the passion, the anger, the sincerity for yourselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyXFGoeoWp4; May 22, 2008 10:21 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: From TampaBayOnline about how the situation in Florida evolved, from someone who has been directly affected by the situation:

Primary Predicaments
By WILLIAM MARCH
The Tampa Tribune
Published: March 23, 2008
Updated: 03/22/2008 11:34 pm

TAMPA - How did we get into this mess?

Not all the ins and outs are explored, such as the meetings the DNC held to try to get Florida (and Michigan) to change their primary plans, the rebuffing of the DNC's overtures to get the states in compliance, and the further extended deadlines and discussions of penalties.

The entire article can be read at:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/mar/23/me-primary-predicaments/?news-politics
http://tinyurl.com/62appk

A lot of blame can be assigned to a lot of people, but I'll let you make up your minds as to who gets the largest share of blame.

Mike; May 22, 2008 10:31 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: catharine-

FL and MI is also about ALL the PEOPLE THAT STAYED HOME and DID NOT VOTE.

The people that were told BEFORE the election that the votes would not count and then they stayed home would now be disenfranchised if the delegates would be seated as is.

It ain't going to happen!

All the Florida election was was a 'beauty contest'. People that did vote voted for who they knew the best at the time. If Obama had be able to campaign there before the election then his share of delegates would have been much bigger.

The rules are the rules and the rules have been broken.

Now everyone must accept the solution that the RBC comes up with - whatever that may be.; May 22, 2008 10:32 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Thanks to you guys for giving me your wisdom on the swing states. I was cross-referencing GE results from 1984 until 2004. This sounds very promising.

Aunt Jean-Yep, we'll just keep stating our opinions, so we can be as wrong as we want to be. lol lol

smithgirl44, Walter, Vixx, and GrantWoods-Hi y'all.

seating MI and FL-I don't think they should be seated 100%. A precedent should not be set. Not trying to be absolute, but these rules were already in place and agreed to by all the candidates. What will be, will be.

GrantWoods-issues- They are very close in their proposals. It comes down to me to how organized their campaigns have been run and and how financially responsible they have been. Obama's voters' drives have also impressed me. My husband wants to add, as an independent, that the Office of President should not become a dynasty for Bush's or Clintons'.

Somebody mentioned earlier about trying to bring up individual state issues, but I've had a lot going on. It's almost the end of the school year for my kids.; May 22, 2008 10:37 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This is from the article of the link that Mike in Maryland posted up above in his post:

•The purpose of presidential primary votes is to divide up national convention delegates among the candidates, so the votes don't really count until the delegates go to the convention.

•In Florida, political parties don't set primary dates - the Legislature does. But state parties decide how to choose their delegates, and national parties have the right to govern their own nominating process, including whether to seat the delegates.

In effect, voters may have a right to vote in a Florida primary, but no right to have the party act on that vote.

.; May 22, 2008 10:40 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: continued...

At its summer 2006 convention, the Democratic National Committee specified a tough penalty - the loss of half the delegation, plus a boycott preventing candidates from campaigning in the state.

The 11 Florida DNC members voted for that penalty.

,; May 22, 2008 10:42 PM
Yamaka said...: catharine:

Welcome.

You are right the FL and MI issues go to the foundation of what we believe in, and how Party should act when it comes to the rights of the voters.

I blame the DNC and the State Party Officials and Politicians. They have been terribly negligent and did not understand the depth and the seriousness of the issue. The Date Rule was very poorly implemented, given the complexity that FL is ruled by GOP, and MI has a GOP Senate.

A revote before PA should have been arranged. But BHO did not cooperate, because he knew he will lose.

Now he wants all of the "Uncommitted" votes to himself. He did not want the votes cast in Jan. Why does he want it now?

My Solution:

Punish the Officials and Politicians.

Seat ALL delegates AS IS as per the Jan votes. Keep the "Uncommitted" as is as per the wishes of the voters.

That's fair and legitimate.

Cheers.; May 22, 2008 10:44 PM
Hippolytus said...: RobH said:
"I've not paid that much attention, but that guy "McCain" comes off as a little unhinged."
___________

Captain Queeg, unhinged?; May 22, 2008 10:48 PM
Hippolytus said...: Leah said:
"All the Florida election was was a 'beauty contest'. People that did vote voted for who they knew the best at the time. If Obama had be able to campaign there before the election then his share of delegates would have been much bigger."
_______

Leah's point is right on the mark. In state after state, look at how Obama overcame sizable Clinton leads, and either overtook her or ate into the lead. There are, of course, states like West VA and Kentucky where this did not happen, but these were exceptions to the rule.; May 22, 2008 10:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Yamaka said:
Seat ALL delegates AS IS as per the Jan votes. Keep the "Uncommitted" as is as per the wishes of the voters.

That's fair and legitimate.

"Fair and legitimate" means 328,000 votes for Clinton, zero for Obama. From a state that cast 2.48 million votes for Kerry in 2004.

13 percent. Less than one half. Less than one fourth. Barely more than one eighth.

That is the Clinton/Yamaka definition of a fair and legitimate election.

You agree with that, catharine?; May 22, 2008 10:55 PM
Yamaka said...: "but no right to have the party act on that vote."

Then in essence this means 2.5 million votes are a waste and the voters have no rights in the Party Convention.

This is a punishment for the voters.

No one on this God's Earth can punish the innocent voters, period.

If the Party even contemplates of punishing the innocent voters, the Party ceases to exist as a National Party of 50 States, and must be destroyed from inside out.

The War Begins Now.

RBC is the Start of the War and it will end in the destruction of the Convention in August 2008.

Believe me.; May 22, 2008 10:55 PM
Cat said...: Leah...

I cannot speak for MI, but as far as Florida goes, we had a record turnout because of our Property Tax issue. Also, many of us voted not knowing that our vote didn't count. And no, Senator Obama did not campaign here but he ran a hell of alot of television ads. But as I said above, its not about Hillary or Obama - it is about the Florida voters.; May 22, 2008 10:59 PM
Yamaka said...: count:

Four Candidates left their Names, and four others voluntarily removed their Names in MI and FL as a strategy to woo the voters of the early States.

I would contend that BHO won IA because of that Strategy.

In essence, he did NOT want MI and FL votes in Jan.

Why does he need NOW?

The Uncommitted belongs to four people who were not on the ballot; we cannot find out the real intent of the voters now. Impossible.; May 22, 2008 11:01 PM
Yamaka said...: Catharine:

BHO signed an Agreement that he will NOT run TV campaign ads in FL and MI.

But in fact he ran cable ads which reached FL. He did not get the permission from other Candidates and the DNC who signed the Agreement.

For this, he must be punished by as much as 50% of delegates.

HRC did not violate any Agreement.

That is fair and legitimate.

:-); May 22, 2008 11:06 PM
Random said...: RobH,
like i said before, 1st year interested in politics. just one of those working white guys voting for Obama :)

really, my passion lies in getting BUSH out of office, and repairing the damage done over the last 8 years. after watching all the idiotic things done by our current administration, figured it was time to get interested and vote! Bush made me a democrat ;)

im really optimistic about Obama. he is talkin the talk, and thats more then anyone else has done in a long time (as far as i know).

however, now its like being in the passenger seat of a car as the wreck starts... in slow motion. if this fight goes to Aug, and it has ANY chance of messing up the GE, then im very angry at the selfishness of the Clintons, and im extremely disappointed that almost nobody in democratic leadership is standing up to it.

guess we shall see week after next. but everyone in June better not go *gasp* its a shock that Clinton is unreasonably appealing the FL,MI and showing up in Aug to try and fight Obama for the election and this is going to cause 40% of the voters of either side to stay home.

she promised to unite...
id be willing to be there are millions like me, pop'in their heads out of the sand this year to vote for a real change, and if this wreck happens most will go right back to being disinterested in politicians who lie. the "its good" for the party is evaporating quickly. Clinton promised to unite...

all the SDs have to do is VOTE!
isnt that what they always tell us?; May 22, 2008 11:11 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Does anybody think the writers' strike was a catalyst for the new interest we've gotten for the Dem. Primary? I don't have tv because between the money we have to spend on news, we believe the best chance we have for objective information is the internet. I would like to believe though that a lot of people were already paying attention because there are a lot of critical issues to speak about and make choices about.; May 22, 2008 11:21 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: softspoken22 said: " Does anybody think the writers' strike was a catalyst for the new interest we've gotten for the Dem. Primary?"
__________________

Yes, I think so - at least part of the reason. I don't remember the figures but a week or so ago they were talking on TV about how the viewership of a lot of shows has not returned after the writer's strike but that the viewership of the news programs had gone up because of the strike and that it hasn't gone down (any or much) since after the strike has been over.

I betcha the writers never thought something like that would have happened ;)

.; May 23, 2008 12:08 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Well I have seen everything now!

I was on the CNN ticker and there are a few people over in the comments sections there that 'were' Hillary supporters but have changed their minds because of her recent behaviour - and now they are saying that they 'denounce and reject' her!; May 23, 2008 12:36 AM
Hippolytus said...: Mike in MD,
Thanks for the link to Tampa Bay Online. "Train wreck" is an apt phrase to describe the situation in Florida. I love the line from State party Chairman Karen Thurman in November 2006: "I don't see any downside to it." Also,this observation: "There was a miscalculation that because we're Florida, that's going to trump everything," Katz said. Unbelievable.; May 23, 2008 12:54 AM
Hippolytus said...: Something must be afoot with the absence of endorsements today. I suspect that something is being organized (not sure by whom). The quiet murmurings before a volcanic explosion.; May 23, 2008 12:57 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hippolytus-

It seems to me that today was the quietest day for SDs in a very very long time.

It does seem very strange...

.; May 23, 2008 1:07 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: Hippolytus, I too am thinking that things will erupt soon. There may be a few days of rumblings first.

but what do I know, I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again.

from William Butler Yeats' Poem "The Second Coming":

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

buona notte!; May 23, 2008 1:12 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Trail of Tall Tales:McCain

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/22/trail-of-tall-tales-john-mccain/

______

p.s. To Vicki - Buona notte a te, sogni di oro ;); May 23, 2008 1:36 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Someone earlier today said that Obama HIRED Johnson to begin the process of searching for a V.P. Well apparently that is NOT TRUE.
___

From the New York Times:

Mr. Obama declined on Thursday to discuss the role Mr. Johnson would be playing.

"I haven’t hired him," Mr. Obama told reporters at the Capitol. "He’s not on retainer. I’m not paying him any money. He is a friend of mine. I know him. I am not commenting on vice presidential matters because I have not won this nomination."

Mr. Obama, who this week crossed the threshold of winning a majority of pledged delegates, intends to wait until next month before declaring victory in the Democratic nominating fight.

.; May 23, 2008 1:54 AM
Kujo said...: Clintonisms Top Ten from Yamika,

10. Clinton is the majority Obama the minority so the SD will know to support the majority. (refering to popular vote in states that Clinton likes)

9. After people see how much Clinton will win in Texas, the SD will come flooding to her.

8. After people see how much Clinton will with in Penn. the SD will come flooding to her.

7. After people see how much Clinto will win in W. Virginia the SD will come flooding to her.

6. After Clinton wins Kentucky and Oregon the SD will come flooding for her

5. 92% of Blacks go for BHO and 60% of Whites (college kids and the mis-educated "affluent" Whites) go to BHO. (All the Mis-Educated afluent whites?, so the real brains of this country is people who have 3 or 4 teeth and a brother named buba?)

4. BArack is an elitist who cannot understand the working White voters, who are the backbone of GE. (But clinton does. She has not filled up a tank of gas in over 24 years, has not lived amongst the middle class in over 24 years, has a husband who gets payed over 100,000,000 dollars for doing speeches to lobyest and companies who do not show up to listen, who are looking for better ways to pay off politicians, who are looking for ways to get around the 2500 cap on campain contributions)

3. After June 4 Clinton will be up over 150 delegates.

2. But when Bill says she is the best of the three candidates left in the race, I just believe him. (Depends on the meaning of "the best")

1. Obama had national adds that reached the viewers in Florida, a state that did not count in the primary. A state that Obama agree'd that would not count in the primary. So he should be punished. (for what? having somone in a state that did not count happen to view a tv add? What would he try to gain here at a time when he need to think wisely on money?)

We hear at DCW thank you Yakama for the humor you add to our day; May 23, 2008 1:57 AM
Kujo said...: News Flash:

Three Florida residence visiting relatives in S. Carolina saw an Obama advertisements prior to voting in Florida's illegal Primary.

This is a clear violation of the Clinton admendment to the DNC rules: If Obama shows any adds to people in Florida, I HRC will automantically win the nomination.; May 23, 2008 2:05 AM
tmess2 said...: I am not particularly offended by the thought that either candidate has had staff designated for the vice-presidential search process. It's been a long time since the primary season has been close at the end of May, shortening the time after the primaries to do that type of work.

For those with long memories, you may recall in 1976, Ronald Reagan announced his choice for vice-president even though he was trailing Gerald Ford in the race for the Republican nomination.

I have yet to hear any source outside the Clinton campaign (and their most dedicated supporters) suggest that there are a large number of unpledged delegates just waiting for June 4th to endorse Senator Clinton. On the other hand, I have heard several reporters indicate that Obama does have commitments from a large number of unpledged delegates who are waiting for June 4th.; May 23, 2008 2:18 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: A brief tour of some web sites yields some interesting headlines and other information.

California Progress Report:
"Obama Beats McCain in California 54-37% and Wins All Groups Except Republicans in New PPIC Poll"
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/05/obama_beats_mcc.html
http://tinyurl.com/6cp8u7

Obama leads in all subgroups except that of Republicans. He wins the white vote, does better with the Golden State’s women voters than men, and cleans up with independents and Latinos. He has higher favorable ratings (59% to 36%) than Clinton (46% favorable to 51% unfavorable) overall and his favorable ratings continue strongly with both Democrats and Independents.

The big loser here—John MCain—who has a 53% to 42% unfavorable rating with all likely voters and does poorly with Independents and Latinos.

From the Chicago Sun-Times:
" Obama starts to attract Clinton voters"
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/963217,polls052108.article
http://tinyurl.com/64jc96

Senator Clinton’s support among key parts of her base - women, whites, Easterners, Hispanics, adults with no college education - dropped below 50 percent in mid-May, according to a Gallup study released this week.

and

The only key group where support for Clinton still topped 51 percent - if by a hair - were women ages 50 and older. That figure remained largely unchanged in May even while Clinton’s support among men ages 18 to 49 dropped nearly 10 points.

A bit dated (May 8) but with some interesting viewpoints:

[London] Times Online:
"The British view: whoever wins the US election, John McCain is last"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/peter_riddell/article3897503.ece
http://tinyurl.com/5jexoq

Senator Barack Obama has caught the imagination of the British public across the board. He is both known and seen as fresh and exciting. Nearly a half of all voters (48 per cent), and the same proportion of men and women, and of Labour and Tory voters, prefer Senator Obama.

Hillary Clinton has won the backing of 35 per cent of the British public, with no difference between men and women. She receives most support among Labour voters, at 41 per cent, and least, 27 per cent, among Liberal Democrats, who are the keenest on Senator Obama, at 66 per cent. Only 17 per cent do not express an opinion either way.

Conservative voters are the most enthusiastic about Senator McCain, with about a quarter supporting him. But this is roughly half the number backing either of the two Democrats (24 to 54 per cent in a McCain/Clinton match-up and 26 to 48 per cent in a McCain/Obama one among Tories). The precise figures have to be treated with caution since the numbers answering the second question are relatively small. But the trends are clear cut.

Not sure how our 'Yammering' crowd will like these morsels, but I really could not care less.

Mike; May 23, 2008 2:25 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Regarding Kathleen Sebelius:

A dreamier Democratic 'dream ticket'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/15/2245217.htm

Good article and a nice photo to boot ;); May 23, 2008 3:29 AM
Yousri said...: Leah,
new Pic; May 23, 2008 3:45 AM
suzihussein22 said...: Wow, McCain didn't wait until late Friday to release these:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_health

Enjoy the day as I posted a couple of weeks ago, this will be a family day. So maybe I'll be caught back up sometime tomorrow. Do you wish we weren't so prolific sometimes? NO!; May 23, 2008 7:14 AM
suzihussein22 said...: Heart disease, the leading cause of death in America, could be a risk factor for McCain because of his age and family history, making his blood pressure and cholesterol levels relevant. His campaign said he takes baby aspirin to prevent heart attacks, as well as Vytorin to lower cholesterol.

His father, Adm. John S. McCain Jr., died of a heart attack at age 70.

For most of his adult life, McCain has lived with physical disabilities and trauma as a result of his experience as a Navy pilot in Vietnam. Both his arms and one of his legs were broken when a Vietnamese missile shot down his U.S. Navy A-4E Skyhawk over Hanoi in 1967.

Other injuries included a bayonet stabbing and kicking and punching from a mob that discovered him. As a prisoner of war for more than five years, he also endured torture.

Today, more than 30 years after being released from prison, McCain is not able to fully raise his arms. He sometimes experiences knee aches that result in a visible limp, Time Magazine reported.

He continues to go to his dermatologist every 3 months. He routinely gets skin lesions removed that so far have been pre-cancerous lesions.

This info doesn't reassure me very much. But I know a little bit of that is bias.; May 23, 2008 7:32 AM
suzihussein22 said...: McCain did switch to something besides Vytorin, due to its safety concerns.; May 23, 2008 7:33 AM
Mug said...: This just in... "Bill Clinton pushing hard for Hillary to be Obama's running mate."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3987868.ece

If I were Senator Obama, I'd be really worried about having her as a running mate. With her willingness to "do anything" to be the first female president, he should be worried that she'll try to have him killed after the election.; May 23, 2008 7:49 AM
mumblin said...: Is it conceivable that BHO could take Edwards as his running mate ?
Apologies, I dont know the ins and outs etc...; May 23, 2008 8:11 AM
Peter said...: I don`t think thats likely. I`ve heard Obama answer questions about this the last couple of day. He sound less willing to have clinton on the ticket. He give her a lot of praise, but it doesn`t sound like Clinton is his choice at the moment.

I don`t think a solution where Clinton "bully" her way into the ticket is good either. I would have been more positive 2-3 weeks ago, but he behaviour the last week hasn`t been good for the party.

I also think some voters would be turned off by her, remember that a lot of independents and republicans hate the Clintons. It could also mobilize republicans against us, which is not good.

A VP should be someone who help attract more voters or add credibility on important issue. What Obama need is someone with more experience and som "national security" cred, Clinton don`t provide any of these.

A VP should also be able to help secure or flip important states. Clinton could help in Arkansas, but I think thats it. She is stronger in KY and WV, but there is no way Obama will win there anyway. He is closer in Arkansas and Clinton could help him there, but i doubt it. She could help in Florida and Ohio, but I think there are other people who could help just as much. I also think she could turn-off voters in VA and IA, which are a toss-up at the moment.

All in all, I don`t think Clinton would be a negative factor as a VP, but I don`t think the net effect of her on the ticket would be as good as Webb, Edwards etc. Some recent polling also shows that Clinton doesn`t extend Obamas lead against nationally, but Edwards does, Edwards actually does it visibly.

My pick would be Edwards or Webb. Edwards doesn`t bring in cred on national security or add as much experience. But I think Obama-Edwards would win North-Carolina, Virgina and could have a shot in South Carolina as well. Kerry-Edwards didn`t carry NC, but i think the main problem was Kerry, not Edwards.

Edwards would also fit in Obamas "change"-message, Clinton would not.; May 23, 2008 8:23 AM
JayW said...: I hope that Obama picks Joe Biden to be his #2.; May 23, 2008 8:24 AM
ed iglehart said...: Just thinkin' in Biblical terms

Cain = not Able
McCain = Son of Cain;
Like father like son.

Explains a lot.

;-)
ed

P.S before the spelling pedants strike, I remind us all that names came well before letters, and even longer before our present alphabet.; May 23, 2008 8:27 AM
UUbuntu said...: Obama-Clinton? -- it could happen, but for a variety of reasons, I consider it to be *highly* unlikely -- a 20-1 shot at best.

Obama-Edwards? -- perhaps, but since John Edwards publicly announced his disinterest in the VP slot in April and restated that position last week, it's also pretty unlikely.

There are a lot of good choices out there -- Webb, Sebelius, Richardson, Biden -- but until he publicly says "Not interested", I hold out hope for Al Gore as VP. It would make the perfect response if Lieberman is McCain's choice for VP (which is a very real possibility).; May 23, 2008 9:04 AM
Mug said...: Hillary's claim to be the stronger candidate to win the "swing states" like Ohio is a mute point. Recent polls indicate that if primaries were held in those states today, Obama would win by a landslide. Hillary's conduct over the past month, pandering to racism and playing the gender card, has turned alot of her supporters over to Obama.

Under current DNC rules,(which Hillary knew and understood at the beginning) Obama is the clear winner. Any change in the rules which would hand the nomination to Hillary would have devistating effects on the Democratic party. This coupled with the fact that she is now clearly the least electable of the two means that the Democratic race is indeed over.; May 23, 2008 9:19 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 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